House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
Since we launched the plan for change last month, we have published the elective reform plan to get NHS waiting lists down and the AI opportunities plan so that the UK is a great home for AI investment and the Government make the most of this technology. The aim of the plan for change is to increase living standards, cut NHS waiting lists, boost energy security, give children the best start in life, make our streets safer, and build the houses that the country needs for the future. Just today, we have announced measures to stop repeated judicial review attempts from holding up major investment projects that are in the national interest.
Warinder Juss
I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Does he agree that the Government’s plan for change provides my constituents in Wolverhampton West with clear, measurable metrics against which they can hold the Government to account? This will help to restore faith in politics and politicians, and enable my constituents to see shorter hospital waiting lists, better living standards, safer streets, better and more housing and a better start for our children in school.
Pat McFadden
I thank my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour for his question. I know his constituents well in Wolverhampton and he is right that a higher standard of living, lower NHS waiting lists, more housing and children getting a better start in life will be good for his constituents in Wolverhampton and good for constituents right around the country.
Michelle Welsh
Vibrant town centres are so important for the health of our local economies. Under the Conservatives, shop lifting was allowed to spiral out of control and we are still dealing with the consequences. Not too long ago, in Hucknall, a shopworker was brutally attacked. When I speak to local residents and businesses across Sherwood Forest, they tell me that this kind of antisocial behaviour has meant that they do not want to go out into town at night. Can the Minister confirm that the measures announced in the plan for change will deliver safer streets and be a boost to local economies?
Pat McFadden
I am very sorry to hear about the distressing attack on the shopworker in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Everyone should be free to go to work without the fear of being attacked while doing their job. I am pleased to say that, under this Government, assaulting a shopworker will be made a separate criminal offence. My hon. Friend is right to say that, on top of that, we need to do more to ensure that our town centres are safe. Restoring community policing with the additional police officers and police community support officers that we plan will enable all our constituents to visit their town centres and go about their business with peace and confidence.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I welcome the announcement on the judicial review proposals. The Government’s plan for change is an important endeavour, which will need not just Cabinet colleagues but civil servants to row in behind it. Is the Minister able to tell the House how he is marshalling and co-ordinating political and official activities to deliver that, and who will hold the circle to deliver across Government, rather than just in silos?
Pat McFadden
I am grateful to the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, as he points out an important problem. Siloing is a traditional and difficult issue in our system. This is a plan for the whole of Government—right across Government. The Prime Minister has been very clear with the Cabinet that the goals and aims set out in the plan for change are key things to deliver over the next few years. They require a whole-of-Government machine, crossing departmental boundaries and ensuring that we are focused on outcomes for the public rather than on the processes, which sometimes detain us.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answer. The high streets have become almost a battlefield with shopkeepers trying to ensure that their goods are not stolen and that they are not attacked. In Northern Ireland, we had a problem similar to what the Minister has outlined and others have described. What helps is having CCTV in place, and a police force that is receptive and answers quickly to urgent requests for assistance. Has the Minister had any chance to talk to the Police and Justice Minister in Northern Ireland to ensure that what has been done here can be replicated in Northern Ireland in such a way that we can all gain?
Pat McFadden
Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman speaks a lot of common sense. Wherever people are in the UK, they want the freedom to go about their business—shopping, work or whatever it is—in peace. We believe that some of those measures, such as CCTV, are important. So too is community policing. I am very happy to have a positive and constructive dialogue with the Administration in Northern Ireland and all the devolved Governments on these issues. Powers in these areas are devolved, but we share a common interest in protecting the public and ensuring that our streets and communities are safe.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
In recent weeks, in response to written parliamentary questions, the Cabinet Office has refused to commit to updating Parliament on the status of the targets in this plan; refused to publish information on the delivery board monitoring; refused to have an independent review and audit of the targets and to publish an annual cost analysis of them; refused to publish a risk register on meeting the targets; refused to publish an annual report; and refused to publish a public dashboard. At the same time, Ministers have been unable to explain how a series of targets in the plan will be measured, so will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster explain whether this a sign that his Department is being obstructive and evasive, or that the plan has not been thought through beyond the slogans?
Pat McFadden
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. If he wants to know what the targets are, I suggest that he reads the plan for change; they are set out very carefully in it. On the lists of processes, I said that we were focused on outcomes. That is why today we have announced reform of the judicial review process to stop repeated, and often lengthy and hugely expensive, actions that delay important investment projects that are in the national interest. I would have thought that he would have welcomed that.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
The battle to ensure protection against cyber-attacks is constant and ongoing. I made a speech to the NATO cyber-defence conference a couple of months ago, and said that the Government are taking action to strengthen our cyber-security and protect our digital economy to deliver economic growth. Last week, we announced important proposals to protect UK businesses from ransomware, the most harmful cyber-crime, which can often cost a lot of money and do a lot of damage. Those measures will complement the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill, which is being introduced this Session, to help to make the UK safer from cyber-threats.
Dr Gardner
Given the critical importance of closing the skills gap across the Government and defence sectors to safeguard against emerging threats in this digital age, which worry my constituents of Stoke-on-Trent South, what plans do the Government have to collaborate with organisations such as Code First Girls to develop a skilled and inclusive cyber-workforce, as highlighted in the artificial intelligence opportunities action plan?
Pat McFadden
I welcome my hon. Friend’s question. The AI opportunities action plan gives us great opportunities and shows how seriously we take this matter. I know that organisations such as Code First Girls are doing important work providing free coding courses for women. I thank them for that. It is really important in pursuing this plan that we have the skilled people to do it. I am pleased to say that much of the cyber-security work in Government is led by outstanding women. We want more people with the right skills, so well done to Code First Girls, which we look forward to continuing to work with.
Kevin Bonavia
Between July 2023 and 2024, over 150 cyber-incidents were reported by the local government sector in the UK. Last year, the average ransom demand from a ransomware attack was over £2.2 million. As the local government sector does not pay ransoms, the average cost to our councils of recovering from a ransomware attack is approximately £12 million. Will my right hon. Friend therefore make additional support available to local authorities to enhance their cyber-security and protect local services for constituents such as mine in Stevenage?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the threat to local authorities. This is a whole-system threat. It can affect central Government, private businesses and local authorities. In October, my colleagues at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government launched the cyber assessment framework for local government, which sets a clear standard for the sector. They also provide monthly cyber clinics and support local authorities to improve collaboration, share intelligence and tackle common vulnerabilities. There has to be constant dialogue and a constant fight against this growing threat.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Ministers in this Department and in others have been generous in engaging with my repeated requests for engagement with Cheltenham’s cyber-security industry, where GCHQ and the National Cyber Security Centre are located. There is increasing evidence that having the private and public sectors co-located is important for our cyber-security sector. The Golden Valley development provides an opportunity to do that, and the Places for Growth scheme might give an opportunity for more public sector officials to be placed alongside one of our most influential cyber-clusters. Would the Minister be interested in having a meeting about that?
Pat McFadden
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for his relentlessness in raising those issues on behalf of his constituency. He is right to draw attention to the assets we have there—GCHQ and the National Cyber Security Centre—and I pay tribute to the officials working there. There is a benefit to clusters in people learning from one another and in being close by, and it all helps contribute to our efforts in this area.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Last year, the National Cyber Security Centre, located in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), said that the Government were almost certain that Russian actors had attempted to interfere in the 2019 general election. We are clearly in a new era of politics. Trust in politics is at an all-time low; disinformation is on the rise; and following instances across the world of foreign interference in elections, it is essential that the Government make a plan to address this threat to democracy. It is vital that we take all possible steps to restore faith in politics to strengthen our political system, boost political engagement at home and protect our national democracy from external influences. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to safeguard the democratic processes of the United Kingdom from foreign interference?
Pat McFadden
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson makes some strong points. We have to take the protection of our democratic system and processes seriously. I outlined Russian activity in my speech to the NATO cyber-security conference a couple of months ago. We have to guard against it here and help other countries guard against it, too. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made very clear yesterday what we think of Russian interference in our waters, and the same applies in the cyber-sphere.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
The Prime Minister and the President of the European Commission have agreed to strengthen the relationship between the EU and the UK, putting it on a more solid, stable footing. I am taking forward discussions with my EU counterpart, Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič. In two weeks’ time, the Prime Minister will attend a summit with fellow European leaders on European defence.
Richard Baker
Does the Minister agree that the arts, musicians and the wider creative sector play a vital role in our economy, which is why working to negotiate a deal with touring artists is so important? Will the Minister confirm that this is still a priority for him?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I can confirm that our priority remains ensuring that UK artists can continue to perform and promote themselves around the world. That is why the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is working collaboratively with the creative sector and across Government to address key issues for our brilliant artists and their support staff touring the EU. As we set out in our manifesto, we will work with the EU and member states to explore how best to improve those arrangements, but without seeing a return to freedom of movement.
Joe Morris
I am frequently contacted by businesses in my constituency who are deeply concerned about the trade barriers put up by the previous Government that are damaging growth in the north-east. May I urge my right hon. Friend in the strongest possible terms to prioritise pragmatism in our relations with the EU and to ensure that businesses in my part of the country can get the support they need and export the goods they manufacture?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend raises a good point. Of course, we set out in our manifesto that we would not return to the single market, to the customs union or to freedom of movement. Within that framework, we absolutely take a pragmatic approach, putting the national interest first to tear down trade barriers wherever we can.
Rachel Blake
The end of this month will mark the anniversary of Brexit. Will the Minister assure me that we will not return to the appalling divisions of the past, and does he agree that the forthcoming summit and reset negotiations are a vital opportunity to discuss growth, not just for the diverse communities and businesses in my constituency, but for our nation?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: this is a time to look to the future, not to go back to the divisions of the past. The forthcoming EU-UK summit presents significant opportunities to make people in the UK and the EU more secure, safer and more prosperous.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
For more than 15 years, the European Union has been in breach of its international treaty obligations to join the European convention on human rights. What are the Government doing to address the arrogance of the European Union on that issue?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I would say, first, that the Government are committed to our membership of the European convention on human rights, and secondly, that the hon. Gentleman talks about bodies and organisations not being compliant with international treaties, but one of the big problems with the previous Government was how they signed international treaties and then sought to condemn them when they themselves had put pen to paper.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Maroš Šefčovič is today dangling the prospect of the UK joining the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention. Of course, the quiet part is that that would once again turn this country into rule takers, not rule makers. Ahead of the summit, can the Paymaster General rule out the prospect of the UK falling in line with so-called dynamic alignment—in other words, taking EU rules and regulations—and will we instead strike out in the world and do new deals with America and around the Pacific rim?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I do not accept the binary choice that the hon. Gentleman presents. We want to increase trade and export all around the world—that is hugely important. As the Prime Minister said, we do not choose between allies; we look to deepen all our relationships. Of course, we welcome the positive and constructive tone from Commissioner Šefčovič. We are always looking for ways to reduce barriers to trade, but within our manifesto red lines, because we take a pragmatic view on where the national interest lies. We do not currently have any plans to join PEM, and we will not provide a running commentary on every comment that is made.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Yesterday in Davos, Mr Šefčovič suggested that the UK and the EU were talking about dynamic alignment. As the Paymaster General will be aware, that is, if true, a very significant step. Will he be clear with the House: is dynamic alignment on the table?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I have to give the hon. Gentleman top marks for audacity. I do not know whether Conservative MPs have heard, but a week ago, the Leader of the Opposition gave her new year speech, and, as I am sure they know, we listened to it extremely carefully. Do they know what she said about previous EU-UK negotiations? She said that the Conservative Government were engaging in them
“before we had a plan for growth outside the EU… These mistakes were made because we told people what they wanted to hear first and then tried to work it out later.”
Why doesn’t the—
Mr Speaker
Order. I think we are in danger—[Interruption.] I am not going to sit down, Minister. [Interruption.] Thank you. We have a lot of questions to get through. If you want to make a statement on that in future, I would welcome it.
Alex Burghart
I would welcome that, too, Mr Speaker, because the right hon. Gentleman was not answering my question—just as he did not answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), and just as his Department is not answering questions of any hue at the moment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) made clear. It comes to something when Mr Šefčovič is a better guide to what is going on than the British Government. If the Government are committed to dynamic alignment, that is a significant step, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, because it could bring the European Court of Justice back into having jurisdiction over the United Kingdom. So, for the avoidance of doubt, will he rule out the ECJ having jurisdiction over the UK in any regard in the future?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am astonished by the question, because the hon. Gentleman is also the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, and will know the role that the European Court of Justice plays in the Windsor framework. Turning to his question about the negotiations, we have set out our red lines in the manifesto, and have set out examples of things that we are seeking to negotiate—that is already there.
The Leader of the Opposition was apologising last week for the conduct of the Conservative party in its relationship with the EU. Why is the hon. Gentleman not starting with an apology, or did he just not get the memo from his leader?
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The wholly inadequate deal with the EU negotiated by the previous Conservative Government has done enormous damage to British businesses, which have seen soaring import costs, increased workforce shortages, and reams of red tape creating huge barriers to growth. The return of a Trump Administration in Washington changes the landscape of trade deals globally with the threat of high tariffs, and will be deeply worrying for many businesses across the country. The UK must lead on the world stage again, standing up for our interests by working closely with other countries—most importantly, our European neighbours—as set out by my right hon. Friend the leader of the Liberal Democrats in his new year’s speech last week. I urge the Minister to be more ambitious in rebuilding our relationship with Europe. Does he agree that the best way to boost growth and fix our relationship with the EU is to agree a new UK-EU customs union?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am grateful to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for her question, but as I indicated in an earlier answer, we do not choose between allies. We are looking to deepen our trade links right around the world with different partners, but the hon. Lady should be aware that we are ambitious on the UK-EU relationship, and we will take that ambition forward into the UK-EU summit.
Jade Botterill (Ossett and Denby Dale) (Lab)
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
As an immediate first step in reform, the Government introduced the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill to remove the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the House of Lords. That Bill was amended and passed in this House, and will soon be in Committee in the other place.
Jade Botterill
I regularly meet talented, hard-working and intelligent young people across Ossett and Denby Dale who often feel detached from politics. How quickly can the Government make progress on this legislation so that all young people have an equal chance to make the laws and shape our future, not just those born into privilege?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and we want to see this Bill on the statute book by the end of this Session. The role of hereditary peers is completely indefensible in this day and age. Last year, the Bill was resoundingly approved by this House, and it is currently going through the other place, where it will soon be in Committee. It is a clear manifesto commitment by the Labour party, and I look forward to it being delivered.
Mark Sewards
I thank the Minister for his answer. Being the MP for Leeds South West and Morley is the greatest privilege I could ask for, and constituency boundaries ensure that all parts of our country are represented in this place. The same is not true of the other place, which is not representative of our nations and regions. What work is being done or considered to remedy that, to ensure that all of our communities are represented in the other place?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
As the Member of Parliament for the seat where I grew up, I share my hon. Friend’s passion for representing my area. He will be aware of the Government’s manifesto commitment to reform the process of appointments to the House of Lords so that it better reflects the country it serves, and we will consult on proposals for an alternative second Chamber that is more representative of the nations and regions.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
In 2022, the then shadow Leader of the House rightly accused Boris Johnson of abusing the honours system by appointing cronies to the House of Lords, and promised that an incoming Labour Prime Minister would never do such a thing. Now, having lost her seat at the general election, that former shadow Leader of the House is one of 30 new Labour peers waiting to be appointed by the Prime Minister to sit in the House of Lords. Could the Minister explain how the Labour party stuffing the House of Lords with its cronies is any less of an affront to democracy than when the Tories did it?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I do not think the hon. Gentleman can seriously compare the appointments we have put forward with what happened under the Conservative party. We have already set out that each and every appointment will be accompanied by a citation indicating the experience to be brought to the upper House, and the people he refers to will make an excellent contribution there.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
The Infected Blood Compensation Authority has made the first compensation offers to 11 people, with a total value of more than £13 million. The Government have also paid over £1 billion in interim compensation, and in the Budget we announced £11.8 billion of funding for the scheme. Yesterday, I visited the Infected Blood Compensation Authority office in Newcastle, and I was reassured to see the progress that is being made swiftly and compassionately.
John Glen
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his update to the House. I note the press release that went out yesterday, and no doubt there will be another one on 5 March, the day before the next Cabinet Office questions. However, I want to be constructive in my approach; I, too, will be visiting the Infected Blood Compensation Authority in Newcastle, next Thursday.
The legal representatives of the complex web of stakeholders in the infected blood and affected communities remain concerned about the status of the arm’s length body, the appeals process and the role of victims in the oversight board. I am absolutely clear that the Infected Blood Compensation Authority has the necessary authority and will work through those issues. I urge the Minister to work with and reassure the victims’ representatives, so that the lawyers can be more constructive in supporting these people along this difficult pathway. No doubt hon. Members will come in with more questions, but does the Minister agree with me that we need to move forward in a constructive manner?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Yes, the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I look forward to the former Paymaster General’s reflections after his visit next week. I was delighted yesterday to meet the user consultants— three victims; two infected, one affected—who are certainly making their voice heard at the Infected Blood Compensation Authority. That voice of victims is hugely important, as is the constructive approach the right hon. Gentleman has indicated.
Jessica Toale
I welcome the £11.8 billion allocated in the Budget for the infected blood scandal, which is a clear commitment from this Government that they are acting on this injustice. However, parents and partners of the infected, including in my constituency of Bournemouth West, are rightly apprehensive about when they will receive compensation; many are elderly or in poor health. Given the urgency of the situation, can the Minister outline when they might receive compensation and whether he will consider including them in the initial waves?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
In October, applications opened for eligible estates to claim interim compensation payments of £100,000. So far, more than 230 estates have received payments. I hope those payments are welcomed as the beginning of recognition for those who have lost loved ones to this devastating scandal. The delivery of compensation payments is rightly a matter for IBCA, which is an independent arm’s length body chaired by Sir Robert Francis. The Government expect payments to eligible affected people to begin this year, following a second set of regulations that I will be laying before Parliament in the coming weeks.
Gregor Poynton
I do not imagine there is one MP in this House who has not had constituents come to talk to them about the infected blood scandal. In fact, this week I spoke to one such constituent, Linda Cannon, who told me her story, saying:
“I lost my husband, Billy, in February 2013 to Hepatitis C after a blood transfusion in 1986, for a stomach ulcer, at Bangour Hospital. He was not informed till 2011 that he had been infected, only finding out after presenting with a sore back. He underwent severe treatment, without success, which will live with me forever. Life has been difficult to deal with after this”.
The consequences have been completely devastating for her family. Mr Cannon will not see justice, but several of my other constituents must. I welcome the urgency with which this Government have moved forward with this issue, because justice for the victims of this injustice is long overdue. Can the Minister update the House on how he has been working—not just in England, but across Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—to make sure that payments get to those who need them immediately?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The whole House will be moved by the story of my hon. Friend’s constituent. It is a story from this appalling scandal that many of us across the House will be hearing from our constituents. I am pleased that first payments have been made to people who have waited far too long for compensation. Those payments were made by the end of 2024, as I committed to the House to do. I also commit specifically to my hon. Friend to working closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure that victims across the United Kingdom can achieve justice.
Liz Jarvis
The victims of the infected blood scandal, including those from my constituency who attended Treloar college in Hampshire, have been fighting for justice for decades. They have raised deep concerns about the slow progress of compensation payments; the Infected Blood Compensation Authority projects that by the end of March just 250 people will have been offered compensation. Will the Government accelerate the roll-out of the compensation scheme to ensure that victims see justice within their lifetimes?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I am restless for progress on the speed of payments, and I will do everything in my gift as a Minister to lay the regulations before this House speedily. IBCA is obviously operationally independent and—I was having this discussion yesterday in Newcastle—the test and learn approach that it uses, which starts with a representative sample of cases, will allow it to ramp up delivery. When I was in Newcastle yesterday I saw a group of public servants working efficiently in a compassionate way to deliver.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
Across all our work this Government are determined to deliver better value for money for taxpayers. That is why, shortly after we came to office, this Government scrapped the Conservative party’s VIP helicopter service, which was a grossly wasteful symbol of a Government who were totally out of touch with the problems facing the rest of the country. Under this Government, Ministers must ensure that they always make efficient and cost-effective travel arrangements, which the Government publish on gov.uk.
Joe Robertson
The Minister refers to helicopter travel, and she has given her description of the previous Government. Does she not accept that the Government are using VIP helicopter travel, not through the Ministry of Defence budget but through the Cabinet Office budget? Does that not make this Government grossly hypocritical, and is that not a symbol of how out of touch they are with the British public?
Ellie Reeves
Under the last Government, the former Prime Minister would take helicopters for short journeys at huge waste to the taxpayer. The Prime Minister’s ministerial travel under this Government is always decided with consideration for the most efficient and best use of time and, crucially, in the interests of the taxpayer.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I engage with a range of stakeholders relevant to our relationship with the EU, for example through the UK-EU trade and co- operation agreement’s domestic advisory group, which I last met in September and which includes representatives of the UK fishing industry. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is the responsible Department, and has ongoing dialogue with the industry. I recently met my hon. Friend the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs to discuss fisheries matters, and I will meet representatives of the Scottish fishing industry in the very near future to discuss their interests in our fisheries relationship with the EU under the trade and co-operation agreement.
Mr Carmichael
I am delighted to hear that those meetings are scheduled, because the review of the TCA is seen by fishing industries around the UK as an opportunity to undo some of the damage that was done by Boris Johnson at the end of the Brexit negotiations. I met the EU Commission official who will be leading the EU side of the negotiations and it is clear that she is informed of their industries’ priorities and has a plan for achieving them. The EU sees this as an important piece of work. The Minister can only do what needs to be done if he is prepared to engage with and listen to the views of our fishing industries and communities.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I understand and recognise the strong interest in what happens in 2026 when the arrangements that were negotiated by the previous Government end. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I will listen and engage. We will protect the interests of our fisheries, and also fulfil our international commitments to protect the marine environment.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
As I set out in a speech last month, modern government is about not just what the Government want to do but reform of the state itself. We want to see public services that revolve around the needs of service users, using new technology in the best way possible to secure value for money and better outcomes for our citizens. We have launched a number of test and learn projects with local authority areas to get better results on difficult issues such as temporary accommodation. Just this week, we announced that we will launch a new gov.uk app in June, which will be a step change in fast and easy public access to Government services.
Pat McFadden
At the heart of what we want to do is improving living standards, outcomes and opportunities for all. One of the consequences of the long waiting times and waiting lists in the NHS in recent years is that it has been tougher on those who simply cannot afford to pay. It is therefore in the interests of good health and equal access to put in the investment that was announced by the Chancellor in the Budget, which is being taken forward in the plans announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
The reform of public services and the reliance on artificial intelligence to deliver that led the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to pilot the Microsoft Copilot program. That pilot ended after six months, yet it demonstrated transformative improvements in departmental efficiency and was particularly beneficial for disabled and neurodivergent staff. Will the Minister confirm whether funding for that tool, which has been suspended until 2026, could be released so that staff could benefit from its application?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Gentleman is quite right to point out the advantages that can come from these things. I am reluctant to make specific announcements about funding for specific projects. However, the Government are determined not only to make the UK a good home for investment in AI, which will be huge around the world in the coming years, but to make the best possible use of AI in the delivery of public services, which we believe can get good value for money and better outcomes for the public. The road will not always be easy, and there will be things that go wrong, but frankly, with our tradition of creativity and innovation, we want to grasp this technology and make the best use of it.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)
Yesterday, the Government announced ambitious new legislation to take action on fraud, updating the Department for Work and Pensions’ powers for the first time in 20 years and introducing new powers to take on high-value fraud across the wider public sector. At the Budget, the Chancellor announced the biggest welfare fraud and error budget in recent history. Under the last Government, fraud spiralled out of control, but we are determined to protect every pound of taxpayers’ money.
Daniel Francis
I thank my hon. Friend for her answer. One of the biggest scandals that we saw under the last Conservative Government was Ministers giving out dodgy covid contracts to their friends and donors. Will the Minister update the House on what steps the Government are taking to ensure that there will never again be a repeat of that shameful behaviour and that where the public have been defrauded, we will get our money back?
Georgia Gould
My hon. Friend, as a local government leader during the pandemic, will know how hard things were for communities; sacrifices were made and people risked their lives to keep the rest of us safe. He will share my anger at those who used the national crisis to steal billions from the taxpayer. We will take action on that where the last Government failed. The Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, which was introduced yesterday, will give the Government tough new powers to investigate and recover money stolen from the public and will double the time we have to bring those fraudsters to justice.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)
Under this Government, public procurement will be laser focused on delivering our missions and value for money for the taxpayer. The Procurement Act 2023 will commence in February, creating a simpler, more flexible procurement regime underpinned by a new mission-led national procurement policy statement. I really welcome the wide interest of hon. Members from across the House in this work and that of so many small businesses, social enterprises and voluntary sector organisations. I look forward to bringing forward the NPPS to support small and medium-sized enterprises, tackle waste and deliver on our missions.
Jayne Kirkham
I am so pleased to hear about the national procurement policy statement next month. As well as encouraging buying British, there are huge opportunities to use procurement to encourage growth and local supply chains, such as in floating offshore wind in Cornwall, as well as in other industries. Will the Minister confirm that there will be a bold procurement policy that will ensure economic growth in every corner of our country, even as far down as Cornwall?
Georgia Gould
I welcomed the conversation last week with my hon. Friend, who talked me through the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises to growth in Truro and Falmouth. A lot of small businesses I have spoken to say the same thing: it can be too complex and slow to bid for Government contracts, sometimes those contracts come out too late and sometimes they cannot get on the playing field. We have listened very carefully to what my hon. Friend and others have to say on these issues, and we will bring forward an NPPS that delivers for SMEs.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Unbelievably, the Treasury Committee has already raised concerns about the Office for Value for Money, citing issues around its remit, cost, cross-Government duplication and more, which could be expressed concisely as fears around the value for money of Labour’s new Office for Value for Money. Does the Minister agree with the financial markets, which do not believe this Government’s commitment to reforming public procurement or to prudent financial management, which is why they have added a Reeves ratio to the UK Government’s debt, costing taxpayers an extra £10 billion a year?
Georgia Gould
Yesterday, the National Audit Office published a report on the almost £50 billion gap in building maintenance. That is the legacy that the last Government left us: crumbling buildings, 15 years of lost wage growth and stalled productivity. Compare that with this Government’s record in just the past six months: £63 billion investment at the UK investment summit and leading the way on artificial intelligence. The International Monetary Fund upgraded our growth to the fastest in Europe. The Opposition might want to run down this country, but we are determined to grow our economy.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
Since the last Cabinet Office questions we have set out the Government’s approach on public sector reform, published our response to module 1 of the covid-19 inquiry, updated the national risk register and launched our artificial intelligence opportunities plan. Just yesterday, alongside the Department for Work and Pensions, we introduced new legislation to deliver the biggest fraud crackdown in a generation, with greater powers for the Cabinet Office’s public sector fraud authority to retrieve some of the money that was lost during the last Administration.
David Davis
Quite properly, this week the Government have been talking about applying AI to improve efficiency and effectiveness across Whitehall. When a human civil servant—let us say at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or the DWP—makes a mistake and is challenged, they can explain their logic and how they came to the decision. We know that the courts always believe that computers are best and give the right answer, but AI makes mistakes—sometimes huge ones. Because of the way it is programmed, it cannot explain how it got to the decision. How will the Government ensure that the appeal process continues to work and we do not have a high-tech version of the Post Office scandal?
Pat McFadden
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. The public inquiry into the Horizon scandal shows that blind faith in a computer system used in a court of law can lead to injustices. I do believe in the possibilities of AI, but it is important to keep the human element at all times. It will enhance human productivity but not replace it. That is the way we should go.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)
I welcome the recent conversation with my hon. Friend on this important matter. The Government’s industrial strategy outlines the importance of manufacturing in the defence industry to economic growth and national security. The new national procurement policy statement will put growth at the heart of procurement and will align to our industrial strategy.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Given the news from Germany, will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster update the House on the work the Cabinet Office is doing to prepare for the possibility of an outbreak of foot and mouth?
Pat McFadden
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his question. Those of us of a certain age will remember the appalling consequences of the last serious outbreak of foot and mouth in the UK, more than 20 years ago. Let me say very clearly from this Dispatch Box that we are treating this with the utmost seriousness. I met with Cobra officials yesterday and have asked for several briefings since the outbreak in Germany, and my colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at a ministerial and official level are taking this very seriously as well. We know the threat that such an outbreak would pose to our farming communities, and we want to work with farmers and do everything we possibly can to protect them from it. So far, there has been no outbreak in the UK, but we will—
Mr Speaker
Order. This is a very important subject; I totally agree. The trouble is, in topicals, I have to get a lot of Members in. As this subject is so important, I would always welcome a statement on Monday.
Alex Burghart
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply. Could he assure me that he is speaking to interested parties in Northern Ireland? Given that Northern Ireland is so closely connected to Ireland, which is part of the EU, farmers there are consequently very concerned that they may be affected by any spread of the disease. Will he therefore assure me that he is undertaking that work?
Pat McFadden
I will keep it short, Mr Speaker: we will ensure that we co-ordinate our response with all parts of the UK.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister without Portfolio (Ellie Reeves)
My hon. Friend has been a brilliant champion for more affordable housing in her constituency. Through our plan for change, we have committed to building 1.5 million homes this Parliament—the biggest increase in affordable housing in a generation, which will benefit families in Norwich and across the country. I am pleased to hear about the plans at Anglia Square, which are a powerful example of what can be achieved when a Labour council works with a Labour Government.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Pat McFadden
As I said in response to the shadow Minister, we take the threat of foot and mouth in particular very seriously. We want to work with our farmers and protect them. This is a matter of national security, but it is also a matter of making sure that Great British farming is not affected by the outbreak in Germany.
Gregor Poynton (Livingston) (Lab)
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the increased funding for the devolved Government in Scotland as a result of the Budget. We are also putting more money into the NHS in England. He is right to say that when we ask the taxpayer to pay more, that should come with reform. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has been clear about that, and I hope it applies elsewhere too.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence said recently that he would reduce the number of permanent civil servants at the MOD by 10% by the end of this Parliament. Will the Cabinet Office be larger or smaller at the end of this Parliament?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Gentleman has perhaps not been paying attention. We announced our programme to reduce the number of civil servants in the Cabinet Office just before Christmas.
Emily Darlington (Milton Keynes Central) (Lab)
Georgia Gould
It was wonderful to visit Milton Keynes and to see the work of a pioneering Labour council. The work the Labour council has led to open up services to the NHS is a real example of the shift to community that the Government are committed to. Milton Keynes shows that when a wonderful MP works with a Labour council and the NHS amazing things can happen.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
With impending decisions on airport expansions across the south of England, communities in my constituency, including Flamstead and Markyate, are very worried, not only because the evidence about economic growth is quite low but because the Climate Change Committee has said that the impact on the climate would be rather large. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government will be listening to the Government’s own advisers and will have a UK-wide capacity management framework before any airport expansion?
Pat McFadden
There has been a lot of speculation in recent days. I would advise the whole House to not comment on speculation. If there is an announcement to be made, it will be made.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. We have arrangements with France to make school trips easier. I think we agree across the House that school trips are an enriching experience. The Department for Education works with the British Council on the learning assistance scheme, which the Government hugely support and want to drive forward. With regard to a youth mobility scheme, I am not going to give a running commentary. What I will say is that we will, of course, always act in the UK’s national interest and that we will not go back to freedom of movement.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
How much longer will it be before we get an answer from the Government on the review of the vaccine damage payment scheme? It was initiated when my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) was in the Cabinet Office about a year ago. When will we get an answer?
Pat McFadden
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care met with colleagues on this issue. We believe the vaccine programme had great benefits for the UK, but there is a compensation scheme in place for cases where that was not the case.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
Pat McFadden
The Chancellor was right to go to China. It is an important economic relationship, but there is a security aspect, too. The National Security and Investment Act has an important role to play; it is there to safeguard critical areas of the economy. We keep it under regular review, and we will approach the relationship keeping both the security and economic interests of the country in mind.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Two weeks ago, my constituency was hit by the worst snow in 15 years, leaving vulnerable and older residents, schools and GP surgeries blocked in by the snow. I commend the Barnsley council team, who were out 24 hours a day, eight days a week solid, but because resources are stretched, their gritters can cover only the council’s primary and secondary roads. Does the Minister agree that much more should be done to improve national resilience in extreme and exceptional circumstances where snow is prolonged by cold temperatures, by giving local authorities that cover rural areas such as mine increased gritting resources and access to snow ploughs?
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Ms Abena Oppong-Asare)
I thank my hon. Friend for the work she did to support constituents during the heavy snowfall, and I thank Barnsley council and other responders for their work. This responsibility lies with local authorities, but I know that my colleagues in the Cabinet Office, the Department for Transport and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are keen for authorities to receive as much support as possible. MHCLG will be in close contact with local resilience forums to see what support they need.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
What progress has been made on improving engagement with those infected and affected by the contaminated blood scandal? As the Paymaster General is aware, there has been a great deal of concern among those people and the organisations that represent them. May I urge him to sit down with his opposite number in the Department of Health and Social Care, which is responsible for getting aid to the organisations that support those people who are infected and affected, because they are desperately in need of the resources?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will be carrying out another round of engagement with victims next week. As I said in answer to the former Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), the role of user consultants in the Infected Blood Compensation Authority is vital as well.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
There are still, sadly, two victims of the contaminated blood scandal dying on a weekly basis. Will my right hon. Friend say what is preventing the Government from instructing IBCA to issue core payments today to all living infected victims registered with the existing support schemes?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
IBCA is operationally independent, but I expect the first payments for the affected to be made before the end of this year. I am restless for progress and will do all I can as a Minister to drive this forward.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Public sector procurement is a fantastic way to drive productivity, innovation and local value in public services, but too often, small businesses, start-ups and voluntary service providers in Newcastle tell me they have difficulty accessing public sector contracts; they do not have as many lawyers, consultants or project managers as bigger businesses. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure better access to public sector contracts?
Georgia Gould
I have heard very similar things from the small and medium-sized enterprises I have been talking to around the country. We are bringing forward a new national procurement policy statement that will put SMEs right at the heart of Government procurement policies.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Open end-to-end procurement data could be a goldmine for mission-driven government, and as the Competition and Markets Authority warned recently, it could make bid rigging harder. Can the Minister explain how we will grasp the opportunity of open end-to-end procurement data?
Georgia Gould
I have met the CMA about the critical issue of bid rigging, and it is something the Government are looking into. More broadly, the Procurement Act 2023 and the new national procurement policy statement put transparency and openness at the heart of our strategy, including a new online portal, which will make it much easier to see upcoming bids.
Agricultural and Business Property Reliefs: OBR Costing
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment she has made of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s supplementary forecast information release on the costing of changes to agricultural and business property relief.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
At the autumn Budget, we took difficult decisions on tax, welfare and spending that were necessary to restore economic stability, fix the public finances and support public services. We had to do that to address the mess we inherited from the previous Government, which the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) will remember well, having served in that ill-fated Government. We have taken these decisions in a way that makes the tax system fairer and more sustainable.
The Government are better targeting agricultural property relief and business property relief to make them fairer. These reforms mean that despite the tough fiscal context, the Government are maintaining very significant levels of relief from inheritance tax beyond what is available to others.
Under the current system, the benefit of the 100% relief on business and agricultural assets is heavily skewed towards the wealthiest estates. According to the latest data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, 40% of agricultural property relief benefits the top 7% of estates making claims. That is just 117 estates claiming £219 million of relief. It is a similar picture for business property relief, with more than 50% of it being claimed by just 4% of estates making claims, which equates to 158 estates claiming £558 million in tax relief. Our reforms mean that individuals can access 100% relief for the first £1 million of combined business and agricultural assets, and 50% thereafter. Given the nil rate bands, this means that a couple can pass on up to £3 million between them to a direct descendant, inheritance tax free.
Yesterday, the Office for Budget Responsibility published further details on the data sources and modelling used to estimate costings across a number of the tax measures announced at Budget, including the reforms to agricultural property relief and business property relief. The costing is the same as published at Budget, and the approach to modelling the costing is typical and in line with other tax policies. As the Government have set out, the reforms mean that almost three quarters of estates claiming APR in 2026-27, including those that also claim BPR, will not pay more inheritance tax. This is a fair approach that protects farms while also fixing the public services we all rely on.
Mr Speaker
I call the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Victoria Atkins
Having inherited the fastest-growing economy in the G7, the Chancellor’s Budget has led to the highest borrowing costs since the pandemic, growth flatlining, business confidence plummeting and job freezes. Who has Labour chosen to pay the price for its economic illiteracy? Pensioners, family businesses and farmers. For months, farmers, farming businesses, professional advisers and economists, and now eight major supermarkets, have warned the Chancellor that she has got her figures wrong, but Ministers cleave desperately to their soundbites. Let us hope that they listen to the OBR.
Yesterday, the independent OBR released additional information about this particular measure and reiterated the “‘high’ uncertainty” of the predicted yield. It noted that the yield of the measure is likely to be reduced by 35% because of behavioural responses, and that it is unlikely to reach a steady state for 20 years. The OBR also expressed grave concerns about the impact on older individuals and their ability to plan. In short, the reassurances provided by Ministers are falling almost as flat as the economy.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has lectured this House about the perils of sidelining the OBR. In light of its analysis, will the Minister now commit to a full and proper review of this dreadful policy? The public have noticed that Government Ministers are failing to answer reasonable questions about their policies, so will the Minister please give straight answers to the farmers and businesses watching our proceedings today?
In light of the new analysis, how many farms does the Treasury think will be affected by the changes to APR, APR/BPR and BPR alone? What assessment has he made of the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers’ finding that the Chancellor has underestimated the number of farms affected by the changes by a factor of five? How many tenant farmers will be evicted? As worrying reports of suicides among farmers begin to emerge, will the Minister please do what the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has failed to do and measure the number of suicides over the next 12 months, so that we can understand the human cost of this policy?
Finally, why does the Minister think that Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda, Morrisons, Marks & Spencer, Aldi, Lidl and the Co-op have all come out against this tax policy and believe the Treasury’s figures to be wrong? Why does he think they are wrong and he is right?
James Murray
I think there may be some confusion on the Conservative Benches about what the OBR data shows. The data published by the OBR yesterday refers to exactly the same costing as was published at Budget. It sets out the approach to modelling and the costing, which is typical and in line with other tax policies. Indeed, the OBR’s statement makes it clear that:
“The OBR’s role is to provide independent scrutiny and certification of whether the Government’s policy costings are reasonable and central.”
That is exactly what the OBR has done in publishing the extra information, which shows the modelling behind the data that was published at the time of the Budget.
The shadow Secretary of State asked about the data. The data on the number of affected estates claiming APR and, indeed, APR/BPR—some 530 is the upper estimate—is in table 1.1 of the OBR document published yesterday. That is consistent with what we have been saying for many months since the Budget. I think Opposition Members are confusing the value of farms with the value of claims under inheritance tax. The only way to truly understand the impact of changes to inheritance tax policy on inheritance tax claims is to look at the claims data itself.
We are working in partnership with the large supermarket chains to make sure they are driving economic growth. We are very clear that some of the decisions we had to take in the Budget were difficult decisions that will have consequences, but we are determined to work with businesses across the country to drive economic growth, which is the No. 1 mission of this Government.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
The people of Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West love the local produce provided by local farmers in our fantastic markets, such as Grainger market, and they enjoy the beautiful countryside of Northumberland, which has been shaped by generations of sustainable farming. However, we cannot help but be aware that most of that land is owned by, for example, the Duke of Northumberland, big landowners and those seeking to minimise their tax exposure, so does the Minister agree that, by keeping this loophole open for so long, the country has pushed up land prices and pushed out the next generation of young farmers?
James Murray
There certainly is evidence that the current inheritance tax system has caused people to use these reliefs for tax planning and to avoid inheritance tax bills. My hon. Friend alludes to the broader question of the fairness and sustainability of this measure. As I mentioned earlier, 40% of agricultural property relief benefits the top 7% of estates, and 50% of business property relief benefits the top 4% of estates. The Leader of the Opposition has said that she thinks this is a good way to prioritise public money, but we think it is neither fair nor sustainable.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
After years of the Tories failing our rural communities, including with a dodgy and utterly shameful Australian trade deal, it is a great pity that the new Government have picked up the baton. From Orkney to the Isles of Scilly, Liberal Democrat colleagues are extremely concerned about the impact of these proposals.
The report published yesterday clearly demonstrates the uncertainty about the income from the misguided family farm tax over the next two decades. In the light of this, and given that it will hit older farmers in particular and those who put food on the tables of the United Kingdom, will the Minister do the right thing and scrap this tax?
James Murray
The OBR document published yesterday refers to the level of uncertainty associated with this policy, which is exactly what was set out at the time of the Budget, and it is a typical way in which the OBR responds to new measures. What was published yesterday simply reiterates the OBR’s conclusions from the end of October.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that, once again, the Conservative party has failed to agree with the tough decisions we have made and has no idea how to raise the revenue to finance the public services that benefit rural communities like mine in north Buckinghamshire?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The party opposite—in fact, the parties opposite—routinely support the Government’s spending and investment decisions but will not support any of the difficult decisions we have to take to fund them.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The weight of public and business opinion is not with the Minister on this issue, and the body of expert opinion speaking out against this tax proposal is now overwhelming. The Minister is a kindly man, so I wonder if he will indulge me. What would he be saying if he were in opposition and that weight of opinion was being expressed against a Conservative Government’s Treasury policy?
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman is a kindly man, too. I value the conversations that he and I have had outside the Chamber. People looking at this policy, and all our policies in the Budget, will recognise that we had to take difficult decisions, and will understand the context: our inheritance from the previous Government. We recognise the toughness of those decisions—they were not easy to make—but we prioritise balancing the public finances and economic stability, because that is how we get investment in growth, which our country so badly needs.
Mr Speaker
Mr Dickson, I think you were very late. I would not want to embarrass you by allowing you to ask a question.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
One of the witnesses before the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee told us that the Government’s changes hit the people the Government say they are protecting, and protect the people the Government say they are hitting. It is difficult to improve on that analysis of what is proposed. It really does not have to be like that. There is a sensible debate to be had about reforming inheritance tax to stop the super-rich from sheltering their wealth while still protecting family farms. His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has its technical consultation coming up. Why does the Minister not agree to broaden its terms, engage with the farming communities, and look for a way to protect family farms and get at those who are sheltering their wealth in land?
James Murray
The policy that we are implementing includes generous provisions to protect family farms—the £1 million entire relief from inheritance tax for agriculture and business property assets. That is in addition to the nil-rate bands that people can access as part of the general inheritance tax scheme. We think that strikes the right balance between making sure we raise money for the public finances and protecting family farms.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Mr Speaker, have you noticed a pattern—that on a Thursday, a Treasury Minister will be asked to come to the Commons to answer an urgent question, and there will be barely a soul on the Labour Benches behind them when they do?
Mr Speaker
Order. Surely that is not relevant to the question you are going to ask. Come on!
Dame Harriett Baldwin
The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that the measure will raise £500 million in revenue by 2029, which, in the context of tax revenues of over £1,150 billion, is a very small number. What value does the Minister put on food security for the United Kingdom?
James Murray
Obviously, the Government put the highest priority on food security. That is why our policies set out to support it, and the farming sector more widely. The policy is one of many difficult decisions that we had to take in the Budget to balance the public finances, support public services and provide the economic stability we need for investment and growth.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I have heard from many farming businesses across Glastonbury and Somerton over the last few months, but one farm in Hurcot near Somerton recently wrote to me to describe the anguish and stress that the changes to the APR and BPR have caused them. As in the case of many farming businesses, their succession planning has focused on the primary landowner retaining the farm until death. How will the Minister explain to them that according to the OBR, the potential loss of their family farm business is likely to have little impact on the public finances, and that the policy will hit the oldest farmers hardest?
James Murray
The OBR’s publication yesterday sets out the costings that were in the October Budget. There is no difference between the costings set out in October and what the OBR set out yesterday. It simply showed more of the background behind how they calculated those costings, for transparency and so that people are aware. Indeed, it says in the report that that is done in an effort to improve the public debate and ensure that people understand what is behind the data published at the time of the Budget.
As I said to several Opposition Members, clearly this was one of many tough decisions that we took in the Budget to balance the public finances, but we also made sure that there is greater protection from inheritance tax under our proposed reform scheme than is available more widely.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Labour Government’s family farm tax will be catastrophic to farmers in my constituency in the Borders. I will join many of them and their tractors in Kelso on Saturday, when the farming community comes together to show its displeasure and disapproval of this policy. Farmers will struggle to pay this tax, so what assessment have the Government made of the policy’s impact on vets, feed merchants, machinery suppliers, and all the other people who support the rural economy?
James Murray
Supporting the rural economy, public services and investment right across the country is part of Labour’s national mission to get the economy growing, but the prerequisite for that investment and economic growth is stable public finances. Without economic stability, we cannot proceed to the investment and growth that we all so desperately need. That is why the decision to target agricultural property relief and business property relief was taken, alongside all the other difficult decisions that we took in the Budget.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
This measure is now revealed to be spectacularly ill-considered, leaving aside the fact that it is also a breathtaking betrayal of farmers, who were promised before the election that this would not happen. The measure groups intergenerational farmers with speculative millionaires seeking to dodge tax by getting involved in farming. It has put an immediate brake on investment in farming, which threatens to lower yields and drive up food prices. That then threatens to put inflationary pressures on the UK economy, which is already in a perilous state. This Government cannot just agree with the OBR when it suits them. They must agree with the OBR regardless of what it says. Will the Minister please respectfully pause the measure, take some time to think about this, and come up with something that will actually deliver for the Treasury but not push our family farming sector under.
James Murray
There still seems to be confusion among Opposition Members about what the OBR publication set out. It reiterates the costings that were published at the time of the Budget, on 30 October. It explains how those costings were arrived at, so that people can understand the calculations behind them, but the costings are the same as those published at the time of the Budget.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
Mr Speaker, if you look at the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, you will see a reference to my family farm in my constituency. Last Sunday, I drove one of our tractors to Fakenham racecourse to support the farmers’ protest against the APR and BPR. I talked to other farmers, and the key complaint was that there had been no consultation on the changes, and no time for older farmers to adjust their affairs. All those concerns have been rubbished by Ministers time and again, most recently today. Now that the OBR confirms that it is more difficult for older people to restructure their affairs quickly, will the Government finally listen, show some humility, and consult on how best to tackle the tax shelterers while still protecting our farmers?
James Murray
The comments in the OBR publication yesterday about older individuals reference a point that has been made since the Budget in debates in this place and elsewhere. We have pointed out that our reform of agricultural property relief and business property relief maintains generous exemptions from inheritance tax; £1 million is subject to relief, and there is the 50% relief beyond that, the existing nil-rate bands, and other exemptions in the system.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Unusually, in Scotland tenant farms can be passed down as inheritance. I have been asking the Treasury whether it has made an assessment of the impact on such farms, given that their farmers cannot sell land to meet the APR liability that they might face. So far, the answer appears to be that there is no assessment, so I ask the Minister for an answer from the Dispatch Box: is he aware of agricultural tenancies under the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1991, and has he made an impact assessment?
James Murray
The way to calculate the impact of changes to inheritance tax policy is to look at the inheritance tax claims that have been made, and that is what we have used as the basis for our calculations. In fact, the OBR publication yesterday confirms that it used HMRC’s data on inheritance tax reliefs in the past and inheritance tax projected forward, and it is on the basis of that data that we designed our policy.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Minister has just confirmed that the Treasury’s modelling is based on agricultural property relief and joint agricultural and business property relief claims, yet tax experts have said in evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee that many family farms will wrap their agricultural land into a single business property relief claim, so the Treasury’s modelling does not take into account family farms that have used a BPR-only claim, tenant farmers who use BPR, and the many rural family businesses that will also use BPR. Will the Minister please take this opportunity to look at this again, before his Government wreck the countryside?
James Murray
As I set out earlier, the need to reform business property relief is as strong as the need to reform agricultural property relief, in order to have stable public finances and a fair and sustainable tax system. As I set out, 40% of APR goes to the top 7% of estates, and 50% of BPR goes to the top 4% of estates. Given the fiscal context that we inherited, that kind of unfairness is not sustainable. When balancing the books, we need to develop the tax system in a way that is sustainable and gives us the economic stability that we desperately need after the mess that the previous Government left us.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
Farmers have made their inheritance tax plans in good faith, based on existing rules. In effect, the measure is a retrospective change to tax law, so will the Minister agree to at the very least delay its implementation until the effects are properly understood by both farmers and the Government?
James Murray
The Government are committed to delivering the reforms announced in the Budget. We have carefully considered their impact, and designed the policy to provide generous exemptions from inheritance tax for small family farms and businesses, while ensuring that we balance the public finances as fairly as possible.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
In the light of the uncertainty in the OBR’s report; the fact that the policy will hit elderly farmers the hardest and put food security at risk; and the fact that rural communities will suffer the most, given the impact on tenants and young farmers, and the wider agricultural sector, does the Minister really still believe in this policy?
James Murray
The OBR’s allusion yesterday to a degree of uncertainty is exactly the same as what it said at the time of the Budget. The costing is exactly the same as what it published at the time of the Budget. Yesterday, the OBR published more information about how the costing was arrived at, but the costing itself, the degree of uncertainty and the calculations remain exactly the same as at the time of the Budget.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The Minister just mentioned balancing the public finances—those are the key words—through these measures. We have just had the debt figures for December, which are 20% higher than the OBR expected them to be just two months previously. At what point will the Minister and the Government recognise that they have got this badly wrong and change course?
James Murray
We recognise that when the Conservative party was in government, it got it badly wrong. The country decided to change course, which is why they elected us into government to fix the public finances, put our public services back on their feet, boost investment and get the economy growing.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
They say that one ought to build one’s enemy a golden bridge. I think the compromise and pause proposed by the National Farmers Union is an elegant solution. That golden bridge is now being signposted by Tesco, Aldi, Lidl, the Co-op, and all the major retailers the Minister claims to be engaging with. Why does he not just pause, go back, listen, and review the policy?
James Murray
As I set out in answer to a previous question, the Government are committed to delivering the reforms announced in the Budget. They were carefully calibrated to retain generous inheritance tax exemptions, while ensuring that we balance the public finances as fairly as possible.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Bence Builders Merchants in my constituency has been providing good local produce and good local jobs since the Earl of Aberdeen was in power. The owner, Paul Bence, fears that the combination of business property relief changes and changes to employer’s national insurance mean that there is a huge disincentive to invest further. Does the Minister share my constituent’s concern?
James Murray
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising his constituent’s concern. I do not know the specifics of the case, but more broadly, investment decisions depend above all else on a stable economy and stable public finances. Without the hard work that we have done since taking office to fix the public finances and bring back economic stability, investment would be hampered, and our growth ambitions would not materialise in the way that we are determined to ensure happens.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
There will be a rally on Saturday, and the Minister appears to imagine that this indicates acclamation for his policy. We heard earlier in the week from the hon. Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) and today from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah)—both well-known rural areas—that this is all about the landed estates and wealthy people, but I can assure the Minister that the farmers I will speak with in Castle Douglas on Saturday are tenant farmers and family farmers, and they face being put off the land after generations. Is he really suggesting that I should tell them they have nothing to worry about?
James Murray
I am not going to tell the hon. Gentleman what he should say to his constituents, but what I can tell him about the Government’s policy is that we have reserved generous inheritance tax reliefs for people in the situations he describes. I encourage anyone who is concerned to seek advice, to understand exactly how the new rules might apply to them.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Sometimes I am absolutely flummoxed—we probably all are—by the Chancellor’s intent to tax working family farms, which we all know will result in the loss of small farms, the sale of the land and a reduction in food security. Now it seems that the OBR agrees that it will not make savings. Will the Minister commit to meeting Cabinet colleagues urgently to remove the sword of Damocles that is hanging above small family farms and hurting the agrifood sector as a whole? I say to the Minister that there is a way forward: increase the threshold from £1 million to £5 million, and family farms will be saved.
James Murray
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, but I think it was based primary on the OBR publication yesterday. I reiterate the point I have made several times now: that OBR publication reiterated the costings and figures set out at the Budget, it reiterated the level of uncertainty associated with the measure, as published at the Budget, it provides more detail behind that, but the conclusion is the same as it was on 30 October.
Mr Carmichael
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before questioning the Minister, I should have reminded the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My failure to do so, for which I apologise, was inadvertent—I just got carried away with the excitement of the moment.
Attorney General’s Office: Conflicts of Interest
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Solicitor General if she will make a statement on the management of conflicts of interest in the Attorney General’s Office.
The Solicitor General (Lucy Rigby)
The Attorney General’s Office has an established and rigorous process for identifying and dealing with conflicts, and potential conflicts, that arise from the Law Officers’ past practice. That process predates the appointment of the Attorney General and sits against the backdrop of every lawyer’s professional obligation to be alert to, and to actively manage, any situation that might give rise to a potential or actual conflict. Learned Members of this House will keenly appreciate the importance that all lawyers place on that obligation.
In identifying conflicts or potential conflicts, the Attorney General’s Office adopts a cautious and “beyond reproach” threshold to any conflicts or potential conflicts. My Department works with the Government Legal Department, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which oversees international litigation on behalf of the Government, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office to revise and augment the list of conflicts identified.
Once the conflicts have been ascertained and a set of actions identified for each conflict, the Attorney General’s Office takes steps to ensure that the Law Officer is appropriately limited in their involvement on matters related to the relevant area of Government policy or related litigation. The list is kept under review and amended—for example, when new Government policies or litigation emerge. In situations where one Law Officer is conflicted, another Law Officer is asked to act in their place.
The Law Officers’ convention is an important principle —enshrined in “Erskine May” and the ministerial code, and upheld by successive Administrations—that preserves the ability of Government to receive full and frank legal advice from their legal advisers in confidence. I am therefore unable to comment on the specific details of legal advice provided by the Law Officers, other than to note that of course decisions on policy are taken by the relevant Secretary of State, as has been the case under successive Governments. That process sits alongside the system relating to ministerial interests, overseen by the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial standards, who was provided with the Attorney General’s list of conflicts following his appointment. I can reassure the House that the Attorney General’s Office will continue to apply the most rigorous standards in its conflicts process.
Helen Grant
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker.
The Attorney General previously represented former Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams in a damages claim brought by victims of IRA bombings. Indeed, we know that he received £30,000 for that representation. The constitutional propriety of our legal system demands absolute clarity on how conflicts of interest with former clients are managed at the very highest levels of Government. This goes far beyond individual matters of advice; it strikes at the very heart of the proper administration of justice.
Let me be absolutely clear that this is not about Lord Hermer’s career at the Bar; it is about the proper mechanisms for recusal when matters concerning former clients come before Government. The House must know what safeguards are in place to protect the public interest when such situations arise, especially regarding sections 46 and 47 of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.
What are the formal procedures for the Attorney General’s recusal in matters involving former clients? Has the Attorney General recused himself from any matters since taking office? What assessment has been made of potential conflicts arising from his extensive litigation against the Government? [Interruption.]
This all goes to the heart of public confidence in our legal system. The Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and promised this House a Government of standards and integrity. [Interruption.] The proper management of conflicts of interest at the highest levels of the Government Legal Service is not optional; it is fundamental to that promise—
Mr Speaker
Order. Please, you have two minutes, not three, and we have to stick to the rules. I allowed you to go on, but I was not coughing for my health; it was to give you a hint to come to the end of your question. Have you now finished?
The Solicitor General
I have outlined the rigorous process that exists in the Attorney General’s Office and has existed across Administrations of all colours. The House may be aware that the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), has written to the Cabinet Secretary seeking clarity—the clarity to which the shadow Solicitor General refers—on that process and an investigation into it. The Cabinet Secretary has today confirmed by reply that the Attorney General’s Office has a rigorous system in place to ensure that a Law Officer would not be consulted on any matter that could give rise to a potential conflict of interest. He has restated that those arrangements are of long standing and part of standard practice that has applied under successive Administrations. [Interruption.] I encourage Opposition Members to take comfort from that statement—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. [Interruption.] Solicitor General, when I am standing, you must sit down. Mr Mullan, whether here or elsewhere, I do not want a running commentary from you on everything we debate. Do we understand each other?
The Solicitor General
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The shadow Solicitor General raised the previous experience of the Attorney General. Lord Hermer is a very experienced barrister, and during his time in private practice—prior to his appointment to Government—he represented high-profile clients in a number of cases. It is a central and well-understood aspect of the British legal system, as she knows, that barristers are required to accept instructions if they are available and qualified to do so—the well-known “cab rank” principle. She will also be very aware that, put simply, barristers are not their clients. As the Bar Council states:
“Barristers do not choose their clients, nor do they associate themselves with their clients’ opinions or behaviour by virtue of representing them.”
In recent days, the Opposition have cynically linked the Attorney General with some of his previous clients. I grew up on military bases in armed forces communities in the 1980s, and I remember what it felt like when my dad had to check underneath the car before every single journey we made. I note that because it is the backdrop against which I say that I would defend with every fibre of my being the duty of any barrister in this country, including Lord Hermer, to defend any client before any court, as we all should. I will end by restating the principle in words that I think are particularly powerful:
“Don’t judge a surgeon by their patients, a journalist by their interviewees—or a lawyer by their clients.”
Those were the words of the current Conservative shadow Attorney General.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Does the Solicitor General agree that what the shadow Solicitor General is asking her to do, in a not very subtle way, is to breach the Law Officers’ convention by the back door? If the Attorney General were to reveal whether or not he is able to advise on a particular issue, that would reveal the fact that he had been asked to advise on it. The Opposition’s intention is clear: it is to gain party advantage. The effect is to undermine the rule of law.
The Solicitor General
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. I am happy to confirm that where the Attorney General has conflicts, he will recuse himself.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
The shambolic Conservative Government created a crisis for democracy in this country with their cronyism, rule breaking and constant sleaze scandals. They even appointed as their Attorney General the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and Tavistock (Sir Geoffrey Cox), who before his appointment represented some of the world’s largest tax dodgers. The Liberal Democrats want to repair the damage that was done by the constant stream of Conservative sleaze and finally restore public trust in our politics.
I do, however, have some questions for the Solicitor General. Has the Attorney General sought independent legal advice regarding any possible conflicts of interest relating to his previous work at Matrix Chambers? Can the Solicitor General assure the House that all and any impropriety will be thoroughly looked into, and will she please introduce annual training on conflicts of interests and ethics for all Ministers and finally enshrine the ministerial code in law?
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned another Member. I do not think it was critical, and that is fine, but if it was critical—[Hon. Members: “It was.”] Just let me finish. If it was critical, I am sure that he will have informed that other Member.
Mr Speaker
You did. There we go—and Members were getting all excited. I call the Solicitor General.
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his question. I have outlined the rigorous process that exists in the Attorney General’s office and, as I said, has existed across Administrations of all colours.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I declare an interest as a member of the Justice Select Committee. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Opposition’s position fundamentally misunderstands the role of lawyers in our justice system? The Attorney General also represented victims of the tragedy in Grenfell Tower. Does my hon. Friend also agree that the Attorney General has followed the same processes as his predecessors in managing any potential conflicts, and that what we are faced with is just another example of the Opposition trying to undermine our legal institutions merely for political gain?
The Solicitor General
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The undermining of this foundational principle of our legal system has been extremely cynical.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Sections 46 and 47 of the legacy Act enjoyed unanimous support in both this House and the other place. It is the Government’s choice to repeal those sections that has raised the question before us today and opened up the possibility of compensating Gerry Adams, isn’t it?
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
Does the Attorney General’s experience, having served both as a distinguished advocate and now as a Law Officer, not make him uniquely qualified to uphold the rule of law and advise the Government appropriately?
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question, and it will be no surprise to hear that I very much agree with her. Lord Hermer is an extraordinarily experienced barrister, and he brings that experience to his role as Attorney General.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I understand that the Solicitor General wants to maintain the confidentiality of the Law Officers’ office, but the issue before us is whether there is a conflict of interest. For example, the Attorney General has advocated in relation to the policies of the Israeli Government, and then we have had a change of policy by the Government that has been directly influenced by the legal advice that has been given. The challenge is whether that advice has been given on the basis of prejudicial views held prior to entering the Attorney General’s Office. I do not expect the Solicitor General to unveil the details, but she must understand that that is the impression being given. Every aspect of transparency and democracy requires that the advice given by the Attorney General to the Government is impartial, correct and not prejudiced.
The Solicitor General
The hon. Member will know that the Law Officers’ convention means that I cannot confirm that the Attorney General has advised or whether his advice has been sought on any matter.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
We are seeing some extraordinary and absolutely shameless attacks, because not only is the Attorney General a barrister of international standing, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss) said, he represented the victims of Grenfell Tower. Does the Solicitor General agree with me that Conservative Members would do well to remember that when they attack the Attorney General about his former clients?
The Solicitor General
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question, and I agree with her.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Oh, sorry, Mr Speaker. I am so used to being called last. [Laughter.] My humblest apologies.
My motivation is clearly justice for the innocent victims; that is what I am about. At the heart of this urgent question is Gerry Adams. When this House put in place a pension for innocent victims of the troubles and at that time excluded perpetrators from applying, Gerry Adams and his colleagues sought to block those pensions. Adams’ hands are dripping with innocent blood, not least from when he was the commander of the La Mon bombing, which killed and maimed my constituents. Will the Attorney General recuse himself from all matters relating to Adams, and will this Government ensure that Adams does not get one single penny?
The Solicitor General
As I have already stated, the Law Officers’ convention does not permit me to reveal when the Attorney General has been asked for advice or when he has advised.
Tony Vaughan (Folkestone and Hythe) (Lab)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of the Bar.
It seems that Conservative Members are deliberately feigning ignorance about our constitution to make an empty political point. The truth is that lawyers in this country represent clients without fear or favour. We do not in this country associate the views of our clients or the clients with the views of their lawyers, and there is the concept of the cab rank rule. Does the Solicitor General agree with me that the Law Officers’ convention and existing processes, which, as she says, have been in place for many years under successive Governments, can be left to regulate conflicts of interest, as they always have done? If the Conservatives genuinely had a problem with that, they would have changed it when they were in government.
The Solicitor General
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him for making that point. As I said earlier, barristers are quite simply not their clients, and I have quoted the words of the current Conservative shadow Attorney General.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The current Attorney General has a track record of taking up multiple cases against the British Government. Given his previous work with regards to both Gerry Adams and the families of those making claims against UK special forces, on which matters will the Attorney General recuse himself from advising Ministers owing to clear conflicts of interest? If he is not able to fulfil the full scope of his role owing to his prior career, is his position even tenable?
The Solicitor General
I am afraid I could not be more clear: I have already said that where the Attorney General has conflicts, he will recuse himself.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
As someone who grew up in Warrington and who was friends with Tim Parry who was murdered by the IRA, I subsequently had to do public affairs engagement work in Northern Ireland, so I am well aware of some of the difficulties that can come from the outcome, shall we say, of some of the violence suffered in Northern Ireland. Does the Solicitor General agree that
“A lawyer should not be identified personally with the cause for which they are arguing”?—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 June 2022; Vol. 822, c. 1597.]
Those are not my words; they belong to the distinguished commercial barrister, the Conservative shadow Attorney General. Does the Solicitor General agree with me about those words?
The Solicitor General
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Under the ministerial code, every Minister has a responsibility to address a conflict of interest or a perception of such an interest. Will the Solicitor General be open with the House about whether, when the Attorney General was appointed, he chose or was required to recuse himself from advising on issues relating to his previously representing clients such as Gerry Adams?
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
Does the Minister accept that the Law Officers’ convention does not extend to questions of recusal or conflicts of interest, and that the House and the British people have the right to have questions on those matters answered transparently?
The Solicitor General
I have been abundantly clear on this: where the Attorney General has conflicts, he will recuse himself. The Law Officers’ convention does not permit me to say in relation to which matters he has recused himself, because in doing so I would reveal the matters that the Law Officers have been asked to advise on, or indeed have advised on.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Like the Solicitor General I also practise as a solicitor. She must know that the questions that are being put are not calling into question a barrister’s right to represent clients. This is about a barrister who is now the Attorney General. Does she accept that the Law Officers’ convention is being extended in the interests of the Attorney General not answering legitimate questions about recusal and conflict of interest, and that nobody should seek to extend that principle beyond its intention in order to remain silent?
The Solicitor General
I do not accept that the Law Officers’ convention is being extended at all. As I have said, I could not be more clear: where the Attorney General has conflicts, he will recuse himself.
Business of the House
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
The business for the week commencing 27 January includes:
Monday 27 January—General debate on the creative industries.
Tuesday 28 January—Remaining stages of the Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords].
Wednesday 29 January—Second Reading of the Arbitration Bill [Lords], followed by motions relating to the charter for budget responsibility and the welfare cap.
Thursday 30 January—General debate on proportional representation for general elections, followed by a general debate on the future of local post office services. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 31 January—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 3 February will include:
Monday 3 February—Second Reading of the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill.
Tuesday 4 February—Motions to approve the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2025 and the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2025.
Wednesday 5 February—Motions relating to the police grant and local government finance reports.
Thursday 6 February—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 7 February—The House will not be sitting.
Jesse Norman
Over the past few months, the Labour party has been generous indeed in offering the people of this country regular evidence of its remarkable incompetence, but even by its formidable standards it has excelled itself this week. The Prime Minister said some time ago in terms that he prefers Davos to Westminster, but this week he has left the global hobnobbing and après-ski of the World Economic Forum to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assist her in her relentless search for growth. Her latest idea is to revive the third runway at Heathrow: a project so toxic to her Labour colleagues that it had been briefed against by the Energy Secretary and publicly rejected by the Mayor of London before it was even preannounced. As so often, I am afraid we will have to wait for the announcement to be made in this House.
Meanwhile, the Chancellor’s wizard wheeze of the autumn to set up a new Office for Value for Money was publicly rubbished in the most unsparing terms by the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who described it as
“an understaffed, poorly defined organisation…set up with a vague remit and no clear plan to measure its effectiveness.”
That is from the Chancellor’s own Labour colleague.
Spending reviews are always fraught, and this one will be still more so, because the Chancellor has boxed herself in so badly on taxes and spending. What the Government think will be achieved by a couple of dozen hastily assembled newbies and some adolescent management consultants running around—apart from making things even worse—is hard to imagine. In case we forget, Mr Speaker, you and I and everyone else in the Chamber—indeed, every taxpayer—is paying for that.
Then we had no less a figure than the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies weighing in. He noted that the Government have done nothing but talk about growth ever since the last general election. He then noted:
“At the same time, we have seen the imposition of additional employment regulation, further regulation of rental housing, a hike in stamp duty, a big increase in tax on employers, an inflation-busting rise in the minimum wage, a refusal to contemplate any serious liberalisation of trade or free movement…and, perhaps, a clampdown on immigration.”
He asked:
“What is this government’s ‘theory of growth’?”
He then answered his own question: “Nobody knows”.
Those are just three examples of the Government’s absolute lack of seriousness in economics, but, as we have just heard in the urgent question, there is a serious issue in the area of law that they cannot avoid. Let me remind the House what has happened. The Attorney General has been repeatedly asked whether he has or has had a conflict of interest in relation to legal matters that could affect his former client, Gerry Adams. In response, a spokesman for the Prime Minister has highlighted systems to prevent potential conflicts from arising. The Attorney General has cited the convention that Law Officers do not discuss their advice to Ministers and has disclaimed any connection between his work for Mr Adams and the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. As the Solicitor General has just said, the standard that they are aspiring to is to be beyond reproach. The problem is that none of that addresses whether the Attorney General in fact recused himself. This does not fall either within the Law Officers’ convention or the cab rank principle. He either did recuse himself or he did not.
The problem is made worse when one reflects that this Attorney General is the first in the history of the office to have come into Government directly from private practice—that point was completely ignored in the urgent question—and that that practice was not in one of the less political areas of law such as corporate law or chancery but squarely in the highly contentious and political area of human rights, with some of it in Northern Ireland. There is no reason whatever in law or ministerial practice why the Attorney General should not be transparent on this issue, as he has been already in relation to the legacy Act. There is a strong public interest in him doing so. His legacy comment proves that he concedes the point about the importance of clarity in this area.
In the independent adviser on ministerial standards’ recent letter regarding the former anti-corruption Minister, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq), he highlighted that the ministerial code says:
“Ministers…must ensure that no conflict…could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests”.
That conflict clearly exists now in relation to the Attorney General. Does the Leader of the House share my view that we should have a debate on the standards to be applied in these complex cases where there is a potential conflict between the demands of the ministerial code and the statements made by the Government in defence of the Law Officer concerned?
Lucy Powell
I am sure that the thoughts of the whole House and the country will again be with the families of Bebe, Elsie and Alice, the two teachers, the neighbour and all the children who attended the Taylor Swift dance class in Southport, after the horrific attack and murders last summer. What they faced is truly unimaginable. This tragedy is made all the worse by the fact that it could have been prevented, as the Home Secretary said this week.
The House will be aware that the Government are pursuing a number of actions in response: an independent public inquiry that will leave no stone unturned, an end-to-end review of Prevent, stronger measures to tackle online knife sales and knife crime, and a quicker piece of work on the limitations of the current definition of terrorism. I will ensure that the House is kept up to date on those and related matters.
The right hon. Gentleman raised issues of standards in public life. As I gently reminded him last week, he may not want to draw on the record of the Conservative Government and compare it with ours. But he raised some important questions, which have just been answered in the urgent question. As he will know, the Cabinet Secretary replied to the shadow Justice Secretary that the Attorney General has properly declared his interest from his previous role as a senior barrister.
As a barrister with a wide-ranging legal practice, the Attorney General will have represented many clients. According to Bar association rules, barristers do not choose their clients, nor do they associate themselves with their clients’ opinions or behaviour by virtue of representing them. The Cabinet Secretary has explained that as well as the declarations process for all Ministers, the Attorney General’s Office has a rigorous system in place to ensure that a Law Officer would not be consulted on any matter that could give rise to a potential conflict of interest. The right hon. Gentleman will know that these arrangements are long-standing and have been practised in successive Administrations. I am not sure whether he is arguing that we should no longer have an Attorney General who has been recently involved in private practice at the highest level —perhaps he will let us know.
Today is actually a very special day—perhaps a historic day—because it is the last day that the former Prime Minister could have called a general election. Oh, how different things could have been. The Conservatives would have still been on this side of the House, with three times as many Members as they have now. The right hon. Gentleman would still be enjoying himself on the Back Benches, and the House would not have the delightful presence of the hon. Members for Clacton (Nigel Farage) and for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice).
Instead, we are six months into a Labour Government. I am sure the Conservatives regret calling the general election early, but I am afraid the country does not. Let us imagine for a moment what the country would be facing today: doctors still on strike, making the NHS winter crisis even worse; public services facing huge cuts due to the Conservatives’ economic plans; waiting lists ever growing, leaving people sick and out of work; the hospital building programme still on the never-never; the asylum backlog rising with no plan to get it down; more and more councils going bust; more trains being cancelled than run; and the black hole in the public finances still going. Let us not even imagine what would be happening with our prisons. The country would be on its knees, with living standards falling, Britain an embarrassment around the world and politics in the doldrums.
Thankfully, the former Prime Minister made a big misjudgment for the Tory party but a good decision for the country. He called the election early because he wanted out. We have not been able to put everything right immediately—the problems run too deep—but we have made a lot of progress. We have ended the doctors strike and put record investment into the NHS. We have reset our international relationships, restoring Britain as a global leader. We have tackled the asylum backlog and achieved record numbers of returns. We are giving workers security and dignity. We are turbocharging house building, with new, ambitious targets. We are working towards energy security with lower bills and GB Energy. Trains are now running in the interests of passengers. The right hon. Gentleman might be sorry that he is now sitting on the Opposition Benches, his party still licking its wounds, but the country is getting the change it voted for.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
My constituents Mandy and Bernie, along with many other homeowners in Bury North, are facing serious issues with Residential Management Group. Despite dutifully paying their service charges, residents of Wharfside Apartments and Broad Oak have been hit with additional fees and alarming practices that equate to neglect and exploitation: overpricing, sudden price changes, premature bailiff actions and non-compliance with fire safety and accessibility standards, to name just a few. This is not an isolated case; some 70 Members of this House have constituents across the country facing the same level of activity by rogue management companies. Will my right hon. Friend assure my constituents that under Labour, these unscrupulous practices will be tackled, and will she provide time in the House for a debate on this urgent matter?
Lucy Powell
As ever, my hon. Friend raises important issues to his constituents. I am another of those Members with a high caseload of these issues. As he will know, the Government are committed to ensuring that homeowners are protected from abuse and poor service at the hands of unscrupulous managing agents, which is why we will be bringing forward a draft leasehold reform Bill later in the Session. I will ensure the House is updated on its progress.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I echo the words of the Leader of the House on the Southport attack.
May I take this opportunity to welcome the ceasefire in Gaza? Many of my constituents have contacted me about the conflict, and I know it will be a comfort to them to know that bombs are no longer falling in that part of the world—long may the peace last.
At the beginning of January, the Care Quality Commission published a report into the maternity services at Broomfield hospital, which serves my constituency. Worryingly, it downgraded the services from “requires improvement” to “inadequate”. A few days ago, the CQC published two more reports about maternity services at the two other major hospitals run by the Mid and South Essex NHS foundation trust, Basildon and Southend, which were both rated “requires improvement”. This is understandably concerning to my constituents, who are served by all three hospitals. When I visited Broomfield’s maternity services a couple of weeks ago, I was pleased to see encouraging signs of improvement, so I hope my constituents will take some comfort from that.
It is worth noting that the CQC’s reports in all three cases were based on assessments carried out in March 2024. Does the Leader of the House think it is acceptable for the CQC to take such a long time to report its findings on services that are obviously struggling, and will she grant Government time for a debate to discuss whether the CQC needs better resourcing and support to carry out its important duties?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments on the ceasefire in Israel and Gaza; since we last spoke of it last week, it has seemed to be holding to some degree, which is very welcome.
I also thank her for yet again raising an issue of such importance to not only her constituents, but those of many Members across the House. Too many women are not receiving the maternity care that they deserve. I am really sorry to hear about the particular case she raises, but I am glad there are now signs of improvement in her local services.
Many patients rely on assessments by the CQC to make decisions about their care. The independent Dash review of the CQC highlights serious failings with the watchdog, and the Health Secretary recently said that it is not fit for purpose. The Government are determined to take action so that people can feel the confidence in the service that they need. We are pressing the CQC to raise standards and deliver significant performance improvements. Last week, the chief exec and the chair of the CQC were questioned by the Health and Social Care Committee. I will ensure that the House is continually updated on these important matters.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Last week, I visited Briarwood, an acute dementia care facility run by mental health charity Everyturn in Blaydon. Everyturn runs a wide range of mental health services, including its safe havens, which are open for anyone to start receiving mental health support just by walking in off the street. Today, one opens at George Street Social in Newcastle, serving Tyneside. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the charity on opening this hub, which will provide support to so many people, and can we have a debate in Government time on how to make mental health support easily accessible in our communities?
Lucy Powell
I am pleased to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Everyturn charity on all the outstanding work it does to support those with mental health issues and dementia in her constituency. She will know that the Mental Health Bill is currently making its way in the House of Lords. It will be a very good opportunity to debate these issues further when it comes to this place.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
In addition to the business announced by the Leader of the House on Backbench Business Committee time, on 6 February in the Chamber there will be a on Government support for coalfield communities, followed by the debate on financial education that was due to take place on Monday but time did not allow.
The business in Westminster Hall agreed by the Backbench Business Committee is as follows: on Tuesday 28 January, there will be a debate on road safety for young drivers. On Thursday 30 January, there will be a debate on medicinal cannabis, followed by a debate on a subject we will announce very shortly. On 4 February, there will be a debate on National Apprenticeship Week. On Thursday 6 February, there will be a debate on improving rail services with open access operators, followed by a debate on debt cancellation for low-income countries. With Mr Speaker’s permission, on Tuesday 11 February there will be a debate on the cost of energy. I ask the Leader of the House to advise us, at early notice, of the dates for estimates day debates.
On Sunday, many of my constituents gathered and paid for a screening of the film “Emergency” in the Harrow Vue cinema. At about 30 or 40 minutes into the screening of the film, masked Khalistani terrorists burst in, threatened members of the audience and forced the screening to end. I understand that similar disruption took place in Wolverhampton, Birmingham, Slough, Staines and Manchester. As a result, Vue cinemas and Cineworld have pulled the film from being screened.
The film is very controversial, and I am not commenting on its quality or content, but I defend the right of my constituents and other Members’ constituents to be able to view it and make a decision on it. It covers the period when Indira Gandhi was the Prime Minister of India. It is very controversial and there are certain views that it is an anti-Sikh film, but our constituents should be able to see the film and judge for themselves, and not be threatened by thugs who want to disrupt democratic opportunities to see public films.
May we have a statement from the Home Secretary next week on what will be done to ensure that people who want to see such films, which have been passed by censors, can do so in peace and harmony? I absolutely defend the right of people to demonstrate outside cinemas, but not to disrupt viewings.
Lucy Powell
First of all, I thank the hon. Gentleman for announcing forthcoming Backbench Business Committee slots, which will be of great interest to the House.
The hon. Gentleman raises a very important matter about the relationship between free speech and the right to protest peacefully, and the ability of people to go about their activities freely whatever they choose to do, whether that is seeing a film which, as he says, has been agreed by the censors and all those who look at those issues. I will certainly ensure that he and the whole House get an update on the very important matters he raises.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Research from the Centre for Cities shows that the average wage in the north-east is £17,000 per annum less than here in London, and the gap is likely to be much higher than that in constituencies like mine. May we have a debate in Government time to discuss how the Labour Government will bridge that staggering gap and ensure that there are good, well-paid, secure jobs in the north-east of England?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. He is absolutely right that the key reason why we have suffered in this country, over the last 14 years in particular, from stagnant growth and falling living standards is that we have widespread regional inequalities. We have poor productivity, we do not have the high level of skills that we need, and we have deep-seated health inequalities, which also affect people’s ability to work and earn the wages they deserve. That is why this Government have an agenda to ensure that we get the growth the country needs—growth that is shared around the country, is sustainable and is underpinned by a healthy, highly-skilled, productive economy—and that the new jobs of the future are found in his constituency and other parts of the country that deserve to get them.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House for her statement. Lib Dem-controlled Dorset council is proposing to introduce night-time car parking charges. That would have a devastating impact on the market towns of Verwood, Blandford Forum, Gillingham, Shaftesbury and Sturminster Newton in my constituency, bringing into doubt the viability of many businesses providing entertainment and hospitality services. Will the Leader of the House join me in condemning the proposal to introduce these charges, and will she find Government time for a debate on how Government policy and other policies can support rural market towns and their local economies?
Lucy Powell
As someone who represents a city centre, I can assure the hon. Member that I am well aware of the issues around car parking charges and the public attention they give rise to. He is right that charges have to be brought in while balancing the needs of independent shops and the hospitality sector in the area. I am sure the local authority has heard his question, but I will ensure that he gets a ministerial response about the matter.
Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)
Last week, a broken mains water pipe in my constituency left 40,000 people without water. The engineers worked really hard to fix the repair in challenging circumstances, but despite an incredible community response, too many people face an unacceptable wait for bottled water. We need to get much better at identifying vulnerable people in emergency situations, using the information that we already hold across various Government Departments. Will the Leader of the House ask the relevant Ministers to meet me to discuss how we can better use data to improve our response during emergencies such as this?
Lucy Powell
First, I thank my hon. Friend for the fantastic job she did when she stepped in as my Parliamentary Private Secretary in an emergency last week; I could not have got through business questions without her great support. I know that she has been raising the issue of last week’s water outage strongly for her constituents, and my sympathies go to them. She will know that it is the responsibility of water companies to manage such disruption. They do not do that well in many cases, and that is why we have brought in the Water (Special Measures) Bill, which will drive meaningful improvements in the water industry. The Cabinet Office will soon issue guidance about how to better respond to these local emergencies, and I will ensure that she gets the meeting she has asked for.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The EU offered the UK a youth mobility scheme that would give the invaluable opportunity for our young people to live, work and love across our continent. It was rejected out of hand. Since then, the EU has offered a customs arrangement for the UK Government, which again has been rejected out of hand. Can we have a debate about how the EU reset is going, and will the Leader of the House confirm that we are forever doomed to this chaotic and self-defeating hard Brexit?
Lucy Powell
As the hon. Member will know, we have been absolutely clear that there will be no return to the single market, the customs union or freedom of movement, and we have no plans for a youth mobility scheme. That is because we feel that we can make great progress in resetting our relationship with the European Union, which is under way, and that the country does not need further disruption in this area but needs us to make sure we get the trade agreements and the relationship with the EU that will get better outcomes for those in Scotland and elsewhere.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
In South Derbyshire, we have an incinerator in Drakelow. Just outside my patch, in neighbouring Derby, there is an incinerator in Sinfin. Despite that, there has been an application to build another incinerator 9 miles from the one in Sinfin and just 4.8 miles from the one in Drakelow. It has already been rejected by both the district and county councils and, most importantly, by my constituents. Community Against the Swadlincote Incinerator is a data-driven and facts-based campaign led by Dr Tracey Wond. It is not just that we do not want the incinerator; given the numbers, we do not need it, especially as it would not be significant infrastructure of national importance and the Government are seeking to reduce waste. Will the Leader of the House please consider having a debate in Government time on where we should agree to build new incinerators? There is certainly no sense in building another one in South Derbyshire.
Lucy Powell
I think this is my hon. Friend’s first business question, and she is a fantastic new MP for South Derbyshire who is yet again raising an issue of concern for her constituents. She will know that the Government are committed to delivering a package of reform to transition to a circular economy, which will dramatically reduce our reliance on waste incineration. We will back new waste incineration projects only where they meet strict new conditions, which we recently set out. This issue gets raised many times in business questions, and I can see that the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee is still in his place. My hon. Friend should get together with other colleagues and try to secure a broader debate on the matter.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate on the importance of volunteering, to celebrate community spirit? Coldstream community council recently hosted a senior citizens’ Christmas party in the town’s community centre. Over 100 local residents enjoyed a belated Christmas meal and entertainment, but it would not have happened had it not been for the hard work of the volunteers. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Fiona Shepherd, the community council and the team from Presenting Coldstream for making that event happen, and for everything they do to support the Coldstream community?
Lucy Powell
I absolutely will join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating those people and organisations from his constituency—Coldstream community council, Fiona Shepherd and others. The Christmas lunch sounds like a wonderful way of bringing people together. The hon. Gentleman attends these sessions regularly, and I am waiting for an invitation to his constituency to see the great things that he often describes. He has highlighted another one today.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
My constituents in Brent East work extremely hard, and some are able to purchase a smartphone. Yesterday, we heard from the Met that an estimated 64,000 phones were stolen across London in 2023; I think one mobile phone is stolen every four minutes in Westminster. The Met and the Mayor of London are working together to combat the escalation, but more work is needed, especially with providers such as Apple and Google. Will the Leader of the House please consider having a debate in Government time to discuss this important issue?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend raises a really important matter. Mobile phone theft can be incredibly traumatic, and it is a really bad problem for not just the individuals who face it, but society as a whole. Antisocial behaviour chips away at communities’ sense of confidence and pride, which is why this Government are taking strong action to stop antisocial behaviour by bringing in respect orders and a number of other measures. I will ensure that the relevant Minister gives her a full response on this matter, and I am sure that it would make a very good topic for a debate.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Many of our professionals, including doctors, teachers and police officers, are struggling with recruitment and retention. They all serve our communities with dedication and selflessness, and we rely on them, but they are affected by the rules relating to their pensions. In the case of doctors, it is costing them money to work additional hours for the NHS. In the case of long-standing teachers and police officers, changes to their pensions partway through employment can mean that they owe money or are trapped and unable to claim pensions, due to legislative change. Will the Leader of the House agree to have a debate in Government time on public sector pensions?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Lady will know that the issue of public sector pensions, and the disincentives that often apply to those in senior roles, has been a matter of debate over recent years. I understand that most of the issues have been resolved, but I will certainly get an update for her. If there are matters that still need wider discussion, I will ensure that the House is made aware of them.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
My neighbours in Ilford South and I are concerned about reports of democratic backsliding and human rights abuses in Pakistan. Reports of female political candidates being harassed and intimidated to get them to stand down, male candidates being imprisoned, journalists going missing and protesters losing their lives have sadly become the norm. Pakistan is a human rights priority country for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which is committed to ensuring human rights, democracy and the rule of the law in Pakistan. Does the Leader of the House agree that we must continue to work towards guaranteeing the rights of all people in Pakistan? Can we have Government time for a debate on this important issue?
Lucy Powell
The Government urge Pakistan to uphold its international obligations and human rights. My hon. Friend may be aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), visited Pakistan in November and highlighted our concerns about the need for it to uphold its democratic values in relation to protests and military courts, and to uphold its fundamental functions. We continue to urge Pakistan to address concerns about the fairness of the February 2024 elections and to uphold its obligations under international law. I will ensure that the House is kept updated on these important matters.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Replies to my parliamentary questions are often late. They are often evasive and often refer to websites that are infrequently updated, and sometimes they are even overtly political. I know that the Leader of the House cares passionately about improving performance in this area, so will she make a statement to update the House on how she is working to get better responses from Departments to parliamentary questions?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Lady is right that I take these issues incredibly seriously. The House and its Members have a right to timely, proper and full replies to parliamentary questions. I regularly remind members of the Cabinet about their duties in this regard, and I wrote to them recently.
The hon. Lady will know that the Procedure Committee also takes seriously its responsibility for monitoring the timeliness of replies to parliamentary questions. We have seen a dramatic increase in the number of written parliamentary questions tabled since the general election, but that is no excuse for what she describes. I encourage her and any other Member to let me know when they receive a particularly poor or late reply to a parliamentary question.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)
Last week, I visited Leeds City college at the invitation of University and College Union reps, and I heard about the great work they do on campuses across the city, including at Temple Newsam in my constituency, in very challenging circumstances. Can we have a debate in Government time on the importance of the further education sector? Alongside the UCU’s demand for the restoration of national pay bargaining, it is important that the FE sector is not seen as a poor relation of the higher education sector. The FE sector does a vital job for people in our communities, as well as for our economy and our infrastructure as a whole.
Lucy Powell
The hon. Member is right that the further education sector does an immense job in ensuring that this country’s young people have the skills, the ambition and the pathways to get into the great jobs of both the future and today. Historically, further education has often been seen as a Cinderella sector, but that is not this Government’s view, which is why we gave a record settlement to the FE sector in the recent Budget. We have Education questions coming up at the end of January, but I am sure this would also make a good topic for a debate.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
John Cross, a Bromsgrove pharmacist who believed in the importance of vaccines, took his own life after suffering paralysing complications after receiving the covid vaccine. John’s widow Christine and their children have been campaigning for justice in his memory, including seeking compensation from the vaccine damage payment scheme. Unfortunately, their claim has been rejected. Does the Leader of the House agree that we should have a debate on the Floor of the House about the vaccine damage payment scheme in relation to covid vaccines? Will she assist me in brokering a meeting between the Cross family and the Health Secretary?
Lucy Powell
I am really sorry to hear of what happened to John Cross and all that his family must be going through subsequently, as well as their challenge in getting the compensation they deserve. I will certainly arrange for a ministerial response and a ministerial meeting with the family.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
My constituency is among the UK’s worst hotspots for deaths linked to a cancer caused by exposure to asbestos at work, with 344 deaths since 1980. Indeed, in the last five years 16 men and five women have died from cancer caused by exposure to asbestos. The Labour Government passed the Compensation Act 2006 to make it easier for people diagnosed with mesothelioma to claim full compensation, with the need to find just one negligent employer rather than them all. However, the Act does not apply to those suffering from asbestos-related lung cancer. Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate in Government time to address that injustice and help deliver full and fair compensation for all those who are not protected from asbestos exposure at work?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend greatly for raising the issue of those who have been exposed to asbestos and those suffering from mesothelioma, which is now coming through strongly. In previous Parliaments we had a number of hon. Members who strongly led on those issues. They are no longer in the House, so I encourage my hon. Friend to become a parliamentarian leader in order to get the debates and continue to raise those issues, as I will now do on his behalf with Ministers, to ensure that we get further action.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I declare my interests as a governor of the Royal Berkshire hospital and as having a family member with shares in a medical company.
My constituents are heartbroken by the Government’s decision to push the start date of the Royal Berks’s reconstruction to 2037. That decision will disappoint many patients and staff. There is a £400 million total of maintenance backlogs, statutory improvements and other capital expenditure that the Royal Berkshire hospital requires over the next 10 years. Will the Leader of the House ensure that there are future opportunities, in Government time, to debate the progress of the campaign so that maintenance issues caused by the delay to the rebuild can be raised?
Lucy Powell
I recognise that the hon. Gentleman and his constituents will be disappointed with what is happening to his local hospital. However, I am sure that he will recognise that the previous Government’s commitment to 40 new hospitals was not funded, there were no timelines and they were on the never-never. That is why this Government have had to take the decision to be completely honest with people and to have a programme that we think is deliverable and that there is money for. That, unfortunately, means that the timeline for some hospitals is longer than the fictional ones they were previously presented with. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care gave a lengthy statement on the matter earlier this week, and I know that he will want to keep the House strongly updated on these issues.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I have a 13-year-old constituent who suffers with Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a muscle-wasting disease that he was diagnosed with at age 11, which is very late, due to what is called a spontaneous mutation. None the less, the condition has progressed rapidly. There is medication—givinostat—that can delay the advancement of the illness. It is being made available free to the NHS, but the hospitals that want to use it on their patients need some financial assistance to roll it out as part of an early access programme. May we have a statement from the Department of Health and Social Care on the issue, so that we can make representations on behalf of our constituents who suffer with Duchenne?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising Duchenne and the much-needed treatment that his constituent needs. I am pleased to hear that the treatment is being made available to the NHS for free, but I hear what he says about hospitals being able to access it speedily so that his constituent can get it. I will absolutely ensure that the relevant Minister has heard his question today and, if a response is not to my hon. Friend’s liking, I will help him to secure some time on that.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
I had intended to raise today the appalling decision of the Planning Inspectorate to allow a battery energy storage system on Chapel Lane in my constituency, and to ask for a debate. However, just this morning I received the deeply disappointing and disturbing news of the closure of Aldridge police station. How on earth is that decision by the Labour police and crime commissioner compatible with the Prime Minister’s stated intention of strengthening neighbourhood policing?
Lucy Powell
I am sorry to hear of the closure of a police station, but the right hon. Lady will know that we are absolutely strengthening neighbourhood policing. We are putting 13,000 extra neighbourhood police officers on the frontline. Part of the way we are funding that is by ensuring that we are delivering services efficiently and effectively in local areas. I will get her a response on that, and I look forward to her raising in future the local battery storage unit in her constituency.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
This weekend, I will be taking part in a run with people from Active Fusion—[Interruption.] Don’t sound so surprised. Active Fusion is a charity in my constituency that works with education, charity and community providers to help deliver physical education activities for young people across Doncaster. Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating the fantastic work done by Active Fusion, and will she make time for a debate on how the Government can better support charities and organisations to deliver mental and physical health activities for young people who so desperately need it?
Lucy Powell
I wish my hon. Friend luck on her run—I am glad that she did not ask me to join her, because that is not something the public are quite ready for yet. She is absolutely right that it is the many voluntary organisations such as Active Fusion that do the vital work of making sure that young people and others remain active, fit and healthy, and that they are given fun ways to do that. That is vital for the future health of the nation. And these organisations often do all of this work as volunteers, or for free.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Ambulance crews strive every day to provide the very best care for their patients, but ambulances are not arriving to the most serious emergencies quickly enough. An 89-year-old Somerton constituent recently had a fall at home and was left lying on the floor in agony for 10 hours. Sadly, that is all too common, as South Western Ambulance Service has among the worst records for waiting times across the UK. May we have a debate in Government time on ambulance waiting times in Somerset?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Ambulance wait times, which are closely linked to A&E wait times, which in turn are closely linked to what is happening in many of our hospitals, are the big legacy in the NHS that this Government have inherited. There is no greater symptom of an NHS in crisis than the unacceptably long wait times that she describes. That is why we have put record investment into the NHS this year, and we will continue to prioritise the NHS in further spending rounds. We want to get A&E and ambulance wait times right down, because these waits are completely unacceptable and are putting lives at risk.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
In the Hillhead, Waterside, Harestanes and, in particular, Twechar parts of my constituency, the issue of buses—or, more accurately, the lack of them—is continually being raised with me. My constituents cannot get access to local services, whether it is going to the bank or going to church. They need to change buses and wait for up to an hour for a connecting service—that is if the connecting service ever turns up. I wish to request a debate in Government time on the need for bus services in local communities.
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we are introducing the Bus Services Bill, which is currently making its way through the Lords. She will know that in Scotland, under the Scottish National party, bus routes have been almost halved since 2006, and local authority franchising has been delayed for five years, which has been failing communities. However, as a result of our Budget, the Scottish Government will receive their largest settlement, in real terms, of any time since devolution. This must now be used by Scotland to put in place the bus services and other services that her constituents so desperately need.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Despite stating in 2021 that it was in “strong financial health”, Labour-controlled Bradford council now wants to put up council tax for my constituents by a whopping 15%. This is a shocking situation, resulting from continuous mismanagement by our council leaders, who have splashed millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money on Bradford city centre projects, including £50 million on a music venue that is finished but not yet open, despite our city of culture status. All the while, the council has let children’s services degrade to an unacceptable level, despite the last Conservative Government stepping in and issuing it a bail-out just last year. May we have an urgent debate in Government time on how to stop local people across Keighley, Ilkley, Silsden, the Worth valley and my wider constituency paying the price for Bradford council leaders’ failures?
Lucy Powell
I have to gently say to the hon. Gentleman that the failures were under the previous Conservative Government, who left local government on its knees, with years of austerity moving money away from areas of high need, such as his Bradford constituency, to areas of lower need. He will know that the cost of children’s services has gone up and up in recent years, with a huge rise in demand, but central Government failed to provide any of the funding or support that local authorities needed to get a grip of the situation. That is why we introduced our Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill—a Bill that I think he voted against the other week—which will begin to address some of the chronic costs for local authorities in providing children’s services. It is also why the Government are putting local government finances back on an even keel and ensuring that we deliver on the basis of need, not of politics.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
Yesterday I received one of the best emails that I have received since becoming a Member of Parliament. It came from my constituent Gareth Stewart and related to his son Hugo, who has finally secured a place at the Royal School for the Deaf in Derby. Hugo is deafblind, and it took two years for his parents to secure an education, health and care plan for him. It had to go to tribunal because it was consistently blocked. Even though the school had agreed to Hugo’s place, ready for September, the county council continued to fight his parents, so the resolution came only yesterday.
I have spoken to Gareth several times about his case, because it is so serious. He was content with me raising it on the Floor of the House on the condition that, in his words, I used it to speak about the wider problems that we have in Staffordshire with the special educational needs and disabilities system. Too many parents face the same challenges. They often use the phrase “delaying tactics” to me regarding the need to go to tribunal, and the consistent arguments at every step of the process. Will the Leader of the House update us on her discussions with Cabinet colleagues about introducing a Bill to fix our broken SEND system, and will she bring forward a debate on the shocking number of wrongful council decisions on SEND support that end up being overturned at tribunal?
Lucy Powell
Receiving that email from Gareth Stewart about his son’s place at the Royal School for the Deaf is an early reminder for my hon. Friend of how fulfilling the job of being a Member of Parliament can be; it does not happen all that often, but hopefully it will happen often in his case. He and his constituent are right to raise the chronic challenges faced by our special educational needs system, which a recent National Audit Office report found was at the point of crisis. Costs and demand are rising, yet outcomes continue to fall. This really is a broken system, and the Government are committed to addressing that. As an initial step, we put an extra £1 billion into SEND in the recent Budget. There have already been seven debates in this Session on SEND, which reflects the great importance of these matters to the House. I will ensure that the House is constantly updated on our plans.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
From Bude to Bodmin, and across my constituency, my constituents express their anger at having to pay astronomical fees to property management companies that provide little to no service. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the right of freeholders to challenge fees through arbitration and other dispute resolution mechanisms when services are simply not delivered?
Lucy Powell
The hon. Gentleman is right: unscrupulous managing agents are a plague for many leaseholders and homeowners in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) also raised this matter, which suggests a good potential cross-party application to the Backbench Business Committee. The Government are committed to tackling the scourge of unscrupulous managing agents and putting power back in the hands of leaseholders. That is why we will publish a draft leasehold reform Bill later this year.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
At the request of several of my constituents in Wolverhampton West, this morning I attended a National Autistic Society event about the constant fight that autistic people face for support across health—including mental health—social care, education and employment. What strikes me is the general ignorance about autism and what autistic people require. Will the Leader of the House please agree to a general debate in Government time about autism and the inequalities faced by autistic people, to ensure that early diagnosis and support for those who are autistic is a policy priority for the Government?
Lucy Powell
Absolutely. This is an important issue, and the Government want autistic people to succeed in all aspects of their lives. The Government provided £4.3 million this financial year to improve services for autistic children, but clearly much more needs to be done, and done better and faster. I think that it would make an extremely good topic for a debate.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
This week, we saw the tragic murder of Leo Ross, who was just 12 years old. Two weeks ago, 14-year-old Kelyan Bokassa was also murdered. The fatal stabbing of a child has become an all-too-familiar occurrence. The number of teenagers murdered by knife has doubled in the past decade. Teenagers are twice as likely to be fatally stabbed as any other demographic. The Government have pledged to halve knife crime, legislating to ban zombie knives, but they account for only 3.6% of murders involving a knife. Kitchen knives account for over 52.6%, and everybody has access to a drawer full of those in their own home. We desperately need a conversation about the root causes of knife crime, why the situation is now worse than ever, and why our children are, shockingly, prepared to kill other children—why they find it so easy to take a life. Will the Leader of the House make time in the parliamentary schedule to discuss the causes of knife crime?
Lucy Powell
I echo the hon. Gentleman’s remarks about yesterday’s awful news of the stabbing and murder of Leo Ross, who was just 12 years old, in the west midlands. I have a child that age, as will, I am sure, many of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and others watching. The Government are committed to halving knife crime over the next decade. That is an incredibly ambitious agenda, which drives much of our activity in this space. In September, the Prime Minister brought together a coalition in No. 10 Downing Street to tackle knife crime. We have taken very quick action to ban zombie knives and dangerous ninja swords. Further measures will be introduced in the Policing and Crime Bill later this year, but the hon. Gentleman is right that it will take a strategic, holistic, wide approach that also looks at preventive measures, education and youth services, and brings all the players in our communities together, to tackle the scourge of knife crime.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
I was disappointed to hear of plans to close the Old Chainyard pub in Coseley in my constituency to make way for yet another convenience store. Will the Leader of the House give her support to campaigners in Coseley fighting the closure of their local, and will the Government make time for a debate on the vital role of local pubs in local communities?
Lucy Powell
Local pubs play an absolutely vital role in local communities as a social hub, gathering place, centre point and focal point for community get-togethers. This Government support our local pubs. That is one of the reasons why we reduced alcohol duty on draught products in the recent Budget, and it is also why we are committed to the regeneration and support of our town centres and high streets. That would make an extremely good topic for a debate, and I look forward to her raising it.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
My train got cancelled on my commute home last night from Waterloo to Sunbury, but that gave me the wonderful opportunity to catch up on one of my favourite radio programmes—that of Mr Matt Chorley on BBC Radio 5 Live. My joy was only increased when I had the opportunity to listen to a rare interview given by the Leader of the House, during which she said, “We are not going for the sugar rush of quick growth”. Given that since the Government were elected the economy has not grown at all, could I on behalf of the people of Spelthorne congratulate her on her mastery of understatement and ask her what sort of growth she is going for and when it will come?
Lucy Powell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for listening to my interview. I would not say that it was that rare an interview, and obviously I am in the House once a week being fully accountable to him and colleagues for all my comments, which I happily do today. I think the hon. Gentleman is the constituency successor to the Chancellor who crashed the economy—is that right? Maybe not; maybe I will get a letter asking me to desist from saying that ever again. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on replacing the former Chancellor; I am sure he is better.
This Government want sustainable, long-term, productive, high-skill, high-wage growth with an economy that is healthy. The challenges we have inherited are so deep and profound, which is why it is taking time to turn the oil tanker around, as the hon. Gentleman will know. His Government’s record of living standards falling for the very first time in our history over the course of the previous Parliament is perhaps a record he should reflect on more before he raises it with me.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
In my surgery in Drighlington, I met a constituent who has been suffering terribly as a result of mesh implants. Despite having multiple surgeries to remove them, she still suffers with long-term health consequences and now has cancer in the affected area, which she attributes to the mesh implants. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) hosted a Westminster Hall debate on the matter in December, but those affected are still waiting for justice and an answer. Will the Leader of the House consider holding a debate in the Chamber in Government time on the urgent need to support those suffering with long-term health consequences as a result of mesh implants?
Lucy Powell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the matter. Last month’s debate was an opportunity to hear those powerful testimonies, and I commend him and the campaigners for continuing to raise this important issue, which was a live one in the last Parliament as well. The Government are carefully considering the work done by the Patient Safety Commissioner and the resulting Hughes report, and I will ensure that the House is updated at the earliest opportunity on the Government’s reflections. I encourage him to apply for a Backbench Business debate on the Floor of the House on those important matters, because I know they would be well attended.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
A year ago today, the former MPs Theresa May and Sir George Howarth launched their inquiry report into type 1 diabetes and disordered eating. The report made a number of recommendations to ensure the funding and continuation of the T1DE pilot services that have been started around the country. Since then, two services have shut down, in London and on the south coast in Bournemouth, and the remaining five pilot sites, including in the Humber and North Yorkshire, are set to run out of funding in March. If that happens, vulnerable patients will be put at risk. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on this issue as a matter of urgency?
Lucy Powell
I join the hon. Member in paying tribute to the former Prime Minister and, I think, former Leader of the House on their campaigning on type 1 diabetes. He is absolutely right that ensuring we have community-led preventive services for type 1 diabetes and other infections or diseases is the focus of this Government, and that is absolutely as it should be. I will ensure that he gets a ministerial response about the closing of those services, what has caused that and what plans the Government have to take that forward, and I will ensure that he is updated.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Last weekend, I had the pleasure of meeting the Friends of Doncaster Sheffield Airport at Little Bawtry’s restaurant. That incredible group of volunteers has supported the airport since its original opening back in 2005, and they cannot wait to be volunteering again once those doors reopen. Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising the vital role that volunteers like Friends of Doncaster Sheffield Airport play in ensuring the success of local projects right across the country? Will she join me in wishing them and the campaigners success in their continued efforts to get that airport reopened?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is quickly making a name for himself as Mr Doncaster airport—there is no question about that. Like him, I look forward to the skies of Doncaster being filled again with aircraft coming into that important airport in his constituency, and I look forward to him raising it again and again at these sessions until it happens.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to ask the Leader of the House a question on an issue of urgent concern—such questions may be similar, but they are none the less important. There has been an alarming, violent increase in the number of killings of Christians in Nigeria; there were 63 deaths between 27 November and 25 December alone. Of those, half occurred over two days in late December. On 22 December, 15 people were killed in the Plateau state in Nigeria, and on 25 December—of course, when we were all celebrating the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ—12 people were killed in the Benue state. Will the Leader of the House join me in condemning those murders and killings and ask the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to address the escalating violence against Christians in Nigeria and ensure the safety of citizens there?
Lucy Powell
As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises a serious and important issue. Terrorist groups such as Boko Haram and Islamic State West Africa Province have sought to undermine the right to freedom of religious belief in Nigeria. That is why we are providing £38 million in programming to strengthen peace and resilience in Nigeria to help tackle the root causes of violence in the region. I will ensure that he is constantly updated on those matters.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Before Christmas, I received a lovely letter—as opposed to an email—from Maisie Fox, a six-year-old pupil at St John’s primary school in Rosyth. Maisie was very concerned about the safety of her walk and her route to school, as she was unable to use her scooter or bike while crossing the busy A985 in Rosyth. I accompanied Maisie on her walk to school a couple of weeks ago and, indeed, it was incredibly dangerous. Will the Leader of the House congratulate Maisie on being a young person with an interest in politics—something we should always encourage in young people—and do everything she can to work with the Scottish Government to ensure that roads are safer for routes to school?
Lucy Powell
I congratulate Maisie on being mentioned in the Chamber and getting her name in Hansard. I am sure my hon. Friend will get a copy to her. She raises the important issue of safe walking routes to school. We want to encourage young people to walk to school on their own, where possible, and that is why it is important that we take issues of road traffic, safety and safe walking routes to school incredibly seriously. As raised here again today, the Scottish Government now have the funds they need to take some of those issues as seriously as we do.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
I often joke that my time between being an MP and being re-elected was less a career break and more a sabbatical. During that time, I had the pleasure and great opportunity of working at a fantastic facility—Leigh Spinners Mill. We created affordable spaces for local businesses and community organisations to set up and thrive. Remarkably, 80% of those businesses are owned by women—an inspiring example of inclusive talent and growth. Does the Leader of the House agree that we need more research and debate on how to better support and nurture future women entrepreneurs? Will she arrange a debate on women in business?
Lucy Powell
We greatly missed my hon. Friend when she was on her political sabbatical—one that she did not want to take, but which I think she enjoyed—and I hope that she never takes another. It is great to see her back in her place. Thanks to her work during that time, I know about the great work that the Leigh Spinners Mill does. It is great to hear that so many women entrepreneurs are using that platform to take their businesses forward.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
For the final question, I call Neil Duncan-Jordan.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
Sunseeker International is a luxury boat-building company in my constituency, and it employs around 2,000 people in the local area. Just before Christmas, it issued temporary lay-off notices to more than 100 workers, with the promise that they would come back to work on 27 January. As that date approaches, those workers now fear the worst. Throughout this difficult time, the company has failed to tell its staff what is happening. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that our Employment Rights Bill will ensure that employers must consult and inform their workers when they face such challenges, and will she agree to a debate in Government time on the role and importance of shipbuilding in the UK economy?
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the Government have introduced, through the Employment Rights Bill, a huge boost to workers’ rights in such situations. The Bill will shortly come back to the Chamber on Report, when we can discuss at great length the action that we want to take against fire and rehire and to support workers in the difficult circumstances that he describes.
ECO4 and Insulation Schemes
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the energy company obligation 4 and Great British insulation schemes. The Government have identified an emerging issue of poor-quality solid wall insulation installed under those two inherited schemes.
Energy company obligation 4 began in April 2022, and the Great British insulation scheme began in May 2023. Around 65,000 households have had solid wall insulation installed under the schemes. In October 2024, TrustMark, the independent body that oversees tradespeople working in homes, did routine audits and found significant examples of solid wall insulation under those schemes that did not meet the requisite standard.
At that point, TrustMark began suspending a number of the installers responsible. After officials in our Department were made aware of the issues, they asked TrustMark to conduct a much fuller audit, which concluded in mid-December. Officials informed Ministers at the start of December about the situation, and told them that early findings suggested that there were widespread cases of poor-quality installations that did not meet the required standard. Since that point, we have consulted the certification bodies responsible for overseeing the work, and the Building Safety Regulator, to understand the true scale and nature of the emerging problem.
It became clear to me that there is a serious systemic issue around ECO4 and GBIS solid wall insulation. It ranges from minor problems, such as missing or incomplete paperwork, to major problems, such as exposed insulation or poor ventilation, which, if not fixed, could lead to damp and mould. As more poor-quality work has come to light, a total of 39 businesses have been suspended from installing new solid wall insulation in people’s homes. I can inform the House that suspended installers will not be able to deliver new solid wall insulation under any Government schemes until they have fulfilled their obligations to put any issues right.
Additional on-site audits are being conducted as I speak, so that we can get a full picture of the scale of the problem and identify affected households. The auditing work continues at pace, and we have put in place a comprehensive plan for immediate repair and remediation where needed. Let me be absolutely clear about this: installers must fund any repair work themselves and carry it out as soon as possible. Consumers should not be asked to pay a penny towards the cost of getting the problems fixed.
We have instructed Ofgem, the energy regulator, to oversee that work. Ofgem will work with TrustMark and certification bodies to ensure that it is delivered at speed. Non-compliant work found through the audits is already being fixed. In the very small number of cases in which TrustMark audits found health and safety concerns, including wires not being fitted properly, the problems are being fixed urgently, with the expectation that they should be resolved within 24 hours.
Critically, I reassure the House that additional monitoring and checks are being put in place to ensure that future solid wall insulation is done to the requisite standard. It is also important to say that, based on what we know so far, we believe that the issues we have discovered are specific to solid wall insulation installed under ECO4 and GBIS. Stronger systems of checks and balances are in place for other schemes that involve local authorities and social housing providers, so we do not expect to see the same scale of problem there. However, the Government are reviewing the quality of solid wall insulation under other schemes. I will update the House on the results of that work as soon as they are available. We will continue to require the urgent remediation of any issues found across all Government energy efficiency schemes.
I know that this will be concerning news for families who have had solid wall insulation fitted through those schemes. Getting this sorted for those customers is our No. 1 priority. Since I was informed of the problems, I have worked with Ofgem to develop a full plan for assessing all affected properties and getting any problems fixed. Let me set out what our plans mean for those families. Ofgem will now oversee quality checks on all solid wall insulation installed under either scheme, to identify households that might be affected. That will begin with every measure being examined over the coming weeks by qualified professionals, and that will include looking at photographic evidence. If a quality check raises issues, the certification body that oversees the installer, or TrustMark, will arrange an inspection of the property and the problem will be fixed as soon as possible. Installers will be required to provide evidence to TrustMark that issues have been properly fixed. Let me reiterate our assurance that where solid wall insulation under the schemes has not been done right, consumers should not have to pay a penny to fix that.
We are clear that the responsibility for finding and fixing any problems lies with those who carried out the work. Consumers do not need to take any action now. However, given the inevitable concern among those who have had those measures installed, all households with solid wall insulation fitted under the schemes will be sent a letter from Ofgem in the next three weeks. It will set out the steps that we are taking, and how households can proactively raise concerns. We are also setting up a gov.uk advice page specifically for those affected.
The Government are moving fast to protect households, but I must be honest with the House: these issues are the result of years of failure in a system that must be reformed. Home upgrades are, we believe, one of the best tools to get bills down for good and deliver warm homes. That is why our warm homes plan will cut bills for millions of households by upgrading their homes, including with solar panels, batteries, heat pumps and energy efficiency measures such as double glazing and loft insulation. However, the Government have inherited a fragmented and confusing system of protections for people who want to insulate their homes—too many organisations with different roles and responsibilities, not enough clarity for consumers about who to turn to if things go wrong, and problems that should have been picked up earlier being missed. The system is in dire need of reform.
Installers are responsible for poor-quality installations, but they have been allowed to operate in a failed system that has left some households exposed to bad practices. The system can no longer command confidence, which is why we are committed to overhauling it, and to driving up quality and protecting consumers through the warm homes plan. We will look at the entire landscape —from how installers work in people’s homes and are certified and monitored, to where homeowners turn for rapid action and enforcement if things go wrong—and we will ensure that there is more of a guiding mind overseeing upgrades across the system.
The steps I have set out demonstrate that the Government will do whatever it takes to protect consumers. We will regularly report back to the House about the steps being taken. We have set up a process through which colleagues from across the House can raise concerns about their constituents. Above all, we are determined to ensure that families are never let down in this way again. We will put in place a robust system of compliance, audit and regulation, so that consumers have the confidence to take up the offer of upgrading their homes. We will do what is necessary to ensure that families can have warmer homes and lower bills. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Minister.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement, and for taking the time to meet me this morning prior to making the statement.
The ECO scheme and the Great British insulation scheme were set up because we know that improving the energy efficiency of homes is one of the best ways to cut energy bills and keep people warm. This is especially the case for those who are in fuel poverty. When we took office in 2010, just 14% of homes in this country had an energy performance rating of A to C; today, that figure is around 50%, and for social housing, we went from 24% in 2010 to 70% today. That is a record that we are proud of—a record of reducing bills for households and keeping families warm. Almost half of the measures installed under GBIS have been in low-income households.
Solid wall insulation is a small proportion of the overall work that the ECO scheme and the Great British insulation scheme undertook. The vast majority of installations under those schemes have been cavity wall and loft insulation, alongside installations of smart thermostats and boiler upgrades under the ECO scheme. However, it is deeply concerning that examples of substandard solid wall insulation have been identified in some of the installations under those schemes. We of course support the action that the Minister has announced today, and Ofgem being given responsibility for overseeing the repairs and remediation, and it is right to conduct additional on-site audits to inform action moving forward. I thank TrustMark for the work it has done to identify examples of poor-quality solid wall insulation, and we also welcome the fact that there will be a review of the quality of solid wall insulation under other schemes. It is absolutely right for installers to fund the repair work, and to ensure that the situation is remedied for affected households as soon as possible. Nobody should have to live in a house with damp or mould as a result of poor-quality insulation.
Could the Minister, in addition to taking the action that she outlined in her statement, please answer the following questions? First, have the audits undertaken so far identified what proportion of the solid wall insulations are affected by poor-quality work? Can she confirm that all 39 companies that have been suspended still exist, and set out the mechanism by which they will be required to remedy their work? What action is being taken to make sure that remedial work is of the required standard, to ensure that consumers are protected from yet more poor-quality work? What action is the Minister taking to make sure that everyone who had solid wall insulation installed under the schemes is informed promptly and in full, and that nobody will be missed? Will she publish a full list of the 39 companies suspended from the scheme for carrying out poor-quality work, and has the Department considered taking legal action against them?
Members in all parts of the House want to ensure that families have a warm and comfortable home that is efficient and cheap to run. The Minister has our assurance that we will work cross-party to ensure remediation for those affected.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for his response. I am glad that there is consensus across the House that energy efficiency measures and home upgrades are key to delivering warmer homes and lower bills, and I hope all Members are supportive of the action the Government are taking.
In answer to the hon. Member’s questions, we are still conducting audits to get a full picture. From sampling that has been done—I stress that the sampling was geared towards the installers that we thought were most risky—it seems that a significant proportion of that sample has major issues, which is why we are taking this action. On the 39 installers that have been suspended, we are working through certification bodies and TrustMark to require them to go into households and remediate the work. In the cases that we have audited, that is happening. The vast majority of installers want to do the right thing and want to do a good job, and where issues have been flagged, they are repairing the work. Where we think there are problems, we have mechanisms in place for making sure that the installers deliver on their obligations, and the guarantee system acts as a backstop.
A crucial question is how we ensure both that where remediation work is being done, it is being done to the right standard, and that future solid wall insulations are done to a better standard. We are putting in place additional spot checks across the piece to make sure that where work has been remediated, it has been done to the required standard, and critically, all solid wall insulations will be given more monitoring and checks. Suppliers have committed to that, so that when people are having this work done, they can be confident that it is being done to a much better standard than we have seen.
On keeping everyone informed, we will be writing through Ofgem to all households that have had solid wall insulation installed. We will be doing quality checks on all 65,000 solid wall insulations. I should stress that we hope the vast majority of those will be okay and that any issues will be minor, but we want to do a quality check across the piece. Our priority is getting in, making sure we are doing a proper inspection of the property, and getting key issues remediated as quickly as possible. Through all of that, our priority is the consumer, whose experience has to be as hassle-free, stress-free and cost-free as possible. This should never have happened in the first place, and we are determined to get this right and fix it on those consumers’ behalf.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Ind)
As the Minister knows, I have long campaigned in this area, and I am grateful to her for meeting my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) and myself, along with the SSB victims support group, last year to discuss these important issues. As such, I welcome the concrete steps that the Minister intends to take in this area. She will know that many of the victims of the SSB Law scandal were directly impacted through faulty cavity wall insulation, but the steps that the Minister has outlined today are about solid wall insulation. Can she confirm that exactly the same actions will be taken when we are dealing with cavity wall insulation, and if not, why not? Will she also agree to make sure that compensation is available—whether through remedial work or in other ways—for all those impacted by the cavity wall insulation scandal?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank my hon. Friend for his avid and consistent campaigning on these issues. As he knows, there is an ongoing investigation into the case of SSB Law at the moment.
To answer my hon. Friend’s specific question, for any insulation that is installed under Government schemes, we expect that the system will kick in and respond. We are aware of cases that have been raised with TrustMark and other bodies, and we are working to make sure those are remediated. Where the insulation has not been installed under a Government scheme—we have examples of that, where constituents have engaged with insulation schemes that are not Government schemes—there is a different set of mechanisms. We are working with the system to make sure we are responding to households, because as I have said, this is not the fault of individual households; the system is not working properly. We are going to prioritise Government schemes, because we have the levers, but we recognise that there is an issue for households that have had work done outside Government schemes.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. I can only imagine the frustration that consumers feel when they go through the quite often complicated process of trying to upgrade their home to bring down their bills for good, only to be met with substandard work and a subsequent lack of enforcement. Liberal Democrat Members recognise that the Government have inherited a fragmented and confusing system, and that the focus today is on consumers and on remedial work affecting the shoddy work they have had installed. I am glad that the Government are committed to ensuring that the onus of that remedial work does not land in the pockets of consumers.
We agree that the system needs a complete overhaul, especially since the last Conservative Government left the Great British insulation scheme falling woefully short of the targets it set for itself and supporting far too few people far too slowly, while some who did receive installations have found them to be well below the required standard. If faults are found with other energy efficiency measures, will the Minister guarantee that consumers do not have to pay a penny for those, as for the ones she has highlighted? How soon can consumers expect their quality checks to be delivered, and will priority be given to households in fuel poverty as well as to the elderly and the vulnerable?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member, and I am again glad to hear that she agrees we need a big overhaul of the system, which is absolutely our focus and our commitment. On other measures under ECO and GBIS, audits are not finding the same scale of systemic problems. We think the problem is focused on solid wall insulation in particular. We are doing stress tests and additional audits of other measures to make sure, but we think there is a specific problem with those measures, so we are focusing on them and moving at pace to get them remediated. Where we are finding major issues, we are setting expectations that that work is prioritised, and installers are coming in and remediating it as soon as possible.
Under the existing publicly available specification framework, remediation after installers have not put the work right has to be done within 12 weeks, and we are setting the expectation so the system moves at pace to respond to consumers. We will absolutely be looking to prioritise households in fuel poverty and vulnerable households. We are doing two things: we are contacting them, but we will also create the ability for people to reach out if they are worried or vulnerable, so that we are doing the necessary triaging and, critically, getting into properties to fix work that has not been done right.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
I sincerely thank the Minister for her great work on this. In the six months she has been in post, she has made more progress than the last lot did in 14 years. This has been a serious problem for victims in Burnley, so I thank her. I am glad she is looking at earlier schemes, too, because many homes have fallen victim to cowboy builders and failed insulation over several years. I look forward to her updates on earlier schemes, which needed to be actioned by the previous Government but were not, and were ignored for an awful long time. I particularly welcome the stronger regulation, the clarity for consumers and the clear process for complaints, which will make a genuine difference.
I have two questions. Will the bans on particular companies follow the directors of those companies? Too often, we have seen companies being established and putting in poor insulation, and then the directors go away, extinguish the company and start again somewhere else. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) asked, will this cover cavity wall insulation where it has been Government-backed?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he has done on this, and for engaging with me and my Department. We are aware of instances where companies have folded so as not to deliver on their obligation to remediate work, and have then set up again. We are putting in place processes through the certification bodies to mitigate that, with a clear expectation that companies will not be taken on by another certification body if they do not get the work right.
Our priority at the moment is solid wall insulation, because that is where we think there is an immediate problem with ECO and GBIS. We are aware, from Members contacting us, of the wider issues that need to be addressed. I come back to the fact that we understand that the system has not been working for consumers. Quite frankly, the quality—and quality assurance—across the system has been far too fragmented and patchy. Critically, consumer protection has not been underscored in the way it needs to be. We are looking to overhaul the system, and we are conscious that there are issues with other schemes and are thinking about the best way in which we can resolve them.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I refer the Minister to the last words in her statement, which were that the Government will “ensure that families have lower bills.” There will always be a problem with insulation in a country with a massively degraded and older housing stock, which underlines the vital importance of cheap energy. We have had a month with virtually no wind and no sun, and so-called green energy is producing hardly any of our energy. We are importing energy, we are stopping drilling in the North sea and we are not building gas-fired power stations. What about old people? Their heating allowance has been taken away, and we are crucifying them with ever higher bills. Meanwhile, China—its annual increment in emissions is more than our entire emissions—is going on pumping out emissions, and “Drill, baby” Trump is pumping out emissions. Why are we crucifying our old people?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that the status quo is not fit for purpose. He says we should not take action, yet the last Government presided over the worst energy crisis we have seen for a generation. Over the past two and a half years, we saw his model result in record energy bills. The Conservatives were willing and content to accept that, and they thought it was tenable. It is not acceptable to us. Our view is that we have to wean ourselves off our over-reliance on global fossil fuel markets that are volatile and that, critically, will not guarantee lower bills.
We are committed to delivering clean power—yes, because it delivers on our climate requirements, but critically because we think that that is the route by which we will deliver homes that are warmer and cheaper for consumers. At the heart of everything we are doing is ensuring that consumers—who rely on energy not because it is a luxury good, but because it is absolutely foundational—have energy at stable prices that they can access and afford. This is not a status quo we are willing to accept, and that is why we are taking action.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement, and I commend her for the work she has been doing. It must be said that we have inherited an almighty mess from the previous Government, which is incredibly frustrating. She will know how important this issue is to my constituency, which is rural, with too many people on low wages. We have more than our fair share of poorly insulated homes, and fuel poverty is therefore a real concern. Can the Minister reassure my residents, and I am sure many residents across the country, that the news of this latest setback will not delay progress on the improvements in rural communities such as mine?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank my hon. Friend, and we are absolutely committed to upgrading people’s homes. We believe that that is the route to delivering warmer homes that are cheaper to run, and that commitment stands for all communities. We want to move at pace with our warm homes plan because we want to deliver upgrades in people’s homes. However, we are very clear that part of that has to be an overhaul of the system, because if consumers want to go on this journey, they need to be confident that the work done will be of the utmost quality and standard, and that if things go wrong, we have proper redress systems in place. That is not what we inherited, but it is absolutely what we must deliver.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
I welcome what the Government are saying about the need to address this issue, and it will be reassuring for the very many people who have raised the problem with their MPs. However, are they also going to look at whether there is a wider problem with insulation generally, as has been mentioned, and have they had discussions with the devolved Administrations about schemes in the wider UK?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member, and yes, we have spoken to the devolved Administrations. We have spoken to the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government, and we are working closely and collaborating with them. It is important to stress that schemes operate in slightly different ways. In the case of the Welsh Administration, we think greater checks and balances are in place in the schemes with local authorities and social housing providers. I think there is a collective appetite and desire to work together, because everyone agrees that home upgrades are fundamental to delivering warmer homes and cheaper bills. We need to get the delivery right to make sure we deliver at the scale and pace of our ambition, but do so with quality at the heart of it.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement. Parts of my constituency are 1,000 feet above sea level and our winters can be bitter, so good-quality insulation schemes are really important. I welcome the Minister’s emphasis on much better standards, but on a wider scale, can she please tell me how she is going to grow the workforce needed to deliver these initiatives for the future?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: building the supply chain and the workforce will be critical to delivering the pace and the scale of our ambition. We are already putting in place training schemes to build up the next generation of installers, and we are working with local and regional government on how to build our supply chain. A key part of the warm homes plan will be working with a range of organisations from local to national level to build the supply chain and ensure that, through that, we are delivering quality jobs that pay a decent wage. This is a big opportunity. There is an opportunity for consumers, but we also believe that this is good for the economy, including particular local economies, and working with local and regional government to ensure that we realise that is a priority.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
I thank the Minister for her statement, in which she confirmed that the 39 suspended companies are suspended from providing new solid wall insulation under the scheme. Are they also suspended from providing other sorts of insulation, such as external, loft and cavity wall insulation?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We have suspended the 39 companies, and under Government schemes they will not be doing any work on solid wall insulation. The vast majority, particularly those installers that TrustMark believes are risky, are prohibited from doing other work. Where we have evidence that some of the companies are delivering loft insulation, for example, and other measures to standard, they are allowed to do that, but we are keeping this closely under review. TrustMark is looking at the 39 companies constantly, and there is a big onus on the requirement on those companies to deliver and remediate the work in order to be able to any further work.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister on her sterling work to tackle this minefield of rogue companies who abuse the good will of residents when installing energy saving measures, by scamming them with substandard products and damaging their homes. Will she work with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to consider extending the scope of this excellent regulation to look at spray foam insulation? My historic market town constituency of Shrewsbury has many beautiful older properties and many older residents. It saddens me that it was elderly residents such as David and Sue, and Mr and Mrs Balcombe, who were approached by ruthless companies offering spray foam insultation, despite the fact that it was inappropriate for their older properties. As a consequence of the damage caused, those families have faced bill after bill for surveys and remedial work, costing tens of thousands of pounds. Crucially, they are now struggling to sell their homes, as lenders will not approve mortgages for homes with faulty spray foam insulation. David and Sue now face bills to replace their roof, and sadly Mr Balcombe passed away recently, leaving his widow to continue the fight for a resolution to this nightmare. May I ask that families such as those be considered for the same enhanced regulation and compensation scheme?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issues in her constituency. We are aware of the issues with spray foam insulation—indeed, a number of Members from across the House have raised it with us—and we are working with MHCLG. For example, we have done a lot of work on mortgages, and have worked with lenders to ensure that there is not a blanket policy of not giving mortgages where there is spray foam insulation within the property. We acknowledge that there is a problem and that we need to strengthen the regulation, assurance and consumer protection across the piece with all energy efficiency measures. That is why, alongside remediating the immediate issues that we find within ECO4 and GBIS, we are working at pace to deliver wholesale regulation of the way the system works.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Over the past 14 years, I have regularly raised the building industry and its failures to provide decent homes of decent quality. The one strand that follows all the way through is the failure properly to inspect independently work that has been carried out, to certify it, and to ensure that it is fit for purpose. Will the Minister ensure that, beyond the current audit, all future work is properly inspected, certified and signed off, so that the people receiving the insulation can feel confident that the work has been done properly?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The hon. Gentleman is right. There is a poor and weak system of inspection, certification and assurance. We believe that that is one of the reasons why we have ended up where we have, and we are clear that we must reform that part of the landscape. In the end, we must command the trust and confidence of consumers, and problems such as this fundamentally undermine that trust and confidence. As part of reforming the system we will look at how we inspect work when it is done, how we monitor what has been done and, critically, how we can have that assurance so that when consumers have work done, they can be confident that it is done to the highest standard.
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
I commend the Minister for her statement. I have heard from many constituents in Pembrokeshire who have been affected by these schemes, with incorrect insulations of air source heat pumps, faulty or shoddy building work, lack of valid warranties, grant misuse, and regulators such as TrustMark simply siding with the contractors. All of that has a disproportionate effect on vulnerable groups. Does the Minister agree that it is only thanks to this Labour Government that we are finally sorting out the failed system of regulation?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the problems we are finding across the piece. We are clear that the system we inherited is not fit for purpose. It is a patchwork of disjointed, fragmented regulation and consumer protection, it is frankly a nightmare for consumers to navigate through, and it is not fit for purpose. There has to be a root and branch overview of how the system works. Our priority is to ensure that if consumers choose to do home upgrades, it is as easy as possible for them to navigate the system, and they can have quality. The difference between this Government and the previous one is that we believe there is a role for Government. There has to be a guiding mind overseeing home upgrades across the piece, and we must ensure that the system is delivering for consumers.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I welcome today’s statement, but it is not just about solid wall insulation. It is not right that anybody has to take any ECO4 supplier to the small claims court to get recompense for fixing shoddy work. TrustMark as a process is intrinsically ill-designed to protect vulnerable people, because it presumes that acceptance of a supplier on to the scheme is a sufficient safeguard. Will the Minister consider—I bear in mind what she has already said—empowering local authorities to sign off work before a penny is paid?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The right hon. Member is right to highlight the important role that local authorities can play. Across the country, including in Wales, where local authorities or regional government are overseeing this work and providing additional quality and checks, we are not seeing the same scope of problems. We are looking at this in the round. We are clear that the status quo is not fit for purpose and that we must put in additional checks, balances and assurances. We think there are lessons to be learned from what is happening in Wales and Scotland, and what is happening in regional and local government.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement, and congratulate her on the detail with which she is answering questions and on showing how much she is on top of her brief. Only on Friday, a constituent came to see me who had a new boiler fitted and insulation done under an ECO grant. The work had been subcontracted by the company that originally won the contract, and that something that exacerbates the problem. That company clearly was not up to the standard required to carry out the work, and lots of remedial work was required. How can we ensure that the people who win these contracts do not subcontract to companies that are not capable of carrying out the work, meaning that we end up with the situations the Minister has described?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is right to highlight subcontracting within the system. Often we find that subcontracting is happening two or three times, and the starting client is not overseeing the work in the way that they should. That is why we are clear that we must look at the entire system, and part of that is looking at who is delivering the work, how they are delivering it, and how we ensure that there is proper accountability in the system. It is obvious to me that the current system does not allow for that accountability, and that is what puts consumers in a difficult position.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I am sure the Minister will recall our intimate Adjournment debate before the House rose for the Christmas recess—it was just her and me here. [Interruption.] Yes, and it was the day after our Christmas party, so it was an interesting debate.
I sincerely welcome the steps that the Minister has outlined for solid wall insulation. The problem I have is that, fundamentally, all these issues apply to spray foam insulation, as I said in my Adjournment debate. There are blanket bans by some mortgage providers: research by the BBC showed that one in three of the top 12 mortgage lenders have such policies. I am more than happy to send on that information again. There is a real issue of fairness and justice here. It is right that we are seeking to get this right for people done wrong by those who have not installed insulation to spec, but the same must be true for those who are victims of the spray foam insulation scandal, including my constituents Tom and Norma in Knaresborough.
The Minister has acknowledged in her statement that there are systemic issues, that TrustMark is not doing its work and that there are to be audits of solid wall insulation. However, when I asked whether there was an understanding of how many people had been impacted by spray foam insulation, I was told that there was not a number. How can it be that we are counting how much of one sort of insulation has been installed, but not another? Some 250,000 people have been affected by spray foam insulation. Will she give justice to them, too?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for all the work he has done on spray foam insulation and the campaigning he has done for his constituents. I fondly remember that Adjournment debate with just the two of us, and I vividly remember the stories he told of Tom and Norma. I reiterate the commitment to work together to try to resolve this.
The difference between spray foam insulation and work done under the ECO and GBIS schemes is that, because those are Government-backed schemes, we have the data. Large numbers of people have had spray foam installed, and some but not all of that work was done through the green homes grant.
We recognise that there is a problem with the system of quality assurance and regulation across the piece—we have acknowledged that very clearly in the House. We will continue to work with MHCLG and other colleagues to think about what we can do on spray foam. The priority, as the hon. Member will understand, is households who have had work done under ECO and GBIS that, if we do not fix it quickly, could result in damp and mould. We must act quickly on that. However, I acknowledge that there is an issue with households that had spray foam insulation done under the old system. As I said when we had the debate, we will continue work to think about ways in which we can resolve that for those households.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement and, in particular, her remarks on consumer protection. Following on from the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), a constituent recently told me at my surgery about work carried out on their home under the last Government’s green homes grant. Following spray foam insulation being put into their loft, they have a leaking roof that cannot be accessed, as well as damp that was not there previously. Those issues have had a huge detrimental impact on their lives. They find themselves unable to afford remedial works amounting to thousands of pounds. What message can the Minister share with my constituents? Will she meet me to discuss spray foam insulation installed under the green homes grant scheme?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I will absolutely meet my hon. Friend to discuss spray foam insulation. Given the correspondence and parliamentary questions I have received on this issue, I offer to meet with hon. Members more broadly, because we need to ensure that we are listening to constituents. If the work was done under the green homes grant, we need to think about how we can get the system to respond as it should. I give that commitment to him and other hon. Members across the House who have cases in their constituencies and are worried about this.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I apologise to the Minister, because like the hon. Members for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) and for Bolton West (Phil Brickell), and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), I will raise the issue of spray foam. My constituent Matt was told that his house was unmortgageable with the nation’s largest building society, despite his paying extra for an extensive survey of his timbers to prove that there was no problem. He has since been forced to replace his roof at a cost of £21,000 just to get a chance to remortgage and perhaps one day sell his house. The roofing companies told him that the market is booming for spray foam removal by the very same people who put it in, which feels like exploitation. How will the Government address that, and why are Government sites still promoting and recommending spray foam insulation?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
It is important to stress that the Government never recommend a particular solution. The approach that the last Government took and that we have adopted is that, in the end, people have to find the right measure for their home. We never promote any particular measure.
I acknowledge that there is a problem with spray foam, and that installers in the market are putting spray foam in properties where it is not fit for purpose. We have been doing a lot of work with colleagues at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to respond to that point about lenders. If there are specific cases where a lender finds something problematic despite a survey saying that it was absolutely fine, please feed that through to us, as we are continuing to work with the industry on that. There should not be a blanket ban.
It is important to stress that where spray foam insulation is carried out well and is appropriate for a property, it is a good thing, but I agree that there are too many cases where it has not been carried out well and is not appropriate. I therefore extend an offer to meet. We need to think about what we will do in response. We have inherited this system, and I wish I could change the past, but I cannot. What we can do is draw a line under it. We can absolutely ensure that we reform the system so that this never happens again, and so that we can command the trust of consumers.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
My constituents have unfortunately faced a double whammy of not only having had defective cavity wall insulation installed, but being pursued by law firms such as SSB for adverse legal costs. Consumers were badly let down, and we need to ensure that does not happen again. Will the Minister assure us that this will not happen again under future programmes, such as the new warm homes plan? On pipelines, are the Government working cross-departmentally to ensure that we have the right skills and training for future programmes? We want to ensure confidence in the system.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Let me reassure my hon. Friend that we are absolutely working to ensure that the lessons learned from the schemes we inherited are applied to the warm homes plan as we develop it, and that we put in place systems for checks, assurance and advice, so that consumers can have confidence. We are working across Government, because building up the supply chain and making sure that we have installers with the skills to do the work well is an absolute priority. We are working to deliver that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for a comprehensive response and, as importantly, for giving hope to all those people affected. That assures people and gives them confidence through their elected representatives in this House. In Northern Ireland, we have the affordable warmth scheme, which is different, but the goals are the same. Shortcomings have been identified; will the Minister be so helpful as to share the lessons learned with the Northern Ireland Assembly and the relevant Northern Ireland Minister? That is vital. If something goes wrong here, the lessons learned could help us to solve problems in Northern Ireland.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We will engage with colleagues in Northern Ireland. We are working closely with all the devolved Administrations. We are building up the evidence base on what happened and thinking about our response, and we are keen to share with other authorities any insights that we gain.
Holocaust Memorial Day
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Holocaust Memorial Day.
It is an immense privilege to open this important debate on behalf of the Government. As hon. Members will know, 80 years ago this month, soldiers of the Soviet 60th Army of the First Ukrainian Front opened the gates of Auschwitz-Birkenau. That infamous camp has become the symbol of the Shoah and is synonymous around the world with terror and genocide more widely. Its distinctive railway tracks that led almost directly to the gas chambers, as well as the chilling words over the gate of the Auschwitz I main camp, “Arbeit macht frei”, are instantly recognisable, as are the piles of shoes, suitcases and other personal effects—the only remnants of the more than 1 million Jewish men, women and children from every corner of Europe who perished at the site.
Almost all the deportees who arrived at Auschwitz-Birkenau camps were immediately selected for death in the gas chambers. It is estimated that the SS and police deported at least 1.3 million people to the complex between 1940 and 1945. Of these, the camp authorities murdered 1.1 million.
On Monday, world leaders will gather at Auschwitz-Birkenau to mark the 80th anniversary of its liberation. The United Kingdom will be represented by His Majesty the King. Mala Tribich MBE, Holocaust survivor and sister of the late Sir Ben Helfgott—may his memory be a blessing—will also attend. The number of those who survived the Shoah is dwindling, as you will know, Madam Deputy Speaker. Those who remain with us grow ever frailer. As a result, this is likely to be the last gathering of Holocaust survivors.
Eighty years ago, the US 3rd Army 6th Armoured Division liberated Buchenwald, the largest concentration camp on German soil. General—later President—Dwight D. Eisenhower, wrote afterward:
“I have never felt able to describe my emotional reaction when I first came face to face with indisputable evidence of Nazi brutality and ruthless disregard of every shred of decency.”
Eighty years ago, British forces liberated concentration camps in northern Germany, including Neuengamme and Bergen-Belsen. They entered the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, which was about 45 km from Hanover, in mid-April 1945. Some 55,000 prisoners, many in critical condition because of a typhus epidemic, were found alive. Within three months of liberation, more than 13,000 of them had died from the effects of malnutrition or disease. BBC journalist Richard Dimbleby famously described the scenes of almost unimaginable horror that greeted him as he toured Belsen concentration camp shortly after its liberation.
Bergen-Belsen began as a prisoner of war camp, and was used for Jewish inmates from 1943 onwards. It is estimated that 70,000 people died there. Richard Dimbleby was the first broadcaster to enter the camp and, overcome, broke down several times while making his report. The BBC initially refused to play the report as it could not believe the scenes he had described. It was broadcast only after Dimbleby threatened to resign. The images from Belsen—emaciated figures lying half-dead on open ground in freezing weather, while thousands of corpses were bulldozed into great pits—are excruciating to see to this day. Some of the first-hand witnesses simply cannot bring themselves to speak of it. It haunts them to this day.
Over the decades, Holocaust survivors, many of whom experienced Belsen or Auschwitz, have shared their testimony, but 80 years after the Holocaust, their numbers are dwindling, and soon these first-hand witnesses will no longer be with us. The remarkable Lily Ebert MBE died aged 100 at home in London last October. Her life after Auschwitz showed that even in the face of unspeakable evil, the human spirit can triumph. She emerged from the darkness to bear harrowing witness, but also to rebuild hope with future generations. May her memory be a blessing. Henry Wuga, aged 100, and Bob Kirk, aged 99, who both came to the UK on the Kindertransport, died in 2024. Both men dedicated their lives to Holocaust education. The impact that Lily, Henry and Bob had on young and old cannot be overestimated, and highlights the importance of first-hand testimony.
Both because of the alarming rise in anti-Jewish hate in recent years, and because those who survived are now in their 80s and 90s, it is essential that as a country, we do more to preserve the memory of this unique act of evil and those who perished in it. It is also imperative that we continue to educate future generations about what happened, both as a mark of respect to those who were lost and those who survived, and as a warning about what happens when antisemitism, prejudice and hatred are allowed to flourish unchecked.
Some 27 years ago, former Swedish Prime Minister Göran Persson decided to establish an international organisation that would expand Holocaust education worldwide. He asked President Bill Clinton and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair to join him in that effort. Persson also developed the idea of an international forum of Governments interested in discussing Holocaust education, which took place in Stockholm from 27 to 29 January 2000. The forum was attended by representatives of 46 Governments, including 23 Heads of State or Prime Ministers, and 14 Deputy Prime Ministers or Ministers.
The declaration of the Stockholm international forum led to the establishment of Holocaust Memorial Day on 27 January, and the foundation of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. This year, the UK had the privilege of holding the chair of the IHRA, and it continues to have an excellent reputation in the field of Holocaust remembrance and education, and tackling antisemitism.
We are fortunate in the UK to have organisations such as the Holocaust Educational Trust, led by Karen Pollock CBE, and the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, led by Olivia Marks-Woldman OBE. The Holocaust Educational Trust, which has worked with Holocaust survivors for decades, is well aware of the increasing frailty of survivors, and that there will come a day when we no longer have living witnesses. That is why it has recently developed, with the support of the Government, Testimony360—a free digital education programme that combines digital eyewitness testimony with virtual reality, revolutionising access to survivor testimony and providing an invaluable opportunity for students learning about the Holocaust.
The UK took on the presidency of the IHRA in 2024, with the world on the cusp of significant change in Holocaust remembrance. Within a few short years, Holocaust survivors will move from contemporary memory into history books. How we remember is a matter of debate, but different views coalesce around three headings: landscape, archives—including testimony—and objects. Our presidency has successfully strengthened all three under the general title of “In plain sight”. This title is a reminder that the Holocaust did not happen in dark corners but in broad daylight. Jewish men, women and children suffered persecution in the full view of their neighbours—indeed, often by their neighbours. Laws discriminating against Jews and depriving them of rights and property were passed openly by legislatures. The attempted destruction of the Jewish people and their culture was not conducted in secret, but brazenly and openly.
Our presidency was also keen to engage young people, through our remarkably successful “My hometown” project, which invited schools across IHRA member countries to look at what happened in their hometown during the Holocaust. Schools in former occupied countries, and those receiving victims of Nazis and their collaborators, produced original and moving projects. Schools participated from as far afield as Argentina, Greece, Canada and Poland, alongside other member countries, including the UK.
Projects ranged widely in their subject matter. One focused on the influence of Holocaust survivors fleeing to Argentina on the music of Argentinian tango. In Nottingham, an amazing teacher, Domonic Townsend, from the Nottingham University Samworth Academy, worked on a remarkable project. The school houses a specialist provision unit for deaf children. Alongside the Nottinghamshire Deaf Society, Domonic created the first Holocaust-specific sign language lexicon for accessing Holocaust education, to empower our young children to access that education in an inclusive way. I urge all hon. Members to watch the video on YouTube. It is truly inspiring.
The UK presidency also worked with the Association of Jewish Refugees on our legacy project, the Holocaust testimony portal, which pulls together for the first time testimony from UK Holocaust survivors and refugees who made their home in Britain. This includes testimony from the AJR Refugee Voices initiative, the UK Holocaust Memorial Foundation, the Shoah Foundation and many more archives. Hopefully, more archives—particularly the smaller, more specialised ones—will join in the coming months. The portal allows users to find in a single place the testimonies of individual survivors across the decades.
To commemorate the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, we have developed with the AJR the digital project “80 Objects/80 Lives”, a collection of one-minute clips featuring 80 objects from filmed testimonies of British Holocaust survivors and refugees. The objects represent the personal histories and experiences of Jewish Holocaust survivors and refugees before, during and at the end of the second world war. Objects such as a teddy bear, a doll, a watch or a spoon take on special meanings; a passport stamped with the letter J, a yellow star, and a bowl from Bergen-Belsen are bittersweet remnants of a lost world.
Eighty years after the Holocaust, we sadly still contend with Holocaust denial. Some forms of denial are less common, and in some states it is now illegal and punishable under the law, but the forms that Holocaust denial can take are ever-changing. It once referred to those who claimed that 6 million Jews were not murdered, and that there were no gas chambers whatsoever; today, these outright deniers are few and mostly relegated to the fringe. The problems we face today are more complex and more subtle, and are often nuanced and difficult to identify. However, that does not render them less dangerous, or the need to challenge them less compelling. After all, we are living in an age when facts are routinely disputed, and disinformation and misinformation are rampant. This presents a real and present danger for Holocaust education, remembrance and research.
It has been a long process even for democratic countries to confront their own problematic histories. It was only in 1995 that the French Government accepted responsibility for the deportations and deaths of more than 70,000 Jews, and that Austria finally dispelled the myth of being Hitler’s “first victim” and made amends to Austrian Nazi victims.
We have all watched the misinformation emanating from Russia that tries to justify the war in Ukraine as “denazification”, but across eastern Europe fascist leaders of the past who were involved in the persecution of Jews but who fought communism are shamefully being rehabilitated and, in some cases, given public honours. Lithuania’s Genocide and Resistance Research Centre decided that the leader of the Nazi-allied Lithuanian Activist Front is worthy of such honours. Hungary’s Government built a new museum that would tread lightly on the role of local collaborators. Even in Romania, which has done so much to confront its own problematic history, the Church is canonising religious leaders who were known for their wartime antisemitism.
Other forms of distortion have come about more quietly. Following a UN recommendation, dozens of countries now mark International Holocaust Remembrance Day with special programmes and educational initiatives. This is a real achievement, but it has brought with it a universalising of the Holocaust and its meaning. There are, however, general lessons on how hatred and intolerance can lead to discrimination, exclusion and even mass murder, and the need to be open to asylum seekers fleeing for their lives.
Yet with growing frequency the essential story of the Holocaust—the pernicious spread of antisemitism, the widespread indifference and the genocidal murder of a third of the world’s Jewish population—is obscured or ignored. It is as though antisemitism is no longer a problem, and Jews are no longer threatened. Surely this cannot be the message that Holocaust commemoration carries with it. We must guard against the watering down of Holocaust Memorial Day. It is a day when central to all our commemorations should be the murder of 6 million Jewish men, women and children.
Today, Holocaust denial and distortion move instantan-eously across social media platforms and are amplified by algorithms that drive anger and division. Sadly, the alarming resurgence of antisemitism since 7 October 2023 shows how the hate of the past is still with us. Today and every day, we stand in solidarity with the Jewish community at home and abroad.
The theme for Holocaust Memorial Day 2025, “For a better future”, is particularly timely, because remembrance without resolve is a hollow gesture. Even as we remember the past, we must be ever vigilant about the present and future. That is why we have a duty to remember, and why the new Holocaust memorial and learning centre at the heart of Westminster is so important in keeping alive the memory of those murdered during the Holocaust.
Finally, it would be remiss of me not to mention the long-awaited ceasefire between Israel and Hamas that began on Sunday 19 February. As part of the agreement, we saw the release of three of the Israeli hostages who were taken from their homes and from a music festival on 7 October, and the release of hundreds of Palestinians. One of the hostages was British citizen Emily Damari, who has now been reunited with her family, including her mother Amanda, who never stopped her tireless fight to bring her daughter home. We wish all three hostages the very best as they begin the road to recovery after the intolerable trauma they have experienced.
Yet while we rightly welcome the ceasefire deal, we must not forget about those who remain in captivity under Hamas. We must now see the remaining phases of the ceasefire deal implemented in full and on schedule, including the release of the remaining hostages and a surge of humanitarian aid into Gaza. Hopefully, these first tentative steps will lead to a lasting solution, with the people of Israel and the Palestinians living side by side in peace. The UK stands ready to do everything it can to support that hope for a permanent and peaceful solution. I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is my privilege and solemn duty to open this debate on behalf of the Opposition. I thank the Minister for his very thoughtful remarks.
The theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day, “For a better future”, encourages us to reflect on the lessons of history and on the steps we must take to ensure that such atrocities never happen again. This Holocaust Memorial Day also marks the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, a place where more than 1 million Jewish people lost their lives—part of the 1.1 million victims who also included the disabled, members of the gay community and political opponents of the Nazi regime.
We should always strive to stamp out the evil that is antisemitism. It has no place in our society, or any society. Earlier this month, like others, I was honoured to sign the Holocaust Educational Trust’s book of commitment, and today I am honoured to speak in this important debate. I pay tribute to the trust for its outstanding work in keeping the memory of the Holocaust alive through educational outreach and keeping the Holocaust in our curriculum for more than 30 years. I also thank the survivors of the Holocaust for the work they have done to educate past, present and future generations on the horrors of the past and to give us lessons for the future.
My party will always support the Jewish community, so it was encouraging to see the Leader of the Opposition engaging with the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Jewish Leadership Council and the Community Security Trust to discuss the challenges facing the Jewish community. As part of my role as shadow Secretary of State, I am meeting the Jewish Leadership Council in February, and I look forward to engaging with it and other Jewish organisations in the future. Our party will continue to engage with the community in opposition, and together we reaffirm our commitment to tackling antisemitism, promoting community cohesion and holding this Government to account on these critical issues.
This debate and this period of reflection come at an important moment for the middle east, which we hope will usher in a sustainable end to the conflict. Every single hostage must be returned safely home and reunited with family and friends after 15 months of the most unimaginably cruel captivity at the hands of Hamas. We have firmly in our thoughts the victims of the 7 October terror attacks—those who lost their lives, and those whose lives have been changed forever. This was the worst terror attack in Israel’s history. We are all relieved to see the first returns of hostages back to their loved ones under the recent ceasefire agreement, including, as the Minister says, the British-Israeli national Emily Damari. We pray for their good health, and I sincerely hope they can now begin to rebuild their lives after the most unimaginable trauma. None of the hostages or their families ever deserved to be put through this nightmare.
Remembering the Holocaust is something that we must continue to do every day and every year; it cannot be forgotten. This debate is just one way of doing that, and it is the responsibility of all of us to do so in our own way. Indeed, my wife and I took our children to the Holocaust galleries at the Imperial War Museum, which was a very solemn and sobering experience for us all. That day we also visited the Kindertransport memorial at Liverpool Street station. How proud we should be of those people, such as Nicholas Winton, who played their part to help Jewish people flee the horrors of Nazi persecution, saving countless lives and offering hope to those facing darkness.
It is also important that we take this opportunity to remember all those killed in genocide around the world. We remember the atrocities in Rwanda, where over 800,000 people were murdered. This year also marks 30 years since the Srebrenica massacre in Bosnia, where more than 8,000 mainly men and boys were killed in just a few days by Bosnian Serb forces. Most were killed in an organised and systemic fashion, blindfolded and shot. While it was mainly men and boys who were murdered, thousands of women and girls suffered unthinkable violence and sexual abuse, including rape and torture, with thousands more, including children and the elderly, abused and displaced.
Those horrors remind us of the vital importance of standing against hate wherever it arises. That is why this debate on Holocaust Memorial Day is so important. We must stamp out antisemitism and stop it impacting the lives of British Jews and Jews around the world, but we also owe it to the memory of all victims of genocide to educate future generations and to work tirelessly to prevent history repeating itself. Let us honour their memory by building a better future, free from hate, division and violence.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
Each year, Holocaust Memorial Day serves as a powerful reminder of the horrors that humanity is capable of inflicting, and of where antisemitism can lead. For me, this day is not just a time to remember the 6 million Jews murdered across Europe, but an opportunity to reflect on their personal stories, including my own family’s. Critically, this day is also a chance to renew our solemn pledge, “Never again,” which has particular meaning for me and my family.
My father is a Holocaust survivor. He was born in Budapest in 1943. In spring 1944, after Nazi Germany invaded Hungary, he was herded, along with tens of thousands of other Jews, into the ghetto in Munkács, his mother’s hometown. Over just two months, more than 437,000 Hungarian Jews were deported to Auschwitz, the vast majority of whom were murdered. Many members of my family counted among their number and did not survive, but my father did and so did my grandmother, thanks to the extraordinary bravery of a woman named Maria. In a last desperate throw of the dice, my family entrusted my infant father to her care. She risked everything to smuggle him, and a short time later my grandmother, out of the ghetto just days before it was liquidated. Maria’s courage was extraordinary. Her willingness to risk her own freedom, and maybe even her own life, for a stranger and her child is a testament to the power of human decency even in the darkest of times.
I often think of what the last tearful meeting, where my great-grandparents bade farewell to my father, barely 10 months old, knowing that they would never see him again, must have been like. I think of my grandmother, forced to live under a false identity for the remainder of the war, not knowing what happened to her family. And I think of Maria, whom I never met and who I know little about, but to whom I owe so much. In these moments, the enormity of what happened hits me hardest.
A few years ago, I took my family to the Holocaust memorial at Yad Vashem. There, in its files of those who perished, I looked up my family on my father’s father’s side. Now, my name is pretty unusual, but among the names of those who were murdered I found literally hundreds of Duschinskys. I know I am not alone in that; my family’s story is far from unique. There are millions of Jewish families with stories like mine: stories of loss, trauma and persecution, but also of survival. And not just Jewish families; there are so many others—other victims of Nazi persecution, as well as survivors of the Rwandan genocide, and those in Bosnia, Darfur and Cambodia, who have similar stories to tell. Victims of hatred, victims of persecution, they are bound together by a common experience and a common humanity.
Holocaust Memorial Day is particularly important this year. It comes at a moment of dawning hope after 15 months of darkness, with the release of three hostages, including Emily Damari, and a ceasefire in Gaza. I pray for the safe release of all the hostages, for the ceasefire to be sustained, and for us to take the first steps towards a sustained peace.
But 27 January is also critically important this year because it marks the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. It is a hugely significant milestone. For those of us who know survivors, it will be the last major anniversary when we have them with us. In Hendon, we are enormously proud of the work of our local survivors, including Manfred Goldberg, Renee Salt, Vera Schaufeld, Peter and Marianne Summerfield, and my good friend Rabbi Bernd Koschland, all of whom have done so much work to raise awareness.
Yet with each anniversary, the Holocaust slowly but surely slips from living memory. As the generation of survivors passes on, so the responsibility falls upon us to ensure that their stories endure. The torch of remembrance is being passed and it is down to us, the people here today, to safeguard the memory of the Holocaust: to spread understanding, tell its stories and keep them alive for our children and grandchildren. This is not just about the numbers and statistics; we must remember the people, the families, the communities. We must speak for them and, where we can, make sure their stories and voices are heard, especially in an age when misinformation proliferates. When truth competes with a blizzard of distortions and lies, and when conspiratorial thinking and shrill rhetoric numbs us to true horror, we cannot rely on the facts of the Holocaust alone to speak for themselves. We must tell its stories insistently and repeatedly, and make sure they reach every ear.
That is why the work of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust in running Holocaust Memorial Day is so important, and why the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust, the Association of Jewish Refugees and so many other charities is so vital. It is why the Government’s pledge to ensure that the Holocaust will be at the core of a national curriculum that is taught in every school is so welcome, as is the extra £2 million in funding for the HET. It is also why the deep personal commitment of the Prime Minister, seen in his strong advocacy and his recent trip to Auschwitz, is so critical.
This anniversary is not just about remembering. It is about reaffirming our collective commitment to the values that ensure such atrocities can never happen again. That is why the importance of Holocaust Memorial Day cannot be overstated. It is not only a time of reflection, but a time of vigilance and a time when we renew our vow to act, because, as history often reminds us, prejudice and bigotry are light sleepers. At a time when antisemitic incidents are up over 1,500%, we can see that hatred, particularly the world’s oldest hatred, is never fully vanquished. It must be fought and defeated anew with every generation.
In Britain, we take pride in our pluralistic society, a society where people are free to practice their religion, express their identity and live without fear of persecution, but we must always remember that those freedoms must never be taken for granted. They are the product of a long history of struggle and sacrifice, and they are something we must constantly protect and defend in our politics, our rhetoric and our daily lives. We can all play our part. This coming Monday, at 7 pm, I urge everyone who can to tune in to BBC One for the national ceremony of commemoration. At 8pm, I ask everyone to light a candle and put it in their window— a light in the darkness to keep memory alive.
The theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day is “For a better future.” The path to a better future, one where tolerance and mutual respect trumps division and bigotry, lies in a steadfast defence of our values and a willingness to confront hate. The foundation of this determination in turn rests on our collective remembrance of the Holocaust and our determination to tell its stories and echo its truth down the generations. I know something about that, because that is the path my family trod. It seems unlikely that a baby boy in a ghetto leaving his family in the arms of a stranger might be on a path to a better future, but because of their decency and bravery he found his way to a place of safety. He travelled to a new country that was a bastion of those values, a country in which his son was able to carry his family name, a name that was on the verge of extinction, into Parliament and sit surrounded by so many colleagues whose own family stories are marked by hardship and oppression. That is why I am so proud to sit here and to be a co-sponsor of this debate. The lesson this journey teaches us is that a path to a better future is possible if we work together to build it. On this Holocaust Memorial Day, we should renew our determination to strive to build it every day.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
It is a privilege to speak in this debate, and it is humbling to follow the hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky); I thank him for his incredible testimony about his family.
I pay tribute to Mr Speaker and his office for the moving parliamentary ceremony yesterday, especially the testimony of Yisrael and Alf, who both survived the Nazi Holocaust. To mark this event in the same week as the fragile ceasefire in the middle east and the release of Emily Damari and two other hostages makes it even more poignant.
When my son Isaac was nine, his school, Springdale First, held a world war two tea. Children were invited to bring a grandparent to share their memories of living through the war, but he came home distressed because my parents—his grandparents—were not born until several years after its end. Being an ingenious child, he knocked on the door of our neighbour Margaret and asked her to be his adoptive grandmother for the day, so that she could share her memories with his classmates and enjoy the wartime entertainment, which included his singing of “We’ll Meet Again”. I tell this story because, as the living memory of the Holocaust reduces, it is more important than ever that each of us keeps it alive through our own annual acts of remembrance and in calling out antisemitism and all acts of discrimination and hate against groups because of their faith, nationality or identity.
Twelve years ago, I visited Israel and Palestine as part of a Liberal Democrat delegation, during which we made a trip to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust museum. The experience stays with me for many reasons, but the thing that struck me hardest was what came well before the death camps like Auschwitz: a decade of dehumanising a whole community; of families being rewarded with crates of beer for betraying their neighbours; of the boycotting of Jewish businesses, the burning of Jewish authored books and, most strikingly, the sale of ashtrays depicting so-called Jewish faces on them, so that people could stub out cigarettes on their faces, helping to foster the feeling that Jews were not really people at all.
Last Sunday, I attended a Holocaust memorial event in Wimborne Minster in my constituency. The service, which can be seen on the minster’s YouTube page, was based around the book “Violins of Hope” and accompanied by the haunting playing of pieces of music reminiscent of that time by classical violinist Emma-Marie Kabanova, herself a refugee from Ukraine.
As well as the accounts of those whose music continued to be played in the camps, maintaining hope and retaining their humanity, some of the testimony we heard shared more about what came before the war—how Jewish people were forced to leave their homes and their businesses, how they fled in boats from European shores to reach Palestine but were refused landing or, worse, died at sea. I closed my eyes to listen to the simplicity of the violin played in the minster, as the words of those who lived through that horror were shared with us all. The contrast between the evil perpetrated in the name of power and ideology and the selflessness of those condemned to death for something they could not control was incredibly moving.
By the end of the Holocaust, as we know, 6 million Jewish men, women and children had been murdered in ghettos, mass shootings, concentration camps and death camps. In addition, and often forgotten, were the other groups targeted by the Nazis for extermination, among them Romani Gypsies, those with disabilities, gay and bisexual men and black people.
This year carries a special significance, as we mark 80 years since the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. Next Sunday I will be attending the Poole Lighthouse Holocaust memorial event, as I do every year, at which candles are lit for the victims of not only the Nazi Holocaust but later genocides, all of which unbelievably occurred within my lifetime, in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur. That is what Holocaust Memorial Day is for: looking backwards to look forwards.
The theme of Holocaust Memorial Day this year is “For a better future”, so I return to my son, Isaac. At the age of 12, he joined his fellow Broadstone scouts on a European adventure focused on world war two. They travelled across several countries, alternating light-hearted activity days with visits to the Colditz castle prisoner of war camp, to Auschwitz and, on their return, to the Menin Gate to see the war graves and witness the last post at sunset. We thought carefully about whether he was too young for such a trip and whether he could really understand what he was seeing, but I have seen the positive impact of that trip on him. The relationship that we all build with history and truth goes some way to structuring our perspectives in adulthood and preventing our susceptibility to dangerous narratives.
The work of the Holocaust Educational Trust in training and supporting hundreds of teachers each year to help us all learn from the past and work towards a more united future, and of the Antisemitism Policy Trust in training decision makers like us, should be commended and supported. As my party’s spokesperson for housing, communities and local government, it should not be surprising that I will say there is a role for our communities to play too. At a time of rising antisemitism and Islamophobia, many UK communities are feeling vulnerable, with hostility and suspicion of others rising. The Home Office’s own statistics revealed that the number of religious hate crimes recorded in the year to March 2024 had rocketed, which it has directly attributed to a spike in anti-Jewish hate.
We have also seen inconsistent responses from the police to language and behaviours that may well be antisemitic or viewed as hate crimes. I call on the Government to ensure that the police have the resources and, most importantly, the training they need to respond effectively and swiftly to antisemitic hate crimes, and to provide funding for security organisations such as the Community Security Trust.
We must speak up against Holocaust and genocide denial and distortion. We must challenge prejudice. We were told by Holocaust survivor Alf Garwood in Mr Speaker’s service yesterday:
“When my parents were coming to terms with their trauma after the war, I saw what their hate towards those who had destroyed our lives did to them. Hate only poisoned them.”
We must all continue to remember, and to work for peace and understanding at a time when the world feels fragile, and we in this place must lead that work together for a better future.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to listen to the powerful testimony from my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky).
Racism and antisemitism is on the rise—that is without a doubt. It is on the rise behind closed doors. It is on the rise on the dark web. It is also hiding in plain sight. We have seen an acceleration since 7 October. When my constituent Noam’s mum Ada was kidnapped and held hostage, we worked tirelessly day and night for her release, and luckily we saw that day. Noam is always saying that we must strive for peace and that only light when we enter a dark room will make us see clearly.
It is really important that we mark the Holocaust every year in this debate. Although I am not so well—I apologise for my voice today—I wanted to come in to mark this day, because hate cannot win, and we have to show time and again that there are more of us than there are of them. This debate stands as a warning of the depths of cruelty and hatred that can be released when prejudice is allowed to grow unchecked and unchallenged. We cannot allow that, especially in this place.
In my constituency, Brent council marks Holocaust Memorial Day every single year, and this year we will mark it in the iconic Wembley stadium. Local events bring people together from all backgrounds to share in remembrance, united in the mantra of “never again”, fostering greater understanding and stronger bonds within our community.
As the Holocaust Memorial Day website states:
“following the 7 October attacks in Israel by Hamas and the subsequent war in Gaza. Extremists are exploiting the situation to stir up anti-Muslim hatred in the UK. Many UK communities are feeling vulnerable, with hostility and suspicion of others rising. We hope that HMD 2025 can be an opportunity for people to come together, learn both from and about the past, and take actions to make a better future for all.
There are many things we can all do to create a better future. We can speak up against Holocaust and genocide denial and distortion; we can challenge prejudice; we can encourage others to learn about the Holocaust and more recent genocides.”
I am proud to be working with local rabbis in Brent East, such as Rabbi Mason, and others to bring everyone together, including African-Caribbean and Jewish people, to fight against the rise of prejudice and discrimination. Together we can strengthen our ability to challenge hatred in all its forms.
As we have heard, the chosen theme for Holocaust Memorial Day is “For a better future”, which calls on all of us to actively work towards creating a society that stands up against hatred and prejudice. We know that antisemitism has risen alarmingly in recent years, and we each have a responsibility to confront toxic beliefs wherever they appear, regardless of who is acting on them. We cannot afford to be gaslit and to allow hateful ideologies to resurface in the mainstream. We have a collective responsibility to call out such actions and ensure that they do not gain traction.
As we come together on this important day, we have to ensure that our remembrance is accompanied by action. Genocide and crimes against humanity are not inevitable, and we can prevent them. We must raise the alarm when we witness dangerous rhetoric and divisive actions and symbols, and we must hold perpetrators accountable. However, the reality is that people are often scared because someone else with more power says otherwise. They are scared of being incorrectly labelled, scared of the unintended consequences.
We must not forget that genocide does not come about overnight; rather, it is a gradual process. Even though it can sometimes seem scary, especially for those who are not in the in-crowd, hatred cannot and must not be normalised if we are truly to look towards a better future. If you are the last person standing and calling at the top of your voice for peace and love, that must be the ultimate goal for a better future.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler). I wish her well in her recovery from cold and flu.
I thank the Government for putting on this debate and for making sure that we continue to honour the victims of the Holocaust, and I thank the Minister for both the tone and content of his opening speech. I declare my interest as co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on Holocaust memorial since its formation in 2018, and I am also proud to chair the all-party parliamentary group on UK-Israel.
This Holocaust Memorial Day is particularly prominent and poignant, as it marks the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, the largest concentration camp during the war. Time is going quickly, and many of the courageous and inspirational survivors are sadly passing away, so it is important that we preserve their memories and stories, and teach the next generations, so that we do not make the same mistakes again. I think I have spoken in every Holocaust memorial debate since I was elected in 2010, and today I will focus on the origins of the Holocaust, and on how the United Kingdom could and should have done more to prevent it.
The Holocaust was one of the most tragic events the world has ever seen. The brutal, systematic murder of 6 million Jewish men, women and children by the Nazis in Germany and their collaborators during the second world war must always serve as a stark reminder of the evils that can be perpetrated by humankind. The Jewish genocide did not officially start until January 1939, but Jews have been irrationally targeted throughout the centuries, dating back to as early as 270 BC. I do not intend to go through the history of that.
Let us fast forward to the end of the great war, when the escalation of antisemitism was about to begin. The allied forces sanctioned Germany extremely harshly at the end of the great war. Germany had to accept full blame for the war and pay £6.6 billion—in today’s money, that is a huge amount—because of the damage it caused during the war. Alsace-Lorraine, which had been taken from France by Germany in the 1871 war, was returned to the French, and the Anschluss was banned. Germany was allowed to have only 100,000 soldiers, with no tanks and no air force, and its navy could have a maximum of six battleships. The Rhineland, an area of Germany on the border with France, was demilitarised, and Woodrow Wilson’s idea for a League of Nations was agreed to. The reparations caused immense problems for the German people, who universally believed that they were too harsh, not least because of the damage and instability that they caused to the German economy. Many held a lot of anger and were ready to shift their blame, which fell on the Jews.
Shortly after that was the great depression, sparked by the Wall Street stock market crash of 1929. Economies across the globe were affected, leading to a crisis in world trade, prices and employment. Almost overnight, the regular loans from the United States through the Dawes plan, on which the German economy depended, ceased. Hitler, a rising star in the German political scene at the time, promised that the humiliation of Versailles would be avenged and that Germany would be made great again. Many Germans believed that they had been betrayed by the high command of the army in the great war, and they were tired of endless ineffective coalition Governments following the war.
Hitler had no connections to the elite, and he offered a new beginning. Most of all, he promised jobs and bread at a time when unemployment and poverty were at extremely high levels. It is important to ask the question: if we had acted differently after the great war, would Hitler ever have come to power? Of course, we know that he did and that his Nazis embarked on a systematic and deliberate attempt at extinguishing the Jewish race across Europe.
Next Monday marks the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, which was the largest concentration and extermination camp used by the Nazis. The site consisted of Auschwitz I, which was the main camp; Auschwitz II-Birkenau, a concentration and extermination camp with gas chambers and incinerators; Auschwitz III-Monowitz, a labour camp for the chemical conglomerate IG Farben; and dozens of other sub-camps. The camps became a major site of the Nazis’ horrific final solution to the Jewish question.
Between 1942 and late 1944, freight trains delivered Jews from all over Nazi-occupied Europe, and collaborators from across those different countries joined in. A shocking 1.3 million people were sent to Auschwitz, where 1.1 million were sadly murdered. Some 960,000 were Jews, 865,000 of whom were gassed on arrival, having been singled out for immediate extinction. About 74,000 non-Jewish Poles, 21,000 Romani, 15,000 Soviet prisoners of war and 15,000 others were also killed. Those who were sent to the camp but escaped being gassed were murdered through starvation, exhaustion, disease, individual executions or beatings. Others were killed during torturous medical experiments—we should remember what that must have been like.
The first mass transport to arrive at Auschwitz, on 14 June 1940, contained 728 Polish male political prisoners, including Catholic priests and Jews. By 1942, transport was arriving regularly, containing thousands of Jews who were all earmarked for execution. If inmates were lucky enough not to be sent straight to the gas chamber on arrival, they were sent to the prisoner reception centre, where they were tattooed, shaved, disinfected and given a striped prison uniform. The horrors escalated dramatically from there. Youth and fitness for work gained prisoners a temporary reprieve from the gas chambers.
From the time they entered Auschwitz-Birkenau, everything was done to debase and dehumanise the Jews. Their immediate gassing was delayed in order to rob them of their individuality. Each was identified solely by the number that he or she was designated.
The day would start at 4.30 am with a roll call. Prisoners would walk to their place of work, wearing striped uniforms and ill-fitting wooden shoes without socks. Kapos, the prisoner supervisors, were responsible for the prisoners’ behaviour and conformity while they worked, as was an SS escort. The working day lasted 12 hours and was marked by torture and fatigue. Much of the work took place at construction sites, quarries and lumber yards. Visits to the latrines were permitted only at designated times, not when nature called. Work was carried out in the shadow and smoke of the crematoria chimneys that burned incessantly day and night, burning the bodies of murdered Jews and others, invariably including the family members of those forced to work. The belching smoke was a constant reminder of their potential fate.
In the evening, after block inspection, there was a second mandatory roll call. If a prisoner was missing, the others had to remain in place until he or she was found, or the reason for his or her absence discovered. After roll call, individual and collective punishments were meted out before the prisoners were permitted to return to their barracks for the night and receive their bread rations and water. Prisoners received a hot drink in the morning, but no breakfast, and a watery, meatless turnip soup at noon. In the evening, they received a small ration of bread. At no time did their daily intake exceed 700 calories.
Sanitary conditions were poor, with inadequate latrines and a lack of water. The camp was infested with vermin, such as disease-carrying lice. Inmates suffered and died during epidemics of typhus and other contagious diseases.
While we commemorate 80 years since Auschwitz was liberated, it is important to note that there were 23 main camps across Europe, each with a series of internal camps, totalling over 1,000 camps in all—all dedicated to the torture and extermination of the Jewish community.
To implement the final solution during the latter years of the war, the Nazis built extermination camps on Polish soil. We must remember Chelmno, Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka, Majdanek and, of course, Auschwitz-Birkenau. I commend the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Holocaust Educational Trust for their brilliant work to educate us about the horrors that people endured. I urge the Minister to confirm funding for the Holocaust Educational Trust’s wonderful “Lessons from Auschwitz” programme so that young people can learn what happened.
It is clear that the Nazis deliberately set out to kill the 6 million Jews, but there are many actions that we in the UK and the United States could have taken. Auschwitz was accessed by a vast network of rail routes, bringing trains full of Jews from across Europe. At no point did the allied forces choose to bomb those rail networks to prevent access to the camp.
In 1944, the US Department of War refused multiple requests from Jewish leaders to bomb the railway lines leading to the camps, despite 452 bombers of the 15th Air Force flying along and across the deportation railway lines on their way to bomb the Blechhammer oil refineries just weeks later.
Time and again, military commanders said that a precision strike on the camp had no chance of success. However, no study was ever made. Proposals to drop weapons into the camp to enable a rebellion were considered but abandoned. From 1942 to 1943, British intelligence was regularly able to intercept and decode radio messages sent by the German order police, which included daily prisoner returns and death tolls for the 10 concentration camps, including Auschwitz, yet no action was taken. Another common argument is that the allies did not know the numbers and the horrors of the camps until after the war, despite the fact that hundreds of prisoners escaped and described their ordeals.
The US Office of Strategic Services, the predecessor of the Central Intelligence Agency that had been established in 1941-42 to co-ordinate intelligence and espionage activities in enemy territory, had received reports about Auschwitz in 1942, but no action was taken to target the camp. On 7 April 1944, two young Jewish inmates who had escaped from the camp, Rudolf Vrba and Alfréd Wetzler, published detailed information about the camp’s geography, the gas chambers and the numbers being killed. Roswell McClelland, the US War Refugee Board representative in Switzerland, is known to have received a copy by mid-June and sent it to the board’s executive director, but no action was taken.
We are 80 years on from the liberation of Auschwitz. Antisemitism has increased significantly in the UK and globally following the 7 October attacks by Hamas and the subsequent war in Gaza. Many UK communities feel vulnerable, with hostility and suspicion of others rising. We hope that Holocaust Memorial Day 2025 can be an opportunity for people to come together, learn from and about the past, and take action to make a better future for all.
I finish on two points. First, it is extremely concerning to see the stark rise in open antisemitism on our streets following the 7 October attacks on Israel by the terrorist organisation Hamas. Jewish people are afraid to go about their lives, and have to hide their identity for fear of being attacked in their own country. We have reiterated, time and again, that the Holocaust must serve as a reminder that we must never allow such persecution of any race or religion, so we must make a conscious effort to stand up against such violations on our own streets.
Secondly, the Minister kindly mentioned the Holocaust Memorial Bill, which is going through Parliament. Sadly, as time moves forward, survivors are passing, and there are fewer and fewer to share their stories. It is crucial that we enable the Holocaust memorial to be built alongside this place, together with the education centre, so that future generations can learn the true horror of what happened during the war and pass it on to their children, so that we never allow history to repeat itself. I have had the privilege of visiting the original Yad Vashem and the modern-day Yad Vashem. Those who visit will know the horrors that the Jewish people encountered, and it is hard to express those horrors. We must make the Bill’s passage a matter of urgency, so that the few Holocaust survivors still with us can see the centre for themselves and be proud of the amazing work they have done in sharing their stories.
I leave the House with the poignant words of Sir Ben Helfgott MBE, a Holocaust survivor and successful Olympic weightlifter. His words should resonate with us all when assessing the urgency of this project:
“I look forward to one day taking my family to the new national memorial and learning centre, telling the story of Britain and the Holocaust. And one day, I hope that my children and grandchildren will take their children and grandchildren, and that they will remember all those who came before them, including my mother, Sara, my sister, Luisa, and my father, Moishe.”
Sadly, Sir Ben died last year. I have no doubt that, through the memorial and learning centre, his memory and story will live on for his children, grandchildren and generations to come, so that we can all learn the lessons of the Holocaust and vow never to repeat them.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an immense privilege to speak in this debate and express my heartfelt support for Holocaust Memorial Day. This day is not merely a reflection on a single tragedy in human history; it is a time to remember the 6 million Jewish men, women and children murdered during the Holocaust and to honour those who survived. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) for such a moving, personal speech on the importance of honouring those who survived. The theme for this year, “For a better future”, resonates deeply; it calls on each of us to reflect on our role in building a more peaceful society. It reminds us that we all share a collective responsibility to ensure that no one suffers prejudice, discrimination or violence because of their faith, ethnicity or any other characteristic.
Five weeks before the horrific massacre committed by Hamas in 2023, I had the opportunity to visit Israel and the Palestinian territories as part of a delegation. During that visit, I met leaders from both sides of a long-standing conflict. I also witnessed something that left a lasting impression on me: young people, both Jewish Israelis and Muslim Palestinians, who were critical of their leaders but united in their shared desire for peace. They, like us, want an end to the cycle of violence; and they want leadership that will guide them towards a better future. That is a message that I will hold on to.
During my visit, I had the profound honour of experiencing Yad Vashem. The exhibits, documents, testimonies and historical artefacts told a story that was truly harrowing. What struck me most was the reminder that the Holocaust did not occur in isolation or overnight, but was the culmination of years of cultivated hatred, prejudice and dehumanisation. The horror of the Holocaust was not just the atrocity itself; it was the slow erosion of civility and the gradual unravelling of humanity. That is why we must continue to resist antisemitism, Islamophobia and all discrimination and persecution in every form. Holocaust Memorial Day is about understanding how hatred creeps into society, and how we as individuals and communities must prevent them from taking root again.
Education plays a vital role in that process, and I welcome this Government’s announcement, and the focus on teaching the Holocaust, so that we ensure that pupils understand why and how it happened. More locally, I want to express my sincere gratitude to Joan Livesey for her dedication in organising Holocaust memorial events in my constituency and beyond. Her work with schools to engage young people in learning about the Holocaust is essential in ensuring that that history is never forgotten. One such event will be held at Leigh Film Factory: a poignant screening of “Sophie Scholl: The Final Days”. Those efforts are crucial. They create spaces for communities to come together to reflect on such horrific events. They also remind us of the values we must all work towards in this House: tolerance, acceptance and mutual respect for all people, regardless of their background. Wherever hatred exists, whether it is in the UK or elsewhere, we must challenge it. We must confront the language of hate and bigotry wherever it is found, and ensure that we never allow those forces to gain a foothold again.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
I am pleased to contribute to this important debate. I thank those individuals and organisations that work throughout the year to ensure that Holocaust Memorial Day is commemorated, and that our young people in particular are reminded of the horrors of the past and encouraged to work towards the peace that all right-thinking people seek.
As Members will be aware, Holocaust Memorial Day falls every year on 27 January. As has been mentioned, that is the date when the notorious Auschwitz-Birkenau camp was liberated. This year, the date marks 80 years since that liberation, and it is just as important now as it has been in any year to remember the 6 million Jewish victims of the Holocaust, and the millions of other victims of Nazi persecution, along with those who have been victims of genocides since then.
Sadly, 80 years on, antisemitism is at an all-time high, as is anti-Muslim hatred. For that reason, I want to focus on the Srebrenica genocide, which took place in July 1995 during the Bosnian war. Despite the international community pledging after the Holocaust that mass atrocities would never again occur, they have remained a feature of the world since world war two, as we saw in Bosnia just 30 years ago.
While I was working as the constituency agent for the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), I studied part time at Lincoln University for a politics degree. One of the units was on the break-up of the former Yugoslavia. When I was fortunate enough to be elected to this House, I become involved in the all-party groups for the western Balkan nations, and was then appointed the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to that region. I have visited Srebrenica on two occasions, and I challenge anyone who visits a site where genocide has taken place to be anything other than moved by the experience. How can such evil be perpetrated? There seems to be no end to man’s inhumanity to man.
The same emotions are stirred when visiting war graves in France, Belgium or elsewhere. In 2012, I was part of a delegation to Gaza. Things were bad there then, but they are much worse now. One of my abiding memories was of visiting the Commonwealth war graves cemetery there. It is small compared to many, but as we are reminded in November each year, the tombstones stand row on row. The local man and his son who cared for the graves—if I remember correctly, the man’s name was Ibrahim—did so much, with as much care as if they were tending to their own family plots. When focusing on the evil that is perpetrated in our world, we must never lose sight of the goodness exemplified by those who, like Ibrahim, show love and care—often, as in that cemetery in Gaza, for those they never knew.
Both of my visits to Srebrenica were led by our former colleague, Colonel Bob Stewart, whose affection for the country and its people was self-evident; we were privileged to witness his interaction with local people. In 1995, there were 8,372 Bosniak Muslim men and boys murdered during the massacre of Srebrenica. Those murders were mainly committed by units of the Bosnian Serb Army of Republika Srpska in what is recognised as the worst crime on European soil since world war two. I understand that the massacre in Srebrenica, a town in eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina, was the first legally recognised genocide in Europe since the end of world war two.
Those events followed Bosnia declaring independence from Yugoslavia in 1992, a move that was resisted by the Bosnian Serb population, who wanted to be part of a greater Serbia. Sadly, Bosnian Serbs were prepared to achieve that goal by isolating ethnic groups—their own neighbours—and, if necessary, exterminating them. A campaign of war crimes, ethnic cleansing and genocide was committed on the non-Serb population of the former Yugoslavia, and the Bosnian war culminated in the death of around 100,000 people and the displacement of more than 2 million men, women and children.
In July 1995, Bosnian Serb troops and paramilitaries descended on the town of Srebrenica and began shelling it. When those troops took the town, they proceeded to separate Bosniak men and boys over the age of 12 from women and younger children. Over the course of several days, more than 8,000 Bosniak Muslim men and boys were murdered in and around Srebrenica, merely because of their ethnicity. Shockingly, the perpetrators were often former neighbours, classmates and teachers of those they persecuted. They murdered both young and old; I understand that the eldest was 94 years old and the youngest nearly five. They were killed in some of the most brutal and barbaric ways imaginable, and their bodies were bulldozed into mass graves in an attempt to conceal them.
The testimony of survivors is harrowing. There are reports of children being murdered by soldiers with knives, the bodies of elderly men lying on the ground with their eyes gouged out, and the mass rape of women and even children. One can find it very difficult to believe the horrors that men are capable of, and when visiting Srebrenica, one is reminded of the evil that can take place, even in mainland Europe. In fact, it is important that we note that those atrocities did not take place in some faraway land in an age long past, but right here in Europe, on our doorstep, less than three decades ago. Many of the children who witnessed these atrocities at first hand, who saw things that no children should ever see, are adults now with young children of their own—that is how recent this genocide was.
As such, the commemoration of these events should serve as a warning to us all, particularly those in government or in positions of influence, of what can happen here in Europe, which, in the main, in the post-war period, we tend to think of as civilised, safe and secure, particularly compared with many parts of this troubled—and becoming ever more troubled—world.
Holocaust Memorial Day reminds us where prejudice, fear and hatred can lead, particularly if they become normalised and encouraged. The theme for Holocaust Memorial Day 2025 is “For a better future.” It is only by learning from the past that we can strive for that better future.
Evil can, it seems, enter the hearts and minds of men of all races and creeds. As the Service of Compline, in the Book of Common Prayer, says, we must
“be vigilant, because our adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.”
Those are stark words. Sadly, the devil can enter the hearts of people, especially when propaganda and evil leadership are involved. We must never forget the brutality of which man is capable, and it is right that we use parliamentary time to commemorate these horrific events. The atrocities now taking place across the world remind us that we must remain eternally vigilant. The UK’s voice on this matter is important and I am proud that we have contributed, over many generations, to the attempt to bring peace and stability to many troubled parts of the world.
The tragic events of the Holocaust, and of other genocides since then, such as at Srebrenica, must never be forgotten, and we must continue to speak out on this issue if we hope for our children and our grandchildren to have a better future.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
I thank the Minister and the shadow Minister for their contributions. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) for the moving story about his family.
Like many other Members who have spoken today, I too have visited Yad Vashem—in July 2023. Nothing quite prepares you to stand in the Hall of Names, surrounded by the images of those who perished in the Holocaust and the Pages of Testimony that detail their lives—lives so cruelly and brutally cut short by the greatest act of mass murder in human history. To describe them simply as victims robs them once again of their humanity, dignity and individuality. As Benjamin Fondane, the French-Romanian poet who was murdered at Auschwitz just three months before its liberation, wrote:
“Remember only that I was innocent and, just like you, mortal on that day. I, too, had had a face marked by rage, by pity and joy, quite simply, a human face!”
Two days after visiting Yad Vashem, I visited Kibbutz Kfar Aza, a quiet, unassuming kibbutz close to the border with Gaza, founded on socialist principles by Mizrahi refugees from Morocco and Egypt in 1951. None of us who visited that day knew that within weeks its peace and tranquillity would be shattered, the kibbutzniks would be raped and murdered, and hostages would be taken, including our own Emily Damari, whose release alongside the two other hostages at the weekend has provided a glimmer of light in the darkness. Now we must make sure that all the hostages come home to their families.
None of us knew that day that on 7 October 2023 the Jewish people would suffer the bloodiest day in their history since the terrible events of eight decades ago, which we mark today. That modern-day pogrom was committed by Hamas, an organisation that shares the same genocidal aspirations and sadistic fervour of those who perpetrated the Holocaust.
And none of us knew that day that within hours of those terrorist attacks, Britain would see the first wave of antisemitic incidents, which last year reached their highest-ever recorded total. It is beyond shameful that, in 21st-century Britain, Jewish places of worship are defaced and graffitied, and require protection by security guards; that Jewish pupils are unable to wear their uniforms on the way to school; and that Jewish students are intimidated on our campuses. All the while, antisemites take to our streets chanting for Jihad, glorifying Hamas’s crimes, and comparing the state of Israel to those who sought to annihilate European Jewry less than a century ago.
But Britain is not unique. In Amsterdam, Israeli football fans have been hunted, attacked and abused on the eve of the anniversary of Kristallnacht. In Melbourne, a synagogue was set alight while worshippers were sat inside. And in the UAE, a young rabbi was kidnapped and murdered. Each one of these crimes reminds us that hatred against Jews and hatred against the world’s Jewish state cannot be separated. Anti-Zionist antisemitism is simply the latest iteration of history’s oldest hatred.
As the Prime Minister rightly said last week while visiting Auschwitz:
‘But where is “Never again”, when we see the poison of antisemitism rising around the world in the aftermath of 7 October?’
I am proud that our Prime Minister and this Government are committed to tackling that evil. I commend the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Jewish Leadership Council, the Community Security Trust, the Holocaust Educational Trust, the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and all those others who work day in, day out to fight antisemitism and to teach our children and young people of the utter horrors that can be unleashed if it goes unchallenged.
The battle against antisemitism and hatred must be fought on many fronts, and it is on all of us to join that fight. For a better future, we cannot be bystanders. I wish to close with the words of Elie Wiesel on the perils of indifference and the dangers of passivity:
“We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I am very grateful to the Government for making time for the House to debate the important topic of Holocaust remembrance ahead of Monday’s Holocaust Memorial Day, a day of solemn remembrance and reflection. On that day, 80 years will have passed since the death camp Auschwitz-Birkenau was liberated, yet the memories remain as poignant as ever, largely due to the day that we mark every year.
Six million Jewish men, women and children were brutally murdered by the Nazis, and millions of others suffered under Nazi persecution. The Holocaust was a crime of such magnitude that a new word was coined by the Polish lawyer Raphael Lemkin to describe its horrors: genocide. Today we also remember the victims of more recent genocides, including those in Bosnia, Rwanda, Cambodia and Darfur. Those atrocities are a stark reminder that hatred and intolerance, if left unchecked, can have devastating consequences, inflicting terror and eradicating entire communities. Such tragic events serve as stark reminders that we, as a global community, have not yet fully learned the lessons of the past, and the promise of “Never again” is not one that we are doing a good job of upholding.
We cannot stand by while radicalisation and hatred flame up around us, when 245,000 survivors of the Holocaust are still alive today. It has not even been a lifetime since the world promised justice at the Nuremberg trials, and promised “Never again”, yet antisemitism is rising once more here in the UK and around the world. Extremist voices are fuelling division and fear, and exploiting tensions to spread further hatred, disinformation and cultural amnesia. We must remain vigilant, for one lesson of the Holocaust is that silence is never an option.
In my constituency of Chichester we are proud to have a community that is committed to remembrance and education. Over the past decade, Chichester Marks Holocaust Memorial Day has organised meaningful events, from ceremonies held in local assembly rooms to educational films and talks for our schoolchildren, ensuring that future generations understand the impact of the Holocaust and the importance of standing up against prejudice and intolerance. This year, Chichester festival theatre will host “The Last Train to Tomorrow”, an opera that tells the story of the Kindertransport, a rescue effort that brought 10,000 Jewish children to safety here in the UK. Such stories remind us of our shared humanity, and the power of compassion in the face of unimaginable darkness. I praise the chair of Chichester Marks Holocaust Memorial Day, Councillor Clare Apel, whose dedication has been instrumental in making these events happen over the past decade. Her personal connection to the Holocaust, having lost 50 members of her family, serves as a poignant reminder of why we should never forget.
On Monday, a new blue plaque will be unveiled as part of the Selsey heritage trail, to commemorate the part that Selsey played in helping the Kindertransport children who came to the UK. Plans are under way to establish a permanent memorial site in Chichester to honour the victims and educate generations to come. That initiative stands as a testament to our collective commitment to ensure that “Never again” is not just a phrase but a call to action. The words “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it” are inscribed at the memorial site at Auschwitz, so today we honour the survivors, the victims and those who continue to bear witness. It is our collective responsibility to carry forward their legacy, challenge hatred wherever we see it, and build a future based on understanding and respect for all.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
It is impossible to do justice to the scale of the horror witnessed by those entering Auschwitz-Birkenau when it was liberated 80 years ago. They found a death camp that was specifically designed to facilitate starvation, forced labour and the most chilling methods of mechanised execution in human history. Historians estimate that 1.1 million people perished at Auschwitz in just under five years. Across the whole of Nazi-occupied Europe, 6 million Jewish people were murdered, and millions more prisoners of war, political prisoners, Poles, disabled people, members of the LGBT community, Roma and others were slaughtered.
I found the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) so moving, and I will share my own family’s story. One of those we believe was lost was my great-grandfather, a Polish Jew who emigrated to the UK and changed our family’s name in the face of antisemitism here. He returned to Poland just before the second world war, and my family never heard from him again. That is just one reason I am proud that my constituency contains the Kirkcaldy Polish club—branch No. 50 of the Association of Polish Combatants, set up across the UK after the second world war by heroic Poles who, together with so many others, resisted Nazi aggression.
I read a letter written by Helen Oglethorpe, a British medic who was one of the first into Bergen-Belsen when it was liberated. The letter was dated 28 May 1945. She described some of what she found:
“We left Holland on April 29th and came up to the Belsen Concentration Camp. It has been truly terrible and I never really believed what the newspapers told us but it was even worse than that. The first few weeks we spent clearing out all the SS and Hungarian troops’ barracks and turning them into hospitals and cleaning out the actual Concentration Camp. There were 52,000 living and 10,000 unburied dead in an area of about 1 sq. mile. One can’t imagine it unless one has seen it. A further 13,000 died on our hands in the next three or four weeks. We had medical students…working in the Concentration Camp picking out the people who might live and trying to clean up a bit.”
Despite the Nazis’ attempts to strip their victims of their humanity, including by assigning numbers to those held in concentration camps, these people were not numbers or statistics; they were humans loved by their families and citizens who contributed to the cultural, economic and social life of Europe. Indeed, across the great cities of Europe and beyond, each Holocaust memorial is marked by an attempt to remember these people by using their names. That is why I would like to commend the important work of the Holocaust Educational Trust. Each year, as we have heard across the House, we lose Holocaust survivors, and the trust’s efforts to keep the stories of survivors and victims alive ensures that we do not forget them or, indeed, what was done to them.
The theme for Holocaust Memorial Day 2025 is “For a better future”. In the face of mass atrocity crimes taking place across the world, the need for us in this place and, indeed, globally to work for a better future could not be clearer. We must learn the lessons of history, especially in this era of misinformation. We know what happens when antisemitism, hatred and prejudice are allowed to flourish. We must do far more to prevent identity-based violence, genocide and mass atrocity crimes. We must honour those who perished in the Holocaust and those who survived.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
“Hate is the worst 4 letter word that exists”,
said Holocaust survivor Mathilde Middleberg.
I am deeply honoured to be called in the debate. As movingly articulated by the hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky), 80 years has passed since the liberation of Auschwitz, but it is heartbreaking to see acts of genocide, hate and evil still happening across the world and increasing threats from a new wind of far-right. The horrors of the camps must never be forgotten, and the testimonies of the survivors are still ringing in our ears and are as relevant today as they were 80 years ago, because what is 80 years in the history of the world but a blink of an eye? Yet, sadly, current events suggest that some people today need a reminder of the lessons of that horror.
For the 75th anniversary of the liberation of Bergen-Belsen, the University of Leicester in my constituency published extracts from the east midlands oral history archive of an interview with Leicester nurse Erti Wilford. Erti treated the survivors of Belsen for two years after its liberation by the British Army. She spoke of approaching Bergen-Belsen and smelling the dreadful smells from as far away as five miles, saying that she had:
“Never seen so much suffering and lice and filth. At Belsen they were just bag of bones and it was just dreadful, but some of them lived, it was quite incredible”.
Erti recalls the excitement of a camp doctor finally being allowed to deliver a baby and return it back to its mother rather than hand it to a guard for execution.
We must remember the names of Anne and Margot Frank, whose final resting place is Bergen-Belsen. They unfortunately died of typhus approximately a month before the liberation.
One would hope that such experiences mean that hate and genocidal and Nazi actions are a thing of the past, but sadly that is not the case. As articulated by the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), in Bosnia, the trucks arrived and they said, “Men, young and old, tall and short—get on and we will transport you to safety.” Within two weeks, 8,000 Muslim men, women and children were executed.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I commend hon. Members for their contributions. Would the hon. Member join me in congratulating organisations such as Remembering Srebrenica, which has done so much to remember those Muslim boys and men killed during the Bosnian war, which is now some 30 years ago—we will be remembering that anniversary this year—and to learn lessons as well?
Shockat Adam
I welcome that intervention. All the work being done is absolutely vital.
We have seen genocide in Rwanda, where close to 1 million Tutsi were killed, and now, as we speak, in Sudan. If “never again” means anything, it means that the international community must take decisive action to pursue the perpetrators through the International Court of Justice. Instead, the far right is almost being indulged. Earlier this week, people who rioted on 6 January, who very much have far-right tendencies, were forgiven. Many of them were radicalised online.
This year’s Holocaust Memorial Day theme is to take action “for a better future”. That is why I am delighted to hear from the Minister that education will remain a priority. If we do not learn the lessons of history, we will live them again. Inter-faith work is absolutely vital. That is why I am proud to have been part of a team that set up an inter-faith group so that religions can talk to each other, not point fingers, and build bridges, not burn them. We must also take action against and hold social media firms and publishers to account for far-right misinformation.
I end with the words of Elie Wiesel:
“We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.”
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
It is a privilege to take part in this debate and to have heard so many poignant contributions.
A number of Members have spoken about the importance of education, which increases yet further as time passes. Next week, I have the distinct privilege of attending one of the “80 Candles for 80 Years” events to mark the 80th anniversary. I was honoured that the Lotus academy trust in my South West Norfolk constituency invited me to join that service and be part of a very special nationwide arts and education project to mark the event. As a former youth worker, the importance of education and of continuing the message is pertinent to me. The unimaginable horrors and crimes of the Holocaust were a defining moment in the 20th century. Through events such as “80 Candles”, we keep alive the memory of those who lost their lives under Nazi persecution.
On Monday, I will attend a Holocaust Memorial Day flag raising ceremony organised by Thetford town council in my constituency. I am pleased that for the first time ever, the council will fly the Holocaust Memorial Day flag. I pay tribute to the mayor of Thetford, Councillor Chris Harvey. It is fitting that the flag is being raised this year, during his term as mayor, to mark the 80th anniversary.
As other Members have done, I pay tribute those at the Holocaust Memorial Trust for their work. Their impact on education over two decades is testament to their dedication and commitment. I have certainly benefited from their work.
Finally, as the Minister mentioned in his opening remarks, we mark 25 years since Holocaust Memorial Day was created. The UK was one of the founding signatories to the Stockholm declaration on Holocaust remembrance in 2000—we should all be proud of that. Alongside 45 other countries, the UK Government are committed to preserving the memory of those who were murdered in the Holocaust. I know that Members on both sides of the House stand by that commitment. We should never let it falter or waver.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
“We had reached the bottom. It is not possible to sink lower than this; no human condition is more miserable than this, nor could it conceivably be so. Nothing belongs to us any more; they have taken away our clothes, our shoes, even our hair…They will even take away our name: and if we want to keep it, we will have to find ourselves the strength to do so, to manage somehow so that behind the name something of us, of us as we were, still remains.”
“He who loses all often easily loses himself.”
“My number is 174517; we have been baptized, we will carry the tattoo on our left arm until we die.”
Prisoner 174517 was liberated from Auschwitz concentration camp in January 1945, one of only 20 surviving members of the 650 who had arrived on his transport 11 months earlier. He was liberated strictly in a physical sense, but remained tortured by what he had experienced until his death in 1987. Before his death, Italian-Jewish liberal Primo Levi wrote extensively about his experiences. I recommend his collection of essays, “The Drowned and the Saved”, as one of the bleakest—yet most compelling—books I have ever read.
My past visits to Dachau and Sachsenhausen camps cast long shadows in my memory. We are fortunate that those relics of this horror continue to haunt their landscapes as foreboding reminders, but with the surviving voices fading year on year, we must guard against the path that led to Auschwitz. The Holocaust was unique in its industrialisation of genocide; nothing so terrible at such scale had happened before, nor since. We must not delude ourselves that it could not. As the hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) said, “never again” must mean never again, and as the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) said, genocide does not occur overnight.
The black shoots of fascism were intolerance. It was then—as it is now—spread throughout a frustrated population, appealing to their sense of national identity and stimulating a feeling of injustice. In this environment, nationalism festers and larger groups are mobilised by divisive populism that validates them as superior, but oppressed by an imagined elite and undermined by minorities. In 1920s and 1930s Germany, the Jews were both the imagined elite and the minority. Today, we see various groups demonised, including Jews, Muslims and refugees—it depends on the source.
I recommend that Members read a compilation of Nazi propaganda, “The Jewish Enemy”, by Jeffrey Herf. Those who choose to read it will observe very clearly the parallels between such propaganda then and now. It is not a coincidence; it is learned and it is finessed, with the same stereotypes, the same accusations, the same divisive rhetoric, and the same risks of following that same terrible path. We must not be fooled by those who mislead us—who minimise, normalise and amplify the actions and the rhetoric of division and fascism. Those who do must be challenged, outed and comprehensively defeated. I associate myself with the Minister’s statement that remembrance without resolve is not enough. Let us honour the memory of those who suffered the Holocaust by standing vigil to stave off its repeat.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) for his powerful and moving testimony. His grandparents would be truly proud.
As many have said, 2025 marks 80 years since the liberation of the Nazi concentration and death camps, and that awful milestone means that this is likely to be the last landmark anniversary at which a significant number of Holocaust survivors will be present. Holocaust Memorial Day encourages us to remember, yes, the 6 million Jewish men, women and children murdered by the Nazis and their collaborators during the Holocaust, but also all those who were persecuted by the Nazis, including the Roma, the Sinti people, gay men, disabled people, political opponents and others. We remember, too, all those affected by subsequent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, of which I will say more, and Darfur.
When it comes to remembering, Elie Wiesel, the Holocaust survivor and scholar who has already been quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce), put it best when he said that
“whoever listens to a witness becomes a witness, so those who hear us, those who read us must continue to bear witness for us.”
Yesterday in Portcullis House, thanks to Mr Speaker, many of us did indeed bear witness as we heard the extremely moving testimony of two Holocaust survivors, Yisrael Abelesz and Alfred Garwood. We all know many old soldiers who, quite understandably, never recount the trauma they suffered in the war, often because they have blanked it out and moved on. However, many of those who were not soldiers but survivors of genocide have shown an extraordinary strength and perseverance to keep telling their story, however painful, through a need to keep their memories alive, and they do so again and again. Their testimonies are so direct and so powerful that when we hear them, we become part of that remembering process.
Yisrael Abelesz, now aged 96, was just 14 when he and his family were deported to Auschwitz-Birkenau, where his parents David and Haya and younger brother Aaron, aged just 11 years old, were sent to the gas chambers on arrival. That sense of the history books becoming all too chillingly real jumped out at us yesterday when Yisrael said he was greeted on arrival at the camp by the infamous Angel of Death, Josef Mengele. He said:
“Mengele asked me, ‘How old are you?’ I understood a bit of German, and said, ‘I’m 14, it’s just my birthday’. And he replied, ‘That’s very good, very good’, and sent me to the right side.”
As Yisrael said:
“I didn’t know it at that time, but what he meant was, ‘Very good, you can stay temporarily alive’.”
Alfred’s story, too, should show us all that, while hate is immensely destructive, there is strength in community. He told us how he was a blonde babe in arms carried by his father—a father who saved the life of another inmate in Bergen-Belsen by giving them bread across the barbed wire. It was so moving to hear him recall that, after the war, his father met that same fellow camp mate in the east end of London. It was moving, too, to hear how Alfred became a doctor and a psychiatrist to help other trauma victims, and how he said that hatred, even hatred of those who committed the genocide, was a corrosive force.
That desire to rid ourselves of hatred was echoed by Muhammad, one of the pupils at Falinge Park high school in my constituency of Rochdale, who wrote this in a poem about the Holocaust:
“Revenge is never sweet…
It is a monster willing to prevail”.
Falinge Park high school is a multicultural school that has legacy beacon status as one of the schools under the umbrella of the University College London Centre for Holocaust Education. Two years ago, it hosted Holocaust survivor Ike Alterman to deliver his testimony. Yesterday, those from the school again attended the Greater Manchester Holocaust commemoration, hosted by Andy Burnham.
I am delighted that the Prime Minister has said that it will be a national ambition that every schoolchild should hear the recorded testimony of a Holocaust survivor, and the Chancellor announced a further £2 million for Holocaust education in the Budget. As the Minister said, the Holocaust Educational Trust’s innovative free digital education programme Testimony 360 will allow students to have a virtual reality conversation with a Holocaust survivor long after the survivors themselves are no longer with us.
The prioritisation of Holocaust education in our schools has been praised across this House today, and rightly so, but the prevention of Holocaust denial cannot be left just to passing laws or to education. It must be a cultural or grassroots change that exists alongside formal education. Education does not begin and end in our schools. Some children will go back from a lesson to a home where parents and older siblings fill their heads with misinformation and unchecked sources from social media. Sadly, there is now a depressingly familiar routine of a sharp spike in attacks on synagogues or on mosques whenever news breaks about an atrocity—an atrocity that has no personal connection to the people worshipping inside those buildings. There is a well of simmering loathing that lurks unseen and is topped up by casual racism that formal education alone cannot fix.
As the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) powerfully reminded us, 2025 marks the 30th anniversary of the genocide in Bosnia and the massacre at Srebrenica. The tragedy is that the story of what happened in Srebrenica 30 years ago is not being told in Srebrenica itself. The enclave went into Serbia as part of the peace deal, where denying the massacre is now official policy in and out of schools. The issue was raised by Baroness Helic in the other place, who is a fierce advocate for justice on the massacre. A Srebrenica Memorial Centre report last year identified prominent public figures involved in denial of the holocaust, including Republika Srpska President Milorad Dodik, and Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić, among others.
Last year my former newspaper, the i, reported election posters in windows in Republika Srpska with the slogan “Genocide Didn’t Happen”. One billboard praised convicted war criminal Ratko Mladić, the Bosnian-Serb military chief known as the Butcher of Bosnia. His crimes included the massacre of 8,000 Bosniak Muslim men and boys in Srebrenica in July 1995. The bloodbath was the worst episode of mass murder in Europe since the second world war. I am proud to say that my wife was among the Channel 4 news team who exposed those horrific war crimes.
Genocides do not come out of the blue. They depend on what Professor David Feldman has described as the reservoir of hate. He pointed out that the danger in the case of antisemitism is not just the virus of antisemitism that captures the minority of antisemites; the wider danger is
“a widely diffused reservoir of stereotypes and narratives about Jews. This reservoir has accumulated over centuries and has become a part of our common culture.”
That applies to Islamophobia, just as it does to antisemitism. When weaponised by extremists, the legitimate and proud celebration of one community’s identity curdles into the denigration of another’s. History is used and warped; territory and belonging are weaponised into separation and segregation. Dates are cited as battle cries, and the cycle perpetuates.
Anger is a legitimate emotional response to atrocities, but hatred is not. Peace is hard, compromise is painful; violence, and the prejudice it relies on, are easier. But everyday racism can be countered only by everyday engagement, and disinformation by information. The Holocaust was the industrialisation of murder, but the difference was only one of scale from the many pogroms that Jewish communities have had to suffer over the centuries.
In Soho this month, the National Holocaust Centre and Museum has devised a new touring exhibition called “The Vicious Circle”. It links five Jewish communities decimated by violence. Objects are on display to represent co-existence and integration into the host country before five particular pogroms: Berlin in 1938, Baghdad in 1941, Kielce in Poland in 1946, Aden in Yemen in 1947, and of course Kibbutz Kissufim on 7 October 2023. That is history, this is the present. The well, the reservoir, is there and it needs to be drained.
I end, like many others, with another quote from Elie Wiesel:
“Much depends on us, on our sense of justice and integrity, on our dedication to truth, on our willingness to share our innermost memories. And we survivors have promised that we shall try.”
As the number of survivors dwindles, it is on us. It is our duty in this place to follow their heroic example and honour their memory every day.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
It is not often in this House that everyone from every party speaks with one voice, and it is not often that we stand here and do not have political arguments, and that we all listen, nod and agree with all the speakers we are hearing. The Minister who introduced the debate did an excellent job laying out some of the cold, hard facts, and making clear exactly why we have Holocaust Memorial Day. The hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) brought humanity into that with his own family’s story, and we have heard from Members across the House about their personal views, the views of Holocaust survivors and the reading they have done, and about genocides and massacres that have taken place not just in the wake of the second world war but more recently.
It is important that we remember all that. It is important that we use the privileged position that we have here, and the platform we have in this House. We are incredibly lucky that we can stand here and amplify the voices of our constituents. Right now, we have more of a responsibility to do that than ever.
We are seeing the rise of antisemitism. In the wake of what happened on 7 October, we are seeing that on our streets. The Antisemitism Policy Trust has published two reports about the rise of antisemitism online and the inability of AI systems on some websites to find antisemitic posts. I urge the Government to look at those reports, particularly when it comes to the rise of issues on X.
We are seeing the rise of Islamophobia. I am seeing constituents who are refugees and asylum seekers facing discrimination and prejudice that I had not seen in the 20 years I have been supporting and dealing with the public. It is new. It feels like we have tipped into a different world. We are seeing a rise in anti-trans, anti-gay and anti-lesbian hate on our streets as well.
Now is the point when we all have to take action. We all have to recognise that whatever we have been doing to try to tackle this—whatever voices we have used and whatever moments we have taken—we have not done enough. We are not there yet. We have not managed to tackle this. Whether as a group of 650 individuals with a platform we are capable of sorting it out does not matter; what matters is that we try every single day to make that difference.
The hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) and a number of hon. Members have said that a holocaust does not happen overnight. We do not go from having a happy community to mass murder in a couple of days. We go through stages, with a rise in hatred and the dehumanisation and othering of people. We go through a situation—like there was in Germany after the first world war—where the population feels hard done by, their lives are not as good as they could be and they want someone to blame. They have politicians, the media and people standing up and saying, “There are people you can blame for this.” In that case, the population were being told, “The Jews are the people to blame. The Jewish people are less human than you are, and they are to blame for your life being a struggle and for you finding things difficult right now.”
We know that that divisive rhetoric is being used around the world right now. It is being used here. I am sure that all hon. Members have seen a rise in the number of emails to them saying, “I cannot afford to pay my energy bill, and that is because of the number of illegals in this country.” We all need to stand up against that.
It is not just about countering the explicit hate that people come up with and the obvious racism and antisemitism that people send us in emails; it is about countering the people who will say, “Yes, but you have to allow us our free speech. You have to allow us the freedom to say things that dehumanise others.” We must counter that chipping away at the hard-won rights of minority groups. We need to stand there and say not just, “You’re wrong,” to people behaving in a racist way and using racist rhetoric, but, “No. We will not reduce the rights that trans people have. We will not reduce the rights that gay people have. We will not reduce the rights that Jewish people, Muslims and people of all faiths should have to practise their faith.” We should make a stand for equality and the rights that people have as well as against the hatred.
Reduction in those rights is how we got to the far end of the road in Auschwitz. The beginning of the road is reducing rights, taking up a Sharpie and writing that trans people are no longer to be recognised, and saying that people who riot against democracy are fine, cool and should carry on. Many of us are using our platform to say these things, but we are not winning. We need to tackle disinformation and misinformation, online and in person, and the diminution of rights that people have fought for.
This is an incredibly poignant debate. I am proud of all the MPs who have stood up and argued against dehumanisation, and have related their experiences and those of constituents and survivors. We need to do that, and not just on Holocaust Memorial Day. Every one of us needs to work for a better future every single day. There are so many good people out there who care a huge amount about this. We need to mobilise them and take them with us, ensuring that we amplify their voices as they speak in favour of the better future that we all want.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
May I say how moved I have been by all the speeches that I have heard this afternoon?
On Monday I will stand in Abbey Gardens in Bury St Edmunds, at a steel teardrop erected as a memorial not only to the 6 million Jews murdered in the Holocaust, but to the 57 Jews slaughtered by their neighbours in Bury St Edmunds in March 1190. I will also the honour the memory of the liberation of Auschwitz precisely 80 years ago.
In East Anglia, Bury St Edmunds, Norwich and King’s Lynn were important centres of medieval Jewish life. However, East Anglia also has a sad role in the history of European antisemitism. It was here that the myth of the Jewish blood libel first emerged when, in 1144, the Jews of Norwich were falsely accused of the ritual murder of a boy named William. That myth persisted for centuries, played its part in the growth of antisemitism in the 20th century, and lives on to this very day. The blood libel stoked hatred in Bury St Edmunds, culminating in that vicious massacre in 1190. In the aftermath, the town expelled all the surviving Jews. Exactly 100 years later, in 1290, King Edward expelled all the Jews from England.
I stand here not only as the first Labour MP for Bury St Edmunds, but as its first Jewish MP. I am a Jew who represents a town that, almost 1,000 years ago, was the first in the country to expel the Jews. History has come full circle. However, sadly, antisemitism is on the rise again in this country. The number of antisemitic hate crimes has reached record levels—more than double the number in previous years. The Community Security Trust reports that damage and desecration of Jewish property rose by 246% on the previous year, which is deeply concerning.
The CST does crucial work to protect Jewish communities across the country, enabled by the support of His Majesty’s Government, for which we are all deeply grateful. Similarly, Holocaust education, promoted through the work of the Holocaust Education Trust and the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, is of great significance in this country. This generation is privileged to know the last few living witnesses of the Holocaust. We must make sure that their stories do not fade into obscurity, but survive in the collective memory of humanity.
I finish with a few lines by the medieval poet Meir of Norwich, written as he fled England in 1190—the earliest Hebrew poetry ever written in this country:
“When I hoped for good, evil arrived, yet I will wait for the light. You are mighty and full of light, You turn the darkness into light.”
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
Diolch, Dirprwy Lefarydd. It is a privilege to be here, hearing words of kindness and joining with others against hate on the day when we remember one of our worst times in history. This year marks the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, and the 30th anniversary of the genocide in Bosnia. As we look back and reflect on those horrors, we remember the stories of those who fell victim to unspeakable crimes, and take lessons from history. The theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day is “For a better future”; as we consider what it means to build a better future, we must all look at what can be done to create a future that is no longer blighted by prejudice.
Recent figures show that there is much work to be done to fulfil that promise. Eighty years on from the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, religious hate crimes in England and Wales are at a record high. Home Office statistics show a 25% increase in religious hate crimes in the year to March 2024. In October, the monitoring group Tell MAMA UK said it had recorded 4,971 incidents of anti-Muslim hate between October ’23 and September ’24—the highest annual total in the past 14 years—while the Community Security Trust recorded 1,978 reports of anti-Jewish hate incidents from January to June 2024, up from 964 in the first half of 2023. The rise in these appalling hate crimes is a cause of deep concern, and all those who have been the victim of these crimes deserve our friendship and solidarity.
Among those murdered in the Holocaust was Helene Melanie Lebel. Born to a Jewish father and a Catholic mother in Vienna and known affectionately as Helly, she loved to swim and go to the opera. After finishing her secondary education, she entered law school. At 19, she began showing signs of a mental health condition and was forced to give up her law studies and work, and was later diagnosed as schizophrenic. A year later, she became one of the thousands of mentally and physically disabled people murdered in the Brandenburg killing centre.
After the second world war, many ordinary Germans and Europeans claimed that they were not involved in the events of the Holocaust—that they were bystanders. Their indifference teaches us that passively remembering the Holocaust is not enough. We must continue to learn from and listen to the stories of the victims and the survivors—the Jewish, the disabled, and the gay men and women whose lives were ended because the Nazis decided that they did not deserve to exist.
As we look to the future, it is incumbent on all of us parliamentarians to speak out against genocide denial and distortion. We must forcefully speak out against prejudice and hate wherever it is found, whether here in Parliament or in our communities. Holocaust Memorial Day is a reminder to all of us that the fight against prejudice and intolerance must never cease. Only by continuing this fight, in memory of Helly and the millions who died as she did, can we secure a better future.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
I commend the Minister for the way he introduced the debate—the tone and pitch of his speech—and the whole Chamber for how it has come together on such an important subject. It is a lesson we must all learn and remember for a better future.
Last Monday, I had the privilege of listening to Eva Clarke, a survivor. Eighty years on, she still broke down many times while she relived the horrors of losing family and loved ones. I also had the privilege of listening to Smajo Bešo, a survivor from Srebrenica who came to the north-east as a young lad 30 years ago. He told his story—how, having lost his family, he came to this wonderful country, which gives us all hope; how he went to school and hated it, because he could not understand a word and wanted to be with his family; how he was living a life of terror and horror, having lost everyone; how he was in a strange place; how he was put in a different room from the others to learn English, but was made to feel welcome; how, while he was learning English, his classmates were learning his language, to make him feel at home. That is the wonderful country we live in. We will support all communities when they are in need.
Eighty years ago, Europe experienced one of the greatest tragedies in human history: the systematic murder of 6 million Jewish men, women and children. As the years progress, we are losing survivors, and the horrors of the Holocaust are passing out of living memory. It is incumbent on each one of us to ensure that their stories are not lost, and that the barbaric treatment so many endured is never forgotten.
Redbridge is the place I call home. It is where I have lived for half a century. Historically, it was home to a thriving Jewish community. Families found a safe and welcoming home in Ilford. Our area was immeasurably enriched by our Jewish neighbours. The beauty of Ilford is not just our diversity, but the respect and love that those in our diverse community show one another; we celebrate one another’s holidays and share each other’s greatest sorrows.
Next Monday, I will be in Valentines Park to commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day, as I have been for the last 16 years. All our communities come together—people of all faiths and none—to remember the Holocaust and honour all those so cruelly taken, and the lives irrevocably lost or changed forever. Nazi ideology preached hatred and division. By repudiating antisemitism and standing against hate, we make it clear every single day how much the Nazis’ hateful ideology failed, and always will. The crimes of the Holocaust cast a shadow across the world. Families were destroyed and communities shattered. We still live with the consequences today. Whole families were erased, lineages wiped out, and generational trauma passed on.
Preserving the memory of the Holocaust is our sacred duty to all those who lost their life, and whose future was stolen. Memory does not only work backwards; it has the power to shape our present and our future. The words we say about the Holocaust in this place must translate into action. Every day, we must continue to work together to fight antisemitism, xenophobia and hate speech across our wonderful country. While we take the time today to reflect on the horrors of the Holocaust, we must also reflect on the people we want to be, and the society we want to live in.
We each have the power to speak up and challenge racism, antisemitism and hate speech, and every time we do, the world gets a little better. We must ensure that atrocities like the Holocaust never happen again, but we must also work to protect and advocate for those who are still suffering from the xenophobia, racism and violence that led to the Holocaust not so long ago. On Holocaust Memorial Day, it is incumbent on us to learn the lessons from the past, to create a safer and better future for all.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this incredibly important debate. When I was a little girl, I spent quite a lot of time in hospital, and during one stay I became friends with Paula, the girl in the next bed. Paula and her family had been in a terrible car crash, and her mum had her arm in a sling. One day she was rubbing her arm, and I noticed that on her skin there were several small black numbers. “What are those?” I asked. She explained that as a child she had been in a place called Auschwitz, and the numbers were there so that her mum and dad could find her if they ever became separated. It was a few years later, when I was learning about the Holocaust at school, that I finally understood what those numbers were and what they meant.
Monday will be the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, and it was incredibly humbling to hear the testimony of Holocaust survivor Yisrael Abelesz, now 94 years old, at the Holocaust Memorial Day ceremony yesterday. Hearing the accounts of survivors, including Alfred Garwood, who was a baby in Bergen-Belsen, is crucial to ensure that we learn the lessons of history. I would like to thank the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust for everything it does to educate, to speak out against Holocaust denial and distortion, and to challenge prejudice. We should all take inspiration from the survivors of the Holocaust who have bravely shared their stories in the hope that genocide and violations inflicted on defenceless people across the world will never happen again.
I also pay tribute to those who liberated the camps and all those from Eastleigh who have served, including in the Balkans. I was at school with several children from the former Yugoslavia, and I often wonder what became of them. This year we also mark the 30th anniversary of the Bosnian genocide, including the Srebrenica massacre, where 8,372 Muslims were killed. It is difficult to understand what drives a human being to murder another, but for all the victims and survivors of genocide, it is vital that we continue to learn about man’s inhumanity to man and where hatred and othering can lead.
As we reflect on these atrocities, I am deeply proud of my constituency’s long-standing history of providing refuge to those escaping persecution and conflict. During the Spanish civil war, nearly 4,000 Basque children were sheltered in North Stoneham. In the aftermath of the second world war, resettlement camps were built in Velmore and Hiltingbury to house Polish families, and in 2021 Eastleigh became one of the first authorities in England to house Afghan refugees fleeing the Taliban. These acts of compassion and solidarity remind us that, even in the darkest of times, humanity can prevail.
On Holocaust Memorial Day we honour the memory of those who were murdered in the Holocaust, and in subsequent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur. We have a responsibility to learn from the past, to speak out and never to forget. Today we pay tribute to all those who died and all those who survived.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
On Monday it will be 80 years since the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. I find this debate quite difficult, so please bear with me. I went with my own family, my father and my two sons, to Auschwitz-Birkenau in the summer of 2023. I know that many Members here have been to Auschwitz-Birkenau, and although it is a difficult place to visit, those who have not definitely should. I thank the Prime Minister for his recent visit to Auschwitz-Birkenau.
When you are there, you can imagine the industrial scale of murder that happened there. You see many skulls, shoes and clothes. You see the cabins where people had to live. You go through the killing stations where the Nazis murdered millions of people: Jews, the LGBT community, the Gypsy Roma community, trade unionists and others they decided had to be removed in their genocide—in our Holocaust. That really commits you to wanting to see the future education of generations on this subject.
I have also been to the POLIN museum in Warsaw, which documents the history of Jews in Poland. It has a significant section on antisemitism in that country, which I will come to later in my speech. When you visit such places, you can better understand the rise of antisemitism and how things could get to that point.
This year the theme of Holocaust Memorial Day is “For a better future”, which is uplifting. My own grandparents returned to Poland and Lithuania after the Holocaust. Following the Yalta agreement, they were very different countries from what they were before the war. My grandparents hoped to rebuild their lives, as did the few members of my family who survived the camps and ghettos, but it was still very difficult after the war.
When I visited Warsaw with my father, he took me to the tower blocks where he grew up and told me stories of how, as a child, he received antisemitic abuse and bullying from Polish children after the war—this was after everybody knew about the Holocaust and the camps. Unfortunately, that was the reality for Jewish people. The state authorities had antisemitic attitudes too, which in the end resulted in the mass emigration of 13,000 Jews—almost the entire remaining Jewish population of Poland—in 1968. That was just 23 years after the war, which was very much in recent memory for those people. All of this made attempts to rebuild lives in eastern Europe very difficult, not just in Poland but in other countries. My own parents emigrated from eastern Europe in the ’50s and ’60s, and in the end arrived in Leeds in the 1970s. Similarly, thousands of Jews came out of communist and post-communist countries, found homes and contributed economically, socially and culturally to their new countries.
I want to tell a story about two of my former constituents—they are no longer with us—who were very close family friends. When I was growing up, I spent a lot of my time in their house, and they certainly contributed a lot to my own Holocaust education. Yanina Bauman was a Holocaust survivor, having escaped the Warsaw ghetto with her sister and mother. Like other Jews, they were hidden by amazing Polish families in the countryside. Yanina and her husband, Professor Zygmunt Bauman, came to Leeds in the 1970s, and he worked as a professor of sociology. He was one of the most decorated sociology professors in the world, and his books are world class and outstanding. His literature discussed the theoretical effect of the “Holocaust mentality”, and he came up with the theory of “liquid life” as part of post-modernity. I do not want to get into a sociology lecture, because the Chamber is not the place for that, but people who are interested in those subjects should certainly look up his work.
Yanina, who survived the ghetto, wrote two books about her own life and history; one was about her life in Poland before the war, and one was about her experience during and immediately after the war. Those books are recognised as part of a very important canon of literature on the Holocaust. I am really proud that Yanina and Zygmunt both lived.
Dawn Butler
I thank my hon. Friend for his powerful speech, which shows just how important it is that living memory is passed on and why we should continue to have this debate in Parliament.
Alex Sobel
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Professor Zygmunt Bauman died in January 2017. He was a great supporter of mine and always had placards outside his house when I stood for election, but unfortunately he never got to see me elected to this place. I want to record my thanks to the Baumans.
This debate is about a better future for people from conflict and post-conflict zones, and for those who have suffered genocide. All the subsequent genocides recognised by the United Kingdom happened in my lifetime, including Cambodia, Rwanda and the regime of Slobodan Miloševic and the Serbs. Since I became a Member of Parliament, we have had the atrocious murder of the Yazidis by Daesh and, looking at Syria now, I am afraid that genocide is probably not yet concluded. We need to act on that today so that they can have a better future for tomorrow.
I have met victims of Slobodan Miloševic’s regime in the Balkans—people exactly the same age as me, with similar backgrounds and experiences, who witnessed and experienced the most awful and traumatic events. I have seen some of the exhibits from the Miloševic regime’s genocidal actions, and many of them reminded me of what I saw in Auschwitz-Birkenau, including single shoes and items of clothing belonging to children who were disappeared and whose fate is unknown—they never found the bodies. Obviously, the genocide in the Balkans was different from the Holocaust, but we recognise it as genocide nevertheless. After the conflict, people in those countries are still suffering, and they still do not have stable countries. Bosnia is still experiencing tensions.
The Minister for Housing and Planning, who is no longer in his place, made an excellent contribution on issues in the Balkans, and I hope we can have a further debate with the Minister for Europe, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), on the contemporary situation in the Balkans, and particularly Republika Srpska.
I am planning to visit the Balkans again this year, and we all have that duty because the Balkans are very near, and those events happened in the political lifetime of some of those in charge of Serbia—some of them, including the President of Serbia, were involved in the regime of Slobodan Miloševic. The events are still very close. For the better future of people in the Balkans, these issues are not yet resolved. We need to work on them in this place, not in an historical or educational way but in a very real and political way.
It is our duty as a country to support a better future for everyone who has suffered in conflict and post-conflict zones.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is an honour to speak in this debate. I pay tribute to all hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed today, with powerful, moving and, in many instances, personal accounts.
In the UK on Holocaust Memorial Day we remember the 6 million Jews murdered during the Holocaust, alongside the millions of people murdered under the Nazis’ persecution of other groups. We also remember the more recent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur, as well as others who have suffered atrocities since world war two.
Yesterday, I had the privilege of attending the Holocaust Memorial Day ceremony in Portcullis House and I heard the moving testimonies of Holocaust survivors Yisrael Abelesz and Alfred Garwood. I will not be the only person in this House who was deeply moved by their testimonies and, among those who listened to Radio 4 earlier in the week, by the interview of 92-year-old Holocaust survivor Ivor Perl, who was just 12 years old when forced into a cattle truck to Auschwitz, where he lost most of his family. What struck me about Ivor was how, despite everything he had seen and endured, he retained his capacity for love and his belief in the power of love. However, I was also struck by his sense of pessimism about the future and his feeling that the world today increasingly resembles the world of the 1930s. I am sad to say that I share that concern.
We have seen a growth across Europe of a politics that unashamedly demonises minority communities and presents them as aliens in our midst, to such a degree that people become inured to their plight or ill treatment. The Holocaust shows us where that toxic combination can lead. The Nazis’ attempt to rid Europe from what they saw as an alien presence in their midst did not happen overnight. They first had to dehumanise the Jews, depict them as an alien culture, subject them to antisemitic conspiracy theories that they were part of a global conspiracy to manipulate global events, and strip them of their citizenship rights.
In his recent film “Occupied City”, the director Steve McQueen shows how that unfolded in one city, Amsterdam, where the bulk of the Dutch Jewish population lived. His film chronicles the measures the Nazis took. They sacked all Jews from public sector jobs, banned them from all public places, closed down all Jewish schools, forced Jews to wear a special badge to demarcate them from everybody else, prevented them from marrying non-Jews, subjected them to daily humiliation and physical abuse and ultimately rounded up every Jew they could find and deported them to death camps.
The film chronicles the most tremendous heroism of ordinary Dutch people to resist those measures and show solidarity with their Jewish neighbours. However, it also shows that antisemitism had taken seed in Dutch society, where years of antisemitic propaganda had rotted the foundations of that society and many ordinary people collaborated in the persecution of the Jews and betrayed their neighbours. A Jewish community that numbered around 80,000 at the start of the Nazi occupation was reduced to 16,000 by the end of it. That picture was repeated in city after city across Europe. But those words do nothing to capture the sheer terror and horror of what the experience must have been like for the many millions of people unfortunate enough to have experienced it. The generational trauma that it has left in its wake resonates with every Jewish family to this day.
The Holocaust embodies the reality of fascism in power. Unfortunately, the ideas at the core of fascist ideology—racist narratives, wrapped up in ethno-nationalist fantasies—are on the rise. In Germany at present, we see the far-right Alternative für Deutschland, a party with neo-Nazis in its ranks, on track to be comfortably the second largest party in the German Parliament. In Austria, the far-right Freedom party recently won a third of the popular vote with an election pledge to remigrate citizens with migrant heritage.
A similar dynamic is well under way in France, Italy and other countries where the far right has significant electoral footholds. These are not fascist parties of the classic type, but they are walking on that ground. When Members—I am sorry to say—of this House demonise and talk about deporting immigrants, and the President of the United States commits to deporting millions of immigrant families, with the richest man in the world cheering him on while giving fascist salutes, it should send shivers down everyone’s spines. There is more than a whiff of the 1930s in the air.
Holocaust Memorial Day also pays tribute to the genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Darfur and Bosnia. We have already heard from the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and others about the genocide in Bosnia that resulted in the deaths of 100,000 men, women and children, with 8,000 murdered in the Srebrenica massacre.
I wish to mention the other genocides that are commemorated on Holocaust Memorial Day. In the genocide in Cambodia in the 1970s, the Khmer Rouge sought to create a communist utopia, forcing urban populations into rural camps. Intellectuals, professionals, religious leaders and ethnic minorities were targeted. Approximately 1.7 million to 2 million people—about 25% of Cambodia’s population—were killed through executions, starvations and forced labour.
In Rwanda in the ‘90s, over the span of 100 days, an estimated 800,000 to 1 million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were massacred. The genocide was fuelled by deep ethnic tensions, propaganda and political instability. In Darfur, where the atrocities continue, Government-backed militias have carried out mass killings, rapes and displacement in response to an uprising by rebel groups. The conflict is characterised by ethnic cleansing, with hundreds of thousands of people killed and millions displaced. Unfortunately, violence and instability continue in the region. There are more recent examples, such as Myanmar.
As we remember on this 80th anniversary all those affected by the Holocaust, the Bosniaks killed in Srebrenica 30 years ago and the victims of the genocide that I have just mentioned, we should also remember all those who, in their day-to-day lives, have suffered atrocities in approximately 285 distinct armed conflicts since the end of the second world war. Let recommit to never allowing the politics of hatred, racism and demonisation, which contributed to the awful reality of fascism, to take hold in our society ever again.
In his interview, Ivor Perl said that
“the world has not learned anything, it gets repeated all over again”.
He is right. We have heard from Members across the House that we have failed to fulfil the promise of “never again” in these 80 years—never again for every single human being who walks this planet. However, there is nothing stopping us from fulfilling it from now for all people of all nations, all abilities, all faiths and none, and setting an example for the people of our country and the wider world to follow.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
May I start by saying what a privilege it is to follow the incredible speeches that we have heard across the House today? It has been especially powerful hearing the testimonies of people descended from the families of Holocaust survivors. I wish to pay tribute to several Members before I begin the substance of my speech today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) has been referred to countless times, and rightly so. His family history is a powerful reminder. I am certain that his family will be proud of him, because he has come to this place and shared his story from the Government Benches. I am incredibly grateful for that. In exactly the same vein, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) gave a powerful account. He and I have known each other for many years, before either of us made it to this House—he got here in 2017, so he is a veteran by most standards; I have been here for six months—but I have never heard him speak in that way about his family history. It was a privilege to be here as he did so, and I thank him for it.
We have heard other great speeches too. I give special thanks to the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who set out in great detail the opportunities that were missed to potentially prevent the Holocaust, or at least mitigate some of its impacts. Despite studying history, I have often wondered what could have been done to prevent this catastrophe from taking place. I really appreciate his insight into what the allies could have done sooner to prevent it from happening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) made an excellent short contribution. I am so proud that he is the first Labour MP to represent that constituency in this House. He has made many good contributions—I found listening to him in today’s debate particularly powerful, as I have in other debates.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) talked about the ceremony that we attended yesterday in Portcullis House. It was especially powerful to hear from Yisrael and Alfred, two Holocaust survivors, because, as the hon. Member and many others have stated, the window to speak to survivors and hear their first-hand testimony is shrinking. I am especially grateful to Mr Speaker and his office for arranging that event.
My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce) set out exactly why we need to be vigilant to the terror and the spectre of antisemitism that haunts Britain’s streets today. He spoke far more powerfully and summed up the issues much more succinctly than I could, but we know that Jewish people are less safe on Britain’s streets today than they were before 7 October. That cannot be right, and I thank him for highlighting it. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh), whose speech was incredibly powerful. I always enjoy listening to his testimony, especially since he is a former newspaper columnist. That certainly came through in his contribution.
Monday 27 January will mark a sombre day of reflection and remembrance. Eighty years after the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day is an important anniversary that we must all observe. In November, I had the privilege of joining the European Jewish Association’s delegation to Auschwitz and Krakow. In Krakow, we talked about the spectre of antisemitism and what needs to be done to prevent it, and to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again. I talked about my experience as a maths teacher in a secondary school before I made it to this place, and the role that I thought Holocaust education had to play in preventing such tragedies in the future.
The most important part of the visit, however, was our visit to Auschwitz-Birkenau. We laid wreaths and paid tribute to the millions of victims of the Holocaust. To stand in that place, where human beings committed the most evil acts imaginable, was a harrowing experience. I cannot share all the details today, but something struck me while I was there. I was standing in the field just past the gates of Auschwitz-Birkenau, and I was stunned by the scale and size of the camp. I never imagined it being as large as it was—murder on an industrial scale. Most of the accommodation—I use that word knowing it does no justice to the terrible conditions that people were kept in—that was built for the camp’s inhabitants was made of wood, so it has long since perished. However, the chimneys of the accommodation were built from bricks, and they still stand. I was taken aback by an enormous field of chimneys stretching as far as I could see—the worst of humanity on display for all. But it is so important that the camp stands as a lesson and stands in history forever so that all of us can learn about the horrors of the Holocaust. It will stay with me forever. While liberation brought an end to the horrors of Nazi extermination and torture, it came too late for 6 million Jewish people and all the other victims of the Holocaust. We owe it to all of them to ensure that “never again” means never again.
Some of the people who survived Auschwitz and the Holocaust have shared their stories with us, and I referred to some of them earlier. Powerful lessons can always be learned from those testimonies. I would like to pay tribute to one of those survivors today. Iby Knill was a Leeds resident for most of her life following world war two. However, in her youth, Iby fled to Hungary to escape Nazi-occupied Czechoslovakia, but sadly she was still captured and deported to Auschwitz-Birkenau.
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to read a little of Iby’s testimony. Please understand that any references to “you” are just taken from her testimony. This is what she wrote about arriving at Auschwitz-Birkenau:
“When we arrived, men in striped pyjamas opened the doors and told us to leave the sick, the old and the children. Men and women were separated. I and four other women—two of them doctors—linked arms and moved past”
the doctor.
“We had arrived in Auschwitz-Birkenau. We were told to strip, had the hair shaved off all over our bodies and were then pushed into showers. Normal practise included, at this stage, the registration and tattooing of each persons’ identity number on their left arm, but there were so many of us that the ink run out and I was not tattooed. We were given some clothes and taken into the camp. Two hundred and fifty women went into each hut.”
The people
“(in charge of my hut) were Czech; I could speak to them and got a slightly larger ration of watery soup and also a slightly larger piece of blanket. There was so little room we had to sleep squashed up like spoons. Every morning, midday and evening…everyone was counted, this could take three or four hours. You had to strip and hold your clothes above your head. If you swayed or stumbled you were taken away and never seen again. We were taken to be showered once a week. If anyone was taken ill they were taken to the hospital hut and usually then to the gas chambers. Worse than hunger was the thirst. It was summer and there was no water at all… On 26th July”
the doctor
“asked for volunteers. I, with the two doctors and the two nurses who had come together to Auschwitz had realized that if we stayed there we would eventually die. We therefore volunteered and went with a slave labour transport of five hundred and thirty Hungarian women to”
Germany.
“We spent overnight in another hutment, where a twin I knew from Szekesfehervar asked me to tell the world what I had seen because twins were being experimented on by
a doctor
“and they did not believe that they would survive. We left on 27th July.”
Iby’s testimony is incredibly powerful. She knew that if she stayed in that camp she would die, so she took the opportunity to go to Germany—an opportunity that few had—until she was liberated while on a death march on Easter Sunday 1945. She married, came to England and lived in Leeds. She was later supported by the Holocaust Survivors’ Friendship Association based in Leeds. The association now runs the Holocaust Centre North, a museum in Huddersfield devoted to telling a global history of the Holocaust through the local stories of survivors and refugees like Iby.
Iby spent the remainder of her later life telling the story that I have just shared with the House. She wanted to educate future generations about the horrors of the Holocaust. I pay tribute to her and all the survivors. They have given their accounts so that we can learn the lessons and ensure that it never happens again.
Members have spoken about the theme of this Holocaust Memorial Day, which is about taking action for a better future. Given the rise of antisemitism in the UK and across Europe, we must prioritise action to stop that evil. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak set that out in clear terms. I welcome the Government’s allocation of £54 million for the Community Security Trust to continue its vital work to protect the Jewish community. I also welcome the fact that the Prime Minister took the opportunity at Prime Minister’s questions a few weeks ago to reiterate his commitment to that funding.
Education is key. As a former teacher, I know the power that education has to inspire understanding. The Holocaust must never become a footnote in history, especially as we approach the era that I spoke about, when we will no longer be able to hear survivors provide their testimony in person. I put on record my gratitude to the Holocaust Educational Trust, which does an incredible amount to educate teachers and provide high-quality material to schools. I am also pleased that the Government have maintained the cross-party consensus on properly supporting and funding Holocaust education. We have pledged an additional £2 million to support the crucial work of the Holocaust Educational Trust. We are also committed to building a new Holocaust memorial and learning centre. I welcome the fact that Holocaust education will remain mandatory in the national curriculum.
On that point, let me speak about the trials going ahead to see how we can further expand Holocaust education in schools. We need to ensure not just that it is embedded in the curriculum, but that it stays with our young people beyond school. While I was in Poland for my visit, I spoke with a journalist—a young man from Gildersome in my constituency—who was asking me about the post office that was under threat. I told him where I was, and he said, “Oh yes, the Holocaust. We had a few lessons on that in school, but not much more.” That struck me, because if he is saying that—someone who is switched on, interested in politics and becoming a journalist —there are bound to be other students who are left behind. That is why it is so important that the trials going on at the moment are used, and, if successful, rolled out to the wider national curriculum. We all must continue to learn the lessons from humanity’s darkest time.
Before I conclude my remarks, I pay tribute to the Jewish community in Leeds for the events that they always organise across Leeds for Holocaust Memorial Day. This Sunday will see the civic remembrance event at City Varieties, which I have attended before. It will remember those murdered in the Holocaust, as well as in subsequent genocides in Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur. I was very pleased to hear those genocides mentioned by Members across different parties. There will be readings and candles lit by representatives of all those who were persecuted, including Holocaust survivors. We will come together as a city to remember those we lost, as we do every year and always will.
All of us in this House have a duty to use our voices to uphold the memory of the Holocaust, its victims and its survivors. We owe it to everyone who died. We will never forget them. The words “never again” will stand for all time. I know that everyone in this House will work towards that end.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
It is a privilege and an honour as a shadow Minister, but also as the co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on British Jews, to close today’s debate on Holocaust Memorial Day. I share the very complimentary observations of many Members about the Minister’s opening speech. He was very clear in restating the importance not only of recalling in particular the Holocaust that took place in the second world war, targeted at 6 million Jews and people from all kinds of minority backgrounds, but of ensuring—this has been reflected in the many contributions from Members across the Chamber—that when we debate these issues, we think about the lessons we can learn from what happened then, from earlier tragedies and from events since, in order to ensure that as far as possible, we are doing what we can to make sure those kinds of events are never repeated.
There have been many moving and impactful speeches. The hon. Members for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky), for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) and for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) and my hon. Friends the Members for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) all made contributions—as did every speaker—that I will try to reflect in my closing speech, in particular where the points they made relate to lessons that we need to learn for the future.
It is incredibly important to hear the testimony of survivors, and I join colleagues in paying tribute to people such as my constituent, Paul Sved. He is one of those Holocaust survivors who travels the country with the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, speaking about what he experienced as a child and the impact it had on him, his family and his wider community. These are all reminders of the human stories that make the level of inhumanity that was shown in the Holocaust even harder to comprehend. It is also an opportunity to reflect that even in the midst of all that darkness, there are examples of humanity—of people in difficult situations taking steps to preserve the lives of their neighbours, and sometimes of strangers in their community.
I had the opportunity to visit the Wannsee villa, a beautiful lakeside house on the outskirts of Berlin—a place like my constituency. That house was the command centre for the Holocaust; it is where the committees of Nazi politicians, police and military met to manage the logistics. Today, it is a museum, displaying the records that were kept of all the meetings that took place. The thing that I found very striking about it as a visiting politician was the banality of that evidence and those records. It was like reading the minutes of the planning committees that I saw in a local authority. They list who attended and what they discussed, but instead of recording the details of people’s extensions and changes to the design of their home and their neighbours’ views, they record in detail the planning and execution of a Government-level strategy of mass murder. That emphasises the importance of learning from history. When we see the statue at Friedrichstraße station—the memorial to the Kindertransport—we can recall that at the end of world war two, when the Russian forces arrived in Berlin, they found 1,700 Jewish people living in that city who had been sheltered by a combination of city authorities and neighbours. Even in those dark places, there were those who were willing to help.
It is important to remember that antisemitism has much older roots. I was very struck by the contribution of the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley), who talked about the blood libel. In a world that often seems very polarised, it always seems to me a great irony that even further back than that, the Islamic caliphate that ruled Spain—with which much of Christian Europe was at war for centuries—was the one place of safety in Europe for Jewish people for a very long time. Antisemitism is something that has deep roots, and it is incumbent on us to be aware of those roots if we are to deal with it effectively.
Members have spoken about the need to spot examples of similar human behaviour in more recent years. Srebrenica was described; many Members spoke movingly of their experiences of it, and insights from it. As the displays at Mr Speaker’s event yesterday set out, what happened in Rwanda was one of the most hideous genocides of the modern era. Many of us will recall seeing that tragedy unfold on the TV news, or hearing about it on the radio. That ties in with the theme of today’s debate. Rwanda is now a modern, democratic nation working with countries across Europe and the United Nations—for example, to resettle refugees. It is a good example of the fact that when terrible things happen, people may not always progress quickly to a perfect situation, but they can learn, identify lessons, and seek to make amends.
As well as an opportunity to recall what happened, this debate is an opportunity for us to reflect on what the nation and Parliament need to do in policy terms. It is important to acknowledge, for example, our nation’s commitment, through our Government, to the European convention on human rights. It expresses fundamental and ancient British values to do with the rule of law and due process, and applies to 46 nations, many of which chose to enshrine those values because they wanted to learn from the events that led up to the Holocaust, and to ensure that it never happened again.
There is always scope for debate on whether treaties and conventions are fit for the modern age, but our nation must continue to work alongside the UN, and to value international law and agreements—from those of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to those of the International Maritime Organisation—that enshrine the rules on how we treat people, such as refugees in small boats who find themselves in distress at sea. They have a bearing on how we work with other countries, as a leading nation and a leading voice in the international community, to encourage others to share our values of liberty and democracy.
When we recall, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East, my constituency neighbour, did in such historical detail, the events leading up to world war two, it puts into context our debates in the Chamber about defence spending. We can debate the figures, but there is clearly a broad commitment to moving towards spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. As my hon. Friend set out, however, we had commitments to others across Europe in 1939 that we simply could not meet in practice. Our country was able to defend itself, as the battle of Britain showed, but we should all ask ourselves—my hon. Friend posed this challenge—what would have been different if we had learned lessons and acted sooner. Would we have been able, in smaller or greater measure, to prevent the tragedy that unfolded and took so many innocent lives?
The United Kingdom is not a global policeman any more—the years of the Victorian pax Britannica are clearly long gone—but there remains scope for free nations to work together, and many of them have an honourable history in this respect. The Minister and I have talked a lot about Grenfell Tower, given our portfolios. Grenfell was sent to deal with the consequences of atrocities in the Sudan that caused serious concern across the world in the Victorian era. British troops, British forces and British diplomacy were frequently deployed, as in Benin, because of concern about the large-scale loss of life and atrocities that were destabilising communities.
Looking around our modern world, we see the Russianisation of deported Ukrainian children, who were taken from their families to another country to be changed into citizens of a different place with a different outlook. We look at what has happened to the Uyghur people and the Rohingya, and we look at the unfolding tragedy in Gaza and Israel. We may not be able to intervene directly and put a stop to those things, but the combined forces of the international community can be extremely powerful. We may not always be able to intervene early enough to prevent the worst of a tragedy, but we still have the scope to make a difference.
Many of us will be conscious of the impact of these issues on our constituents; I have heard Rabbi Aaron Goldstein at the Ark synagogue in my constituency speak about that movingly. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) joined me in a visit. It is twinned with synagogues in Ukraine, and holds services together with people whose homes are being bombed and whose synagogues are under attack. The Holocaust that we are talking about is an historical event, but its consequences and the attitudes behind it are very much alive, not just in Europe, but elsewhere in the world.
I add the Opposition’s thanks to organisations that do incredibly important work on this issue, particularly in this era of heightened tension and heightened fear of antisemitism. I applaud the fact that the Government have, through cross-party work, carried on providing the necessary finance to the Community Security Trust, which has a visible presence around synagogues in my constituency. It provides reassurance to our Jewish citizens, and their friends and neighbours, so that they can freely practise their faith and associate with members of their community without fear.
Notwithstanding some of the debate around marches in central London, I welcome the fact that in most of our communities, relationships remain good. In particular, relationships that were build up during the covid era, when people of all faiths came together with Churches and community organisations, have stood us in good stead, and people have not allowed themselves to be divided. I thank the Metropolitan police, and police forces across the country, who have responded to issues robustly, but with sensitivity. Since 2016, there has been not only long-standing, cross-party support for funding for the CST, which provides security assistance for synagogues and our Jewish community, but funding to ensure that our Muslim community enjoys additional security and protection.
All those who have testified about their experience of coming here from Holocaust-blighted Europe for a new start have described the importance of being in a place where freedom applies to everybody, and is not the preserve of a few. It is enormously important that the work of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust, and the educational programmes that sit alongside it, continues, so that our children and future generations have the opportunity we have had to hear the testimony of those who have been through those dark periods, and the opportunity, which many Members described so movingly, to learn from history and ensure that we do not repeat its worst mistakes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)
It is an honour to speak in this Holocaust Memorial Day debate, and I am grateful to hon. Members from all parts of the House for their powerful and moving contributions to this important debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who responded to the debate, and to my ministerial colleague, the Minister for Housing and Planning, for opening it.
This year, Holocaust Memorial Day marks the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. It is an especially poignant occasion, because as Members have highlighted, it is the last major anniversary when we can expect to have significant numbers of Holocaust survivors able to share their testimony. We have heard from many hon. Members of the impact that listening to first-hand witnesses has had on them. Indeed, I think of my experience and the impact it has had on me.
We have listened to personal reflections on the lasting influence of visits to Auschwitz-Birkenau and other camps across Europe. Some hon. Members have spoken bravely about their family members’ experience of the Holocaust, and the trauma and suffering experienced by their family. This debate is about remembering the 6 million Jewish men, women and children murdered during the Holocaust: the most horrific of war crimes ever committed. Remembering the Holocaust is a human rights imperative.
The Holocaust stands out as one of the defining moments of history that has shaped the conscience of humanity. The debate has highlighted that the past few years have not been easy for British Jews, with antisemitism on the rise across Europe and the UK. It has also shown that contemporary antisemitism revolves around the Holocaust, with some blaming the Holocaust on Jews, or suggesting that Jews focus on that tragedy to gain advantage.
As well as Holocaust denial, we see the growing use of Holocaust distortion, as has been pointed out by hon. Members, and intentional efforts to excuse or minimise the impact of the Holocaust. Today, Holocaust denial and distortion move instantaneously across social media, and are amplified by algorithms that drive anger, hate and division. As we mark the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, it is right to be reminded of what unchecked behaviours and violent bigotry can lead to.
We all have a duty and a role to play in rooting out antisemitism where we see it, and the Jewish community can be assured that the Government will stand shoulder to shoulder with them. The message is clear: we cannot remember the victims of the Holocaust without fighting antisemitism and hate today. That is why we remain determined to create the UK national memorial and learning centre in Victoria Tower Gardens. The proposed Holocaust memorial and learning centre’s exhibition will address the impact of antisemitism.
I echo the many tributes paid today to Karen Pollock, the chief executive of the Holocaust Education Trust, who, along with her team, does inspirational work for our country. I also pay tribute to the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and its chief executive officer Olivia Marks-Woldman. I pay tribute, too, to other Holocaust remembrance, education and survivor organisations that enrich the work that we do, including Jewish Care’s Holocaust survivors’ centre in Golders Green; the Wiener Holocaust library; the Association of Jewish Refugees; the National Holocaust Centre and Museum in Newark, Nottinghamshire; Holocaust Centre North at Huddersfield University; and University College London’s centre for Holocaust education.
As has been pointed out, we are all aware that the number of Holocaust survivors is dwindling. We will rely on their children and grandchildren to share their testimonies. That is why I pay a special tribute to organisations such as Generation 2 Generation, the Holocaust education charity established to empower second and third-generation Holocaust survivor descendants to present their family histories to a wide variety of audiences. Through the use of survivor testimony, G2G aims to keep Holocaust stories alive, so that we never forget.
Let me speak to the powerful, inspirational and moving speeches made by hon. Members—I will call them my hon. Friends—across the House. I begin with my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky). A number of hon. Members referred to the powerful story of his father as a Holocaust survivor, and the struggles and heroism of Maria. Across the House we are all proud to see my hon. Friend speaking and representing his constituency in this Parliament. We must make sure that children and the next generation continue to learn from stories such as his family’s, to fight intolerance and hatred anywhere across our country and the world. He works passionately, alongside other colleagues, to campaign against intolerance and hate in our country and elsewhere.
I also pay special tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) for his incredibly powerful speech. Over the years I have heard him speak in this debate and in others about his family’s history and their struggles. It is so important that we hear these testimonies, because of the connection that it creates. The trauma that generations face after a genocide never diminishes. It is right that as fellow citizens and friends we support each other, whatever our faith and background, and act in solidarity.
I thank the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), for his opening speech. He spoke powerfully, as did other Members, about the genocides that, sadly, have taken place since the Holocaust, in Cambodia, Bosnia, Rwanda and Darfur. There are many other examples of human rights violations in our country, which the hon. Gentleman referred to. In opposition, I campaigned for many years against the persecution of Rohingya Muslims. I am incredibly grateful to the British Jewish community, and many others of different faiths and of no faith, for working with me on that campaign to secure the referral of the Myanmar military to the International Court of Justice, precisely on the matter of genocide.
I am grateful for the support of prominent lawyers such as my great friend Philippe Sands, who wrote the book “East West Street”, which documents his own family’s story and the stories of Lemkin and Lauterpacht, the architects of the modern-day international legal framework as we know it. It also documents the enormous contribution of the Jewish community in the post-war period, which continues to influence our international legal system, particularly on human rights and genocide.
Paul Waugh
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s own personal fortitude in standing up to hate, particularly at the last general election when she, along with many other Labour candidates, suffered abuse on the doorstep. There is a lot of talk today about combating hate, but many candidates turned a blind eye to their own supporters who used the phrases “genocide enablers” and “child murderers” in the last election, which was utterly disgusting. Will she join me in condemning that?
Rushanara Ali
It is important that we all ensure that we are peacemakers at home. If we want to see peace and security both here at home and elsewhere in the world, we have to work together in solidarity and be fellow citizens. We have to practice what we preach. It is important that we keep our democracy safe, and that those of all backgrounds who stand for public office locally and nationally can stand for our democratic system, free from hatred, intolerance, bigotry and hostility, whichever party they belong to. That is how we will protect our democracy.
I also draw the House’s attention to the speech made by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), who reflected powerfully on her experience of joining delegations to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Along with other hon. Members, she talked about the work of those delegations and their visits to Yad Vashem. I, too, have had the opportunity to make visits over the years on delegations to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories with Members across the House.
I draw attention to a Member in the Lords with whom I had the opportunity to visit the Occupied Palestinian Territories, who was a child of the Kindertransport and who went on to become a Labour Member of Parliament and then a Member of the House of Lords: Lord Dubs. It is because of the heroism of British hero Nicholas Winton that Lord Dubs was able to survive the Holocaust. We had the opportunity to visit the Occupied Palestinian Territories together. As we all know, he continues to campaign for child refugees, and has campaigned with many of us over the years for peace in the middle east. There are many others in our country who benefited from the heroism of those who acted to get children out during that period through the Kindertransport.
The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole talked about the importance of Holocaust education. I am incredibly proud of the fact that this Government, building on the work of the previous Government, continue to be committed to bridging divisions between communities, challenging hatred and working closely with community groups, charities and public sector partners to build that solidarity. This Government are actively exploring more integrated and cohesive approaches to tackling hate crime, and we will share more information in due course. We have allocated £54 million for the Community Security Trust to continue its vital work providing security to schools, synagogues and other Jewish community buildings until 2028. We have also committed to reversing the previous Government’s decision to downgrade the recording and monitoring of antisemitic non-crime hate incidents.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) reflected on the harrowing case of her constituent’s mother, who was kidnapped in Gaza, and talked powerfully about the importance of working together to tackle antisemitism and anti-Muslim hatred and Islamophobia, and the need to come together, building on the theme of creating a “better future” for all. A number of other hon. Members talked about the importance of the theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day.
My friend the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who has never since his election in 2010 missed one of these debates, spoke powerfully about the importance of tackling antisemitism, and spoke about the origin of the Holocaust and the escalation of antisemitism. He also spoke powerfully about the Holocaust Memorial Bill and the education centre. He raised some important questions about the work on lessons from Auschwitz. The Department for Education, along with our Department, supports the teaching of Holocaust education by funding two programmes—one, as he referred to, for 16 to 18-year-olds—and creating the opportunity for young people to visit Auschwitz-Birkenau. We will continue to work together to ensure that we support the education effort. The Department for Education set out an ambitious plan to enable students to have the opportunity to hear recorded survivor testimony. The autumn Budget committed £2 million to support that work. The Department is also exploring how it can support schools to fulfil that ambition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) also talked about the importance of Holocaust education, as did a number of Members, and the vital need to ensure that we continue to invest in Holocaust education. I have seen how powerful that is in schools in my constituency, including with, along with the organisations I mentioned, the Anne Frank Trust UK and many others.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) raised a question about resourcing. Over the past 20 years, the UK has committed more than £2.5 million of funds to projects dealing with the aftermath of the Srebrenica genocide, including towards the funding of the construction of the Srebrenica-Potočari Genocide Memorial centre.
My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce) highlighted the increase in antisemitic attacks since 7 October. As I said, we are taking action to provide support and protection for synagogues, schools and other important institutions. Any form of racism and racial hatred is completely unacceptable in our society. We have allocated £54 million up to 2028 for the CST to continue its work of providing security to institutions that feel at risk and under threat. The CST recorded a total of 325 university-related incidents over the two academic years covered by its report, with 53 incidents in 2023 and 272 in 2024. That 117% rise, from a total of 150 campus incidents recorded from 2020 to 2022, is completely unacceptable. We know that we must act to ensure that protection is available. We will do all we can to support students, and to ensure that students from different backgrounds and faiths can come together and not be allowed to be divided by forces that seek to divide people from different communities, particularly in the British Jewish community and the British Muslim community.
The hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) talked about the critical importance of tackling disinformation and extremism. The Online Safety Act 2023 was introduced by the previous Government and this Government have committed to implementing it. The online space has become more and more problematic, and we must tackle the underlying causes as best we can to protect people against antisemitism and other forms of hate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward), like other hon. Members, made an incredibly powerful contribution. She drew attention to her great-grandfather and her Jewish heritage. I found it incredibly moving, as I did not know about her great-grandfather and his story. I pay tribute to her for the tireless work she has done throughout her career to fight for those who are suffering globally, and in particular for her work on humanitarian issues in conflict zones and her work with Medical Aid for Palestinians. She is an inspiration to so many of us in the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) talked about the Holocaust Memorial Day “80 Candles for 80 Years” project, which the Deputy Prime Minister took part in. He also referred to the UK being a signatory to the Stockholm declaration, the UK’s presidency of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance and the contribution that the UK is making.
The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) talked powerfully about the need to guard against the demonisation of Jews, Muslims and refugees and to constantly fight intolerance and hatred. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) spoke powerfully about the importance of recognising and remembering the Srebrenica massacre and the genocide in Bosnia. It was a genocide, as has been confirmed by the international courts, and we must never forget the victims. The UK has consistently urged all political leaders in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the region to reject hate speech and to condemn any glorification of the perpetrators of genocide and war crimes. Over the past 20 years, the UK has committed more than £2.5 million of funding to projects dealing with the aftermath of the Srebrenica genocide.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) highlighted the unity across the House in this very important debate, and I hope we can maintain that. When it comes to fighting intolerance, antisemitism, anti-Muslim hatred and hatred towards other minority groups—those with protected characteristics, those with disabilities and many others—I hope that we can find common cause and that it is not only on days like this that we come together; I hope we can work consistently against hatred, intolerance and demonisation.
I turn to the interventions that this Government, building on the work of the previous Government, are making to protect the British Muslim community. After the 7 October terrorist attack, and in the light of the war in Gaza, anti-Muslim hatred and intolerance has grown in our country. This year, the Government have made up to £29.4 million of protective security funding available to British Muslim community organisations, to protect institutions from being targeted. We have sadly seen examples of the targeting of mosques, faith schools and other organisations. We have also committed more than £1 million to support victims of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) talked powerfully about the history of antisemitism through the centuries and the stories of blood libel in the 11th century. It is a great source of pride to see him in this House, as the first representative of Jewish heritage and Jewish faith for his constituency; we are incredibly proud to have him here.
Other Members have spoken powerfully about a range of issues. I will not be able to refer to each one of them, but their contributions today have been inspiring and powerful. It is incredibly heartening to hear about their leadership roles in their communities, because, regardless of whether someone is a local representative, or a national representative as a Member of Parliament, the need to constantly fight intolerance wherever we see it must guide and influence our work in our everyday lives. That is the vital and painstaking work of Holocaust education charities in our constituencies. In my own constituency, I have seen at first hand the way that such organisations bring together different communities, and children and adults of different faiths and none, to learn from the history of what happened in the Holocaust and make sure that we do not allow such atrocities to happen again.
This year’s national ceremony will be filmed and broadcast on BBC One at 7 pm on Monday 27 January. At 8 pm, there will be a “light the darkness” moment, when iconic buildings across the United Kingdom will be lit up to remember the Holocaust. They include the Houses of Parliament, Cardiff castle, Edinburgh castle, Belfast city hall, Tyne bridge, Clifford’s Tower in York, the London Eye, Stormont and the Royal Liver building. We can all play our part by placing a candle in our windows at 8 pm. It is our responsibility to inspire future generations to stand up against hatred, prejudice and evil. The lessons of the Holocaust are not Jewish but universal, and they remain relevant today.
As my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in his opening remarks, the long-awaited ceasefire in Gaza began on Sunday 19 February. We saw the release of three hostages taken on 7 October, including the British-Israeli hostage Emily Damari, and the release of hundreds of Palestinians. Across this House, we all hope that these first tentative steps will lead to a lasting peace in which Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace and security.
On a personal note, I pay tribute to the British Jewish community in my own constituency, where they have had a presence for many generations. In particular, I recognise the contribution that they made in the Battle of Cable Street, when they stood up with trade unionists and many others to fight Oswald Mosley’s fascists. Throughout the generations, and in working with others across our society, the Jewish community made places such as the east end of London safe for people like me and for those from the British Catholic community, the British Muslim community and many others. That is the spirit of our country: different communities coming together to support each other and to create a safe space for us to fight against intolerance.
I would like us to take a moment to remember all the Holocaust survivors who shared their testimonies and are no longer with us. I pay tribute to them for the work that they did over many decades.
The theme of Holocaust Memorial Day 2025 is “For a better future”. As others have said, it is an opportunity for people to come together, learn about the past and take action to make a better future for all. There is much we can all do to create a better future. We can speak up against Holocaust and genocide denial and distortion. We can challenge prejudice. We can encourage others to learn about the Holocaust, the other victims of the Nazis and subsequent genocides. In remembering the 6 million Jewish victims of the Holocaust and the millions of the Nazis’ other victims, let us all vow to work together in unity and solidarity for a better future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Holocaust Memorial Day.
PETITION
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I hope the Government will pay heed to the strength of feeling across West Sussex and my constituency that elections should never be cancelled opportunistically under the guise of local government reorganisation. It leads to the disenfranchisement of voters and further erodes trust in politics and politicians.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the County Council elections meant to take place in May 2025 should not be postponed indefinitely.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that the County Council Elections in West Sussex take place in May 2025.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003036]
High Streets: Autumn Budget 2024
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
It is an honour to secure this debate on the autumn Budget’s impact on high streets as my first Adjournment debate, not just because it is such a vital topic but because it is a topic dear to my heart. In my maiden speech, I shared the story of helping my mum on the shop floor, and it seems only fitting that my first Adjournment debate is on our high streets.
Every night after school, and most weekends, I helped out in my mum’s gift shop. I remember chatting away to the staff, the customers and our neighbouring businesses. I remember late nights sorting out items to donate to the local charity, and the summer when I offered to run the shop myself.
I also remember what happened when the economy turned, having to pack away stock and move to smaller premises because it was that or closure. I remember helping my parents with the mortgage as a teenager, gleefully buying broken biscuits as a family and only now, later in life, realising how much work my parents put in to keep a roof over our heads and food on the table.
After many successful years, during which several premises were opened, the cost of retail and business rates, the competition from online giants and the decline in consumer spending was too much. My mum could not beat them, so she joined them and took her business online. In many ways, it was a relief for the family. It was a simpler way of continuing the business, but it was hard to see the store close 30 years after she first set up shop.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
My hon. Friend is right about how sad it is to see high street shops close, such as the one in which she used to help. We have seen local councils invest in Cullompton’s high street, but this is sadly offset by the shop closures. Will my hon. Friend make some recommendations on what the Government could do to prevent some of these shop closures?
Victoria Collins
The heart of this debate is about making sure we look after those businesses and the many more that could open.
My story shows why this debate is so important to me. I know that the story of our high streets is the story of our local communities.
Victoria Collins
I will make a little progress.
Both for the families behind the doors, and for the families and local people who shop there, our high streets are truly at the heart of the community. I have the honour of representing seven high streets across Harpenden and Berkhamsted, and I am grateful to the local businesses that responded to my survey ahead of this debate. Today, I am sharing their voices, as well as the impact the Budget will have on their businesses, their livelihoods their families and our community.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Responding to my small business survey, a local business in Street said that high employer national insurance contributions is one of the major challenges and that it could force them to cancel some of their investment plans. Does my hon. Friend agree that the measures being proposed do not encourage growth and could instead push more high street businesses to close, significantly impacting the already fragile rural economy?
Victoria Collins
Absolutely. Sadly, the desperation that came through in my survey shows that a lot of businesses are very worried about their future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call on Victoria Collins to stand so that she can take Mr Shannon’s intervention.
Jim Shannon
From 1959 to 1979, my mum and dad had a shop in Ballywalter, and they had a shop before that as well, so there is a history of having shops. I will take the example of today’s high street in Newtownards. National insurance contributions, wages, theft and attacks on shop staff are all issues now being faced there. Does the hon. Lady agree that the high street needs help today like it has never needed it before?
Victoria Collins
Absolutely; that is very much in line with the feedback I had from businesses. Indeed, it is with much disappoint that I share the impact of the autumn Budget on my local businesses. It is no secret that the Conservatives left our economy in a mess, and many of our businesses are still reeling from that. That is exactly why it is important for the Government to get this right.
Many of the proposals in the autumn Budget will not lead to growth on our high streets. I would like to have faith that Labour intended to do the right thing and that these are unintended consequences. I hope that the Government heed some of the warnings and take action to mitigate the impact and change course. In the words of one director in my constituency,
“it is a disaster…all planned investment has been cancelled, expansion plans cancelled. Prices will go up on 1st April by at least 10%. And we’re looking at ways to reduce staff count.”
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the high streets of Tiverton and Minehead, as well as those of every other constituency in the country, will be hurt by this Government’s decision to lower the amount of relief offered to retail, hospitality and leisure businesses from 75% to 40%? Does she also agree that they should instead be looking to replace business rates with an entirely new commercial landowner levy, rather than tinkering around the edges and making an already bad system worse?
Victoria Collins
That is one of the main topics that came up. Businesses shared with me that after facing the impact of Brexit, closures during covid, cuts to local infrastructure following Conservative cuts to local government and the soaring costs from the cost of living crisis, the combination of measures in the autumn Budget, which includes the rise in national insurance contributions, the change in business rates that was just mentioned and the increase in the minimum wage, as well as proposed changes that could impact family businesses, means that they are now reaching crisis point.
Businesses that I speak to are largely supportive of an increase in the minimum wage. I want to highlight that because they want to support their staff. However, it is the combination of all those factors, after such a difficult time, that is devastating. The knock-on impact of that combination has also seen pre-emptive cost rises across supply chains and worries about consumer confidence, as consumers ultimately spend less on our high streets. Although the GfK consumer confidence index in the UK rose by one point last December, confidence levels remain subdued and retail sales in the UK unexpectedly declined 0.3% month-on-month last December, in a moment in the calendar that is often the most critical time for retail and hospitality on our high streets.
Coming back to national insurance contributions for employers, this is a pre-profit cost increase. Not only does that need to be managed, but for businesses that are just about breaking even or making a loss, it will tip them over the edge and drastically cut the cash flow that is often key to investment. The well-loved local Lussmans restaurants in Hertfordshire have been serving local people for 22 years and face around £250,000 off the bottom line, leading to reduced investment in our local area. Temptation Gifts will see similar, if not higher, costs and says that for the first time in 42 years, it will be shortening opening hours as part of its cost-saving measures. It is having to make difficult staffing decisions in a business that the family has built over decades.
My constituent, Charlotte, managing director of the oldest family-run jewellers in the UK, says that the mix of higher national insurance contributions and higher minimum wage costs means that they will not hire any more staff, and that anyone who leaves will not be replaced. Almar in Tring, where Carolyn and her husband already work long days, says that the national insurance contributions will be a big issue in their running costs and that they do not know how they will cope working even longer days.
Chiltern Opticians in Tring highlights the barriers that small businesses face in hiring staff. It says that it is very different for big corporations, which have large human resources teams to handle staffing issues, and that
“we just don’t have the budget for it”.
These are resilient businesses—or they have been—and they want to continue to build those businesses and to employ local people. Indeed, I see their pride in supporting local staff, often calling them “family”. Jordan from G. Grace & Son in Tring says:
“We are more like a community centre at times, providing essential services to the community.”
In that, I hear my mum’s voice who so often did the same. Our pubs, restaurants and cafés in Harpenden and Berkhamsted cover 197 hospitality venues that employ more than 6,000 people and generate nearly £143 million in revenue. These businesses are the backbone of our economy and community.
The Government say that they are protecting small businesses, but these are the small businesses of which they talk. Indeed, the official definition of a small or medium-sized enterprise is a company with fewer than 250 employees. They are growing, local, often family-run businesses that are nowhere close to being the international giants that have started to dominate retail or hospitality. These local businesses are happy to pay their way. Andrei says:
“I have no issue with tax rises, but these are positioned poorly. The vast majority of the high street are SMEs and they will be hit the hardest.”
Sadly, the desperation is clear. These small businesses are worried that the Budget will be the final straw. Participants in my local survey said:
“What is the point of a small business? The high street is dying.”
Therefore, when it comes to national insurance contributions, will the Government consider mitigations to support the local businesses on our high streets? These could include a lower rate of NICs for earnings of between £5,000 and the £9,100 threshold, or a lower rate for lower earning taxpayers who work part time—perhaps fewer than 20 hours per week. As we have heard from many local businesses, this would help get more people working and support our local economy. At the very least, will the Government consider delaying implementation to give businesses time to adjust and consider their own mitigation?
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
I wonder whether the Minister will consider what I am about to say. I have been asked to go to the Isle of Skye on Saturday for a crisis meeting. There is a group of hotels, which are family-run businesses, not big multinationals, and they face an awful combination of increases across the board, including heating price increases. Their No. 1 issue is national insurance contributions and minimum wage costs. They think that, on average, their costs will go up by between £40,000 and £70,000. They are in a very poor state indeed. Can the Minister give me any encouragement that I could pass on to them on her behalf?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Mr MacDonald, your intervention was on the Member, so the question goes to her, and she can insist on the Minister responding.
Victoria Collins
My hon. Friend mentioned the rise in energy costs, which I have not covered in my speech but which have been mentioned by many of my local businesses as a matter for consideration. I am sure the Minister will also consider the other comments that he made.
When it comes to business rates, there is a similar story of despair. The Robin Hood pub says that its business rates will double. G. Grace & Son says:
“Our business rates are already a huge cost overall to the business, which seems disproportionate given that our premises are relatively small. And increasing them will put even more strain on our already stretched budgets.”
Mark from Tabure restaurant in both Harpenden and Berkhamsted said:
“There will be yet another increase in the national minimum wage—this time above inflation. Alcohol duty will increase on 1 February. Business rates are set to increase in April, along with various increases in national insurance contributions. And this Budget is devastating.”
Will the Government consider abolishing the broken business rates system and replacing it with a commercial landowner levy? Furthermore, will the Government consider delivering the maximum discount allowed by the Budget to support hospitality or smaller high street businesses?
I wish that I had the time to dive into all the issues raised by local businesses, but I will focus on just two more. Many are worried about high street services such as parking. With the Conservatives having cut local council funding again and again, many services such as parking and investment in our high streets have had to be cut as well. Given the Government’s commitment to local communities, will they ensure that investment in local councils compensates for the increase in national insurance contributions that councils will have to pay, to help them to invest in our high streets and related services?
Several family businesses have highlighted the devastating impact of the proposed changes to inheritance tax. Mike and his wife have worked week in, week out for over 40 years, and in their 70s are still working full time to support the business and their employees. They say that they have taken low dividends and looked after their staff, and hope to hand over the business to their children, but the proposed changes mean that the business may have to be pulled apart. For Charlotte’s family business, the removal of the 100% business property relief will mean that it will not be able to stay in the building that it has been in for two centuries. Will the Government carry out a proper impact assessment on inheritance tax for family businesses, notably where the assets will stay within a business that supports the local community?
I once again thank all the businesses that contacted me; I am sorry that I could not mention them all. Similar issues are highlighted by local charities, healthcare providers and, indeed, businesses beyond the high streets in Harpenden, Berkhamsted, Tring, Redbourn, Flamstead, Markyate and Potten End. I suggest that the Minister meets, or continues to meet, with such businesses up and down the country. Carolyn from Almar has invited the Chancellor to come and see at first hand the challenges of running a high street shop, and pleads with the Government to look at measures to mitigate the impact and help our high streets to thrive.
I will end with a message of hope. I would like to envisage a day when people can head to their local high street in Harpenden, Tring, Redbourn or anywhere in the UK; when there is proper public transport investment, so it is easy to pop on the bus; when there is investment in our walkways and cycleways, so people can get down there easily; and when people can perhaps even find a parking space. A day when the high street is a vibrant place, full of thriving local businesses; when people can drop their kids off nearby at the local creche, easily head to the doctors, and relax with friends and family after a busy or sunny day—that is, when the sun comes out in the UK. A day when our high streets up and down the country are a real experience; when they have been invested in, and local businesses are thriving; and when the beating heart of our community is alive, thriving and no longer on life support. With the right investment and incentives, and with adjustments to the autumn Budget, we must start that journey.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) on securing the debate and thank her for sharing her story of working in her mum’s gift shop. It was very moving to hear that she has had direct experience of working in a shop on the high street. I also thank her for her survey of local small businesses on her seven high streets, which is an impressive number. She outlined very well the importance of the businesses there; I think she said that there are 197 retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, employing some 6,000 people. I thank her for sharing those statistics, and the feedback from those businesses.
I share the hon. Member’s passion for the regeneration of our high streets. I think it is a concern for Members across the House. High streets are focal points of economic activity, but most importantly—she said this in her speech—they are often a key part of the unique character of our communities. We know that high street businesses are contending with a range of challenges. She listed some of them, but I will list a couple: changing consumer shopping habits and the rise of online shopping, and a series of economic headwinds, including the pandemic, which we know was particularly difficult for small, independent businesses on the high street.
The Government are committed to reforming Britain’s economy to bring about a decade of national renewal. Creating an environment in which our high streets are able to flourish is critical to that commitment. In her speech, the hon. Member recognised the Government’s dire economic inheritance from the Conservatives, none of whom are in the Chamber. We had some very difficult decisions to make in the Budget, but it was necessary to wipe the slate clean to deliver the economic stability that high street businesses need.
Mr MacDonald
Will the Minister say why taxes were put on poor, struggling organisations, such as high-street shops and hotels, rather than the massive online businesses that are emptying our high streets? Why did she not consider imposing a higher rate of corporation tax or income tax, rather than hitting the poorest businesses in our society?
Emma Reynolds
The hon. Member pre-empts my next sentence, so I thank him for that. We have committed to reforming business rates, because we need a fairer system, fit for the 21st century. That important part of our reforms and plans will, I hope, benefit the businesses that the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted spoke about.
Rachel Gilmour
In recent weeks, I have been working with an excellent organisation called Family Business UK. Before Christmas, it did some research on the impact of agricultural property relief and business property relief on family businesses, and it is about to do another round of research. Do the Minister’s officials want to avail themselves of the results of that research, so that they have better context?
Emma Reynolds
Ministers are always happy to hear from hon. Members. I suggest that the hon. Member writes to the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury with that feedback. I should note that this is not my policy area; the Exchequer Secretary is visiting small businesses as we speak, so I am standing in for him, but I am sure that he will welcome that feedback from the hon. Lady.
I have listened carefully to the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted and tried to note down all her questions, but if I do not get to all of them, I am happy to write to her after the debate; I hope that is helpful. She asked whether there were any mitigations, and I think she asked us to cancel some of the plans in the Budget. I am afraid that I cannot give her that assurance. The changes to national insurance will come into force on 1 April. As I said, we had to make difficult decisions, and that was one of the most difficult.
The hon. Member asked whether we were meeting small businesses. The Exchequer Secretary is meeting a range of small businesses, as are Treasury officials, before formulating our plan to reform business rates, which I will talk about briefly. She asked questions about inheritance tax; I will write to her on that, to ensure she gets the right answer. She also asked about local government. I was not entirely sure about the question, so perhaps we can clarify that, and I will write to her on that as well.
Turning in more detail to the hon. Member’s points about national insurance, one of the toughest decisions we took in the Budget was to raise the rate of employer national insurance contributions from 13.8% to 15%, but we recognised the need to protect the smallest businesses. The Federation of Small Businesses asked us specifically about that, which is why we have more than doubled the employment allowance to £10,500. That means that more than half of businesses with national insurance contribution liabilities will either see no change at all or be taken out of paying national insurance contributions. As I said, that was a key demand from small businesses.
To support businesses, including those on the high street, the Budget honoured the manifesto commitment to not raise corporation tax; it set out the tax road map for this Parliament, in which we will not change corporation tax, which means we have the lowest rate in the G7. All that will support businesses, from restaurants to retailers, to invest. On the high street, we announced at the Budget major support for pubs; we are cutting alcohol duty on qualifying draught products, which make up approximately 60% of the alcoholic drinks sold in pubs. That represents an overall reduction in duty bills of over £85 million a year, and is equivalent to a 1p duty reduction on a typical pint.
The hon. Member raised concerns about the business rate system; let me address those in more detail. We very much believe that for too long, the business rates system has placed an unfair burden on high-street retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, as she mentioned. To support those sectors, we intend to introduce permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties with rateable values of less than £500,000 from 2026-27. That will allow us to provide stability after the ongoing uncertainty of the one-year retail and hospitality leisure relief, which has been extended year by year since the pandemic. That tax cut will be sustainably funded not by increases in taxes on working people, which we promised not to introduce, but through a higher tax rate on the most valuable 1% of business properties in the country. That will capture the majority of large distribution warehouses, including those used by online giants, as well as other out-of-town businesses that draw footfall away from high streets.
Those business rates reforms provide the certainty that businesses need to invest while protecting the public finances. The Government have already introduced to the House primary legislation that will provide the underpinning of those reforms, and the exact rates for the new multipliers will be confirmed later this year in the autumn Budget.
Sarah Dyke
Many rural town centres in Glastonbury and Somerton, and the businesses within them, are really worried about business rates. Will the Minister consider implementing a fundamental business rates overhaul for small businesses in rural areas?
Emma Reynolds
We need to treat all small businesses equally. I understand the hon. Lady’s perspective, but I do not think that it would be fair or easy to have a business rates system that distinguished between rural and non-rural. What is rural? I know the constituency of the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted rather well because I live not too far away. Tring is a town there, but other places in her constituency would be quite difficult to categorise as rural or non-rural, so I do not think that we can go down that route, although I understand why the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) is trying to tempt us down it; I do not think that would work.
Victoria Collins
The Minister talks about business rates and mentioned Tring in Hertfordshire. A problem that a lot of local businesses have mentioned is that the rateable value is high because property costs are high, even if what they sell is of lower value. The difficulty is that they are paying a lot when they might not have high turnover. Will the Government consider mitigations for those running businesses in areas with high property costs?
Emma Reynolds
I am here in my ministerial capacity, of course, but I also represent High Wycombe in the south-east, so I understand her point, and promise to take it back to the Department, and to the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury.
Levelling the playing field for the high street is just the start, and we are committed to transforming the whole system in the longer term. As we set out in the “Transforming Business Rates” policy paper that we published alongside the Budget, the Government will create a fairer business rates system that protects the high street, supports investment and is fit for the 21st century. It is important that we work in partnership with high-street businesses to get the reforms right. I thank the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted for bringing the voice of small businesses in her constituency to our proceedings.
Government officials have undertaken a series of roundtable events to understand from businesses across all sectors and sizes how they think reform of the system can best be delivered. Over 200 businesses have already given their feedback at those roundtables. The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury is leading that work and engaging with a broad range of high-street businesses, as are officials in my Department.
Richard Foord
I appreciate that it is perhaps the Exchequer Secretary who would know this, but will the Government make sure that the reform of business rates that they are proposing is not negative for those small businesses with a very small rateable value that do not currently pay business rates at all?
Emma Reynolds
Indeed. The point of the reforms is to better protect small businesses. As the hon. Gentleman says, there are already small businesses that are protected, but we want to ensure that those small businesses that are above the current thresholds are also protected, and do not pay the rates that they pay at the moment. We want to make sure that small businesses on the high street are better supported—that is the whole point of the reforms—so I can reassure him that it will not get worse for small businesses. It may be the Exchequer Secretary’s area, but I know that much, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to respond to that question. We look forward to further engagement with businesses over the coming months on delivering a business rates system fit for the future.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted again on her first Adjournment debate in the House—it is also the first Adjournment debate that I have responded to as a Minister—and thank her for raising this important issue. This Government have delivered the economic stability that high-street businesses need to thrive, and we are committed to delivering the business rates reforms that will support high streets up and down the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Third sitting)
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee having divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 12 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 36, in clause 1, page 2, line 11, leave out “may (in particular)” and insert “should, where appropriate”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 37, in clause 1, page 2, line 21, leave out lines 21 to 23 and insert—
“(8) The child in relation to whom the family group decision-making meeting is held should be included in the meeting, unless the local authority deems it inappropriate.”
Amendment 18, in clause 1, page 2, line 26, at end insert—
“(10) Nothing in this section permits an extension to the 26-week limit for care proceedings in section 14(2)(ii) of the Children and Families Act 2014.”
This amendment clarifies that nothing in this section should imply an extension to the statutory 26-week limit for care proceedings.
Amendment 49, in clause 1, page 2, line 26, at end insert—
“31ZB Family group decision-making at the point of reunification
(1) This section applies where a care order is to be discharged for the purposes of family reunification.
(2) Usually prior to a child returning home, and no later than one month after the discharge of a care order, the local authority must offer a family-group decision-making meeting to the child’s parents or any other person with parental responsibility for the child.
(3) If the offer is accepted by at least one person to whom it is made, the local authority must arrange for the meeting to be held.
(4) The family-group decision-making meeting should have the purpose of empowering the child’s family network to promote the long-term safety and wellbeing of the child.
(5) The duty under this section does not apply where the local authority considers that it would not be in the best interests of the child for the family group decision-making meeting to be offered or (as the case may be) to be held.
(6) A ‘family network’, in relation to a child, consists of such persons with an interest in the child’s welfare as the authority considers appropriate to attend the meeting having regard to the child’s best interests, and such persons may (in particular) include—
(a) the child’s parents or any other person with parental responsibility for the child;
(b) relatives, friends or other persons connected with the child.
(7) Where the local authority considers it appropriate, the child in relation to whom the family group decision-making meeting is held may attend the meeting.
(8) In exercising functions under this section in relation to a child, the local authority must seek the views of the child unless it considers that it would not be appropriate to do so.”
This amendment would impose a duty on local authorities to offer family-group decision-making at the point of reunification for children in care, analogous to that proposed before care proceedings are initiated.
Clause stand part.
Ian Sollom
Broadly, the Liberal Democrats welcome the new requirement on local authorities to offer family group decision making, which gives those who care for children, including family members, the opportunity to be involved in putting together that plan for their welfare. The provision strengthens the right to hear the child’s voice, which as we heard in the evidence session is important.
We have a few concerns. As the provision is currently laid out, it might be a little ambiguous. There are lots of different models of family group decision making around, so we would like clarification from the Minister about the principles and standards that are set out in regard to what it actually looks like in practice. Cases where there is domestic violence or coercive control can be hard to identify, so we would like guidance on the principles around that.
We would also like to encourage local authorities to probe into what family group decision making should look like and who should be involved. One example that came to us from the Family Rights Group was of Azariah Hope, who was a care-experienced young parent very frustrated about how she was not offered a family group conference because the local authority presumed that she did not have a family or friend network to draw on.
Amendment 36 strengthens the right for the child to be involved, but still gives the local authority the power to decide on the appropriateness of who should be involved. We would like to hear more from the Minister about what those principles and standards should be for taking family group decision making forward.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. As this is the first amendment on the first day of our line-by-line consideration, I will briefly say that although the Opposition have lots of serious questions about the second part of the Bill, there is much in part 1 of the Bill that we completely support.
In fact, a lot of the Bill builds on work that the last Government were doing. To quote the great 1980s philosopher Belinda Carlisle, we may find that
“We dream the same thing
We want the same thing”.
It may not always seem like that, because we are going to ask some questions, but they are all about improving the Bill. A lot of them are not our questions, but ones put to us by passionate experts and those who work with people in these difficult situations.
The relevant policy document sets out why it is so important to get this clause right. It highlights the number of serious case incidents, which was 405 last year, and the number of child deaths, which was 205—every single one a terrible tragedy. Around half of those deaths were of very young children, often under 2; they are physically the most vulnerable children, because they cannot get away.
Our amendment 18 seeks to make clause 1 work in practice. It reflects some, but not all, of the concerns that we heard in oral evidence on Tuesday from Jacky Tiotto, the chief executive of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. The clause states:
“Before a local authority in England makes an application for an order…the authority must offer a family group decision-making meeting”.
In general, those meetings are a good thing, and we all support them—the last Government supported them; the new Government support them. They are already in statutory guidance.
However, we have two or three nagging worries about what will happen when, as it were, we mandate a good thing. The first is about pace. As I said in the oral evidence session, I worry that once family group decision making becomes a legal process and right, people will use the courts to slow down decision making, and that local authorities will sometimes worry about fulfilling this new requirement—although the meetings are generally a good thing—when their absolute priority should be getting a child away from a dangerous family quickly.
A long time ago, when I used to work with people who were street homeless, I met a woman who was a very heavy heroin user and a prostitute. She was about to have—[Interruption.]
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Neil O’Brien
I will give way; I have finally managed to get my train of thought in order again.
Lizzi Collinge
How common does the hon. Gentleman think the situation that he describes is across our constituencies? Does he accept our understanding of that situation? We see it ourselves in our constituencies and in our inboxes.
Neil O’Brien
I thank the hon. Member for the intervention. A lot of us will have seen such situations where there is not a minute to lose. To complete my sentence, the woman was about to have—I think—her third or fourth child. This is not to criticise her, but a child would not have been safe with her for a single minute. The priority has to be getting children away from people who are dangerous to them.
I worry about pace, and our amendment 18 makes the importance of pace clear. It would insert:
“Nothing in this section permits an extension to the 26-week limit for care proceedings in section 14(2)(ii) of the Children and Families Act 2014.”
I was struck by what the head of CAFCASS told us on Tuesday. She said that the Bill “probably could move” the requirement for the family group decision-making meeting
“down to the point at which there are formal child protection procedures starting so that the family can get to know what the concerns are, work with the child protection plan for longer, understand what the concerns are and demonstrate whether the protection can happen.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 31, Q68.]
This is the bit of her evidence—she knows a lot more about this than I do—that struck me:
“if the Bill were to stay as drafted at the edge of care, I think there are risks for very young children, and babies in particular. The meetings will be difficult to set up. People will not turn up. They will be rescheduled”.––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 31, Q68.]
She went on:
“For very young children when you are concerned, if they are still with the parents, which is sometimes the case, or even with a foster carer, you want permanent decisions quickly. That does not negate the need for the family to be involved. You can have it much earlier because you have been worried for a while at that point.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 31, Q70.]
Our amendment does not encompass all those concerns, but it does seek to ensure that this very sensible provision in clause 1 does not slow down measures to keep children safe.
Given that there we were told a few other things by CAFCASS, I should also be clear about what our amendment does not do. It does not address my concerns about people and families—indeed, extended families—using the move to primary legislation to bring about legal action, such as a judicial review, against the decisions of local authorities, or using lawfare or the threat of legal action against local authorities, perhaps to force their way into a room when most of the social workers and other people involved would much rather they were not there because they are inappropriate people. Protecting against that risk is legally much more complicated, which is why the Government have not tabled an amendment on that point.
Ministers may say that the legal worries are less than I am supposing, but will they agree to look at this issue? The last thing we want, once this goes from being guidance to being statute, is people saying, “I’ve got a right to this meeting. You didn’t have me in the meeting. I am going to challenge this decision,” and all that sort of stuff. Hopefully, there is no risk, but I would love to see Ministers consider that point.
Nor does our amendment address moving meetings earlier in the process. As drafted, the clause encourages LAs to put pretty much all their cases to a meeting at the pre-proceeding stage—it has to be done before it goes to court—but lots of the people we heard evidence from think it would be desirable to have the meetings earlier, before the case enters the much less consensual pre-court process. By the time the case gets to the pre-proceedings stage, it is normally pretty clear that it will be hard to reach an amicable solution.
As I said, these questions do not come from us, but from people who know more about the issues than I do. I would like Ministers to respond to the points made by various experts and official groups. The head of CAFCASS said on Tuesday that we should move the point at which the Bill applies to when a section 7 report is ordered. I was really struck by her saying that, because it would be quite a big change to the Bill. She was very specific, however, and she knows a lot about the issue. She said:
“One suggestion I would like to make on CAFCASS’s behalf is that family group decision making should be offered to families where the court has ordered a section 7 report—a welfare report that, if ordered to do so, the local authority has to produce for the court in respect of what it advises about where children should live and who they should spend time with. I think the opportunity for a family group decision-making meeting for those families is important.”––[Official Report, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 32, Q72.]
That is a big proposal, but it comes from someone with huge experience, who clearly has some real concerns. Will Ministers agree to take that away and consider it further as we make progress in Committee and in the Lords?
The head of CAFCASS made a second big proposal on Tuesday:
“The Bill tends to focus on those who are in public law proceedings. Two thirds of the children we work with are in private law proceedings, where there are family disputes about who children spend their time with and where they live. Very often, those children are in families where conflict is very intense. There are risks to them; there is domestic abuse. The Bill is silent on children in private law proceedings, and I think there is an opportunity for that to be different.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 32, Q72.]
My second question to the Ministers is: have the Government reflected on that suggestion, and do they have any plans to respond? They might not be able to give us a full and final answer today, but what is their basic reaction to that?
Another expert made some significant and specific suggestions about the clause. Will the Government respond to concerns put forward in the written evidence from the Family Rights Group, a charity that helped to introduce family conferences, which were used in New Zealand, to the UK in the 1990s? It said:
“we are concerned that the family group decision making offer in the Bill is too ambiguous and state-led in the way it is framed, with the state determining how, who attends and even if it happens. Without strengthening the provisions, we fear in practice it will not deliver the Bill’s ambition, to ensure fair and effective opportunity across England for children and families to get the support they need to stay safely together.”
Essentially, it is worried that the form will be followed but the spirit will be lost. It goes on:
“We are already seeing evidence of local authorities claiming to use such approaches, including reference to ‘family-led decision making’ to describe meetings which are led by professionals and where family involvement is minimal. Without clear definition of terms, and a set of principles and standards for practice, it is likely that in many authorities, such meetings will be professionally-led, with the child and family engagement peripheral…If the legislation does not specify what is expected, we are also concerned approaches unsupported by evidence will proliferate.”
Neil O'Brien
Thank you, Sir Christopher. I will include it here—I just wanted to double-check.
Although I have asked lots of questions about it, we totally agree with the spirit of the clause. In fact, in February 2023, the last Conservative Government published a strategy and consultation on reforming children’s social care called “Stable Homes, Built on Love”. That was partly a response to reports published in 2022, including the final report of the independent review of children’s social care, which was very ably put together by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister). The 2023 strategy said that, over the following two years, the Government would invest £200 million,
“laying the foundations for whole system reform and setting national direction for change.”
After two years, the Government would refresh the strategy, scale up the approaches and bring forward new legislation, and in a sense that is what is happening now. This Government are doing some of the things that we had hoped to do when we were in government.
We are obviously not against new legislation; in fact, as part of the strategy, we provided £45 million to launch the Families First for Children pathfinder in 12 local areas for the following two years. That was going to test some of the measures in the Bill, such as more multi-agency working and early, non-stigmatising help and group decision making. We set up those pilots partly because of one of the measures in clause 1.
Those pilots started in July 2023 and, frustratingly, the results are supposed to be out in the next couple of months. Because of the way that things happen in this place, we are in the slightly frustrating position of having done a proper experiment—we have tested the concepts in clause 1 in the pilot—as we always say we want to do as politicians, but we do not get to hear the results, which are potentially just weeks away.
Have Ministers had sight of early findings from those pilots? Would they be prepared to make them available to Members of this House and of the other place, either in written form or via access to those who have been doing the work of pulling the findings together? It is very frustrating: there is a good piece of evidence, on which a lot of time and money has been spent, and yet, at the point at which we are legislating, we do not quite have access to it. It is weeks away. I hope that Ministers will find a way to share the findings with Members of both Houses.
As I alluded to, I read the Foundations report. Based on a randomised controlled trial, it states:
“We estimate that if family group conferences were to be rolled out across England, 2,293 fewer children would go into care in a 12-month period”.
That would be about a 7% drop, so that is a very large effect. If the RCT is right and it is not just a pilot effect, the effect would be big. We have that estimate from an external group, but I would like to know what the Government think the clause will do to the number of people in care.
On the one hand, that is very encouraging. Having 7% fewer children safely flowing into care every year would be a glorious and fantastic outcome, which is why both sides are interested in the model. On the other hand, such a big change would bring with it some downsides and risks, as is inevitable when we are talking about so many children. The Foundations report concludes that
“There is a need to undertake further research”.
I therefore have another question for the Minister: what gold standard randomised controlled trial work have the Government planned to understand the impacts of the change if it is rolled out as we expect?
I am speaking specifically of the potential negative impacts, which will be smaller in number and hard to look at. We might think, “Wonderful, we have 7% fewer children flowing into care every year. That is great,” but what happens to the children who do not end up in care but have a bad experience in another way? We all hope that will be a much smaller number, but when there is a big upside, there will probably be downsides as well. It is important to have a piece of research in train to try to measure those downsides and check whether the good consequences that we hope for also come with negative consequences. Unless we have the research that Foundations has called for, we will not find that out.
We do not disagree on the attractiveness of family group decision making in principle, but we need to make it work and to minimise the risks. Our amendment is one way to do part of that. We need to make sure that we are seizing all the opportunities of this legislative moment; they do not come around too often, as the Minister pointed out the other day. As the Bill goes through, we need to get a lot more information about that consequential reform. That will come partly from the Government’s impact assessment, when it is published, and partly from the Government providing the answers to some of our questions.
I have given lots of examples, and I hope that Ministers will think very carefully about some of the suggestions that we are getting from the serious experts who have been doing this for a long time. They are totally independent—they just want the right thing for kids and to ensure that we get the upsides of this change, which we all support in principle, while minimising the downsides.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
I rise to speak to amendments 36, 37 and 18. It has been a number of years since I was regularly involved in care proceedings as a barrister, but I did so for the best part of a decade. I and a number of my former colleagues hugely welcome this requirement for family group decision making to ensure that it can consistently take place and that all kinship options are considered before there is an application to remove a child from their family and place them in care. I anticipate that the clause will mean fewer cases where lawyers have to get involved and where families are subject to care proceedings.
I am concerned about amendments 36 and 37, however, which would make the Bill more directive about children being present at family group decision making. The wishes and feelings of the child need, of course, to be considered at that meeting and the voice of the child should, of course, always be heard, but that is different from them being present at the meeting. It is really important that the discussion at that meeting is frank and meaningful—often, in that meeting, family members will be finding out, and coming to understand, the risks posed to a child. The appropriate way for a child to be told about their safety or an issue that parents need to tackle is likely to be very different, and more tailored, from what is appropriate for the adults in the room.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Does the hon. Lady recognise that amendment 37 proposes a presumption of inclusion but, where
“the local authority deems it inappropriate”—
for example, if the child is too young or because of the nature of the proceedings—the child would not be included? The problem with the Bill as it is drafted is that some local authorities, who do not necessarily respect the voice of the child or ensure that the child is involved, may routinely leave the child out of the discussion, even with teenagers who could be helpfully involved.
Catherine Atkinson
Giving that discretion is really important, but by saying “should”, amendment 37 would give a directive to the local authority to first look at including the child, and only reject that in circumstances where it can be demonstrated that including them would be harmful and inappropriate. In my view, that fetters the discretion and pushes things into a potentially harmful situation, especially given the number of children that we are talking about—not younger children, but definitely those at the upper end. In my view, we should not fetter the discretion. I do not think that that kind of directive is helpful in those circumstances.
On amendment 18, I do not need to be told how important it is that childcare proceedings are conducted quickly and without delay. At the moment, the 26-week time limit set out in the Children and Families Act 2014 is not met in over two thirds of cases. I think we are averaging 41 weeks—which is better than last year, when it was nearly 45 weeks—and that includes cases where everything is agreed and not contested.
My former colleagues are regularly involved in cases lasting over a year and some lasting over two years. I do not think that, in the 10 years since the 26-week limit was enacted, the majority of cases have ever been completed within six months. The amendment is therefore somewhat incongruous given what we have seen over the last 10 years—I think that a number of my former colleagues would consider it brass neck.
The amendment does not do anything to ensure that we deal with cases rapidly, because the 26 weeks starts when an application is made, but the whole point of the clause is that family group decision making needs to take place before an application is made. In my view, the amendment does nothing to restrict the time to 26 weeks, because clause 1 does not have an impact on that timescale at all, and it certainly does not prevent local authorities from holding family group decision making earlier.
I am somewhat provoked to note that it was the coalition Government’s Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 that cut all legal aid for private family law cases unless there are allegations of abuse. Out-of-court or pre-proceeding discussions and settlements, and the involvement of professionals, have therefore become far harder since 2012.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I rise to speak to amendment 49 regarding family group decision making at the point of family reunification.
Reunification—the process of returning a child in care to their family—is the most common route by which children leave care, accounting for 27% of all children who left care in 2023. It is also one of the most sensitive and significant transitions a child can experience. When done well, it can offer children stability, security and permanence at home with their family, but too often the reunifications fail. In fact, one in three children who return home then re-enter the care system, so thousands of children are enduring yet more displacement, disrupted attachments, instability and broken trust.
The human cost of those failed reunifications is immeasurable, but the financial cost is also stark. Failed reunifications cost the public purse £370 million annually—money that would be better spent supporting families in the first place. Research tells us that too many reunifications break down because families do not receive the support that they need to make that process successful, tut there is no national strategy for supporting reunifications. Support across the country is inconsistent, and alarmingly, 78% of authorities report that the support that they offer is inadequate—the authorities report that themselves.
Amendment 49 provides a clear, practical, evidence-based solution—effectively a mirror to the Government’s clause 1. The amendment would require local authorities to offer family group decision making no later than one month after the discharge of a care order for the purpose of family reunification. Of course, in practice, it is envisaged that the family group decision-making process would be offered before the child returns home to support that return.
As the Committee has already heard and discussed, family group decision making is a powerful tool. It brings families together to identify solutions, develop a plan and build a network of support around the child. It can empower families to take ownership of the challenges that they face, and foster collaborative work with professionals that promotes the safety and wellbeing of the child while also amplifying the child’s voice. My argument is that that is as important towards the end of a care process as it is at the beginning.
Family group decision making is well established and recognised as best practice by professionals. We already have clear evidence on its effectiveness, and we are awaiting more, as the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston said. However, the lack of a statutory duty to offer it has led to patchy practice across the country. One third of local authorities do not offer family group decision making at all during reunification. Amendment 49 addresses that gap. It would ensure that every family in England has the opportunity to benefit from that approach. The requirement in the amendment is to offer it; it does not impose any sort of time limit.
Some Members might worry about the practicalities or cost of introducing the duty, but as I have already explained, the breakdown of family reunification is an incredibly costly process, both financially and for the child’s welfare. The amendment is a financial cost-saving measure as well as a child-centred one. Research shows that providing support to meet a family’s needs during reunification costs just £7,857 per child. By contrast, the cost of a single reunification breakdown is £105,000. Amendment 49 would be
The amendment is practical and allows for professional judgment, recognising that every family is different. Where a meeting is not in a child’s best interests, the local authority would be exempt from the duty to make the offer, and that flexibility ensures that the needs of children always come first. The amendment also complements existing provisions in the Bill. It effectively mirrors the duty to offer family group decision making before care proceedings, and therefore offers a coherent support framework at both ends of the care process—effectively bookending it. It brings much-needed consistency to a fragmented system.
With more children in care than ever before, as we have noted, and with children’s services under immense strain, the amendment represents a real opportunity. By embedding family group decision making we can enable more families to stay together, reduce the number of children returning to care, which is an incredibly damaging process, and relieve pressure on an overstretched system, all while delivering better outcomes for those children. This is about fairness, consistency, investing in what works and ensuring that all reunifying families, not just some, are given the help they need. It is about recognising the importance of successful reunification within the care process. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s reflections on the proposal and the other questions raised this morning.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Of course I agree with and entirely support the spirit of what the Government are doing. It forms part of the strand of development intended in the “Stable Homes, Built on Love” strategy; across the House, we share similar motivations on all these matters.
On the comments from the hon. Member for North Herefordshire on reunification and amendment 49, I do not think an amendment to a Bill is the moment to introduce such a thing, but I am sure that in their continuing work, Ministers and officials will look at how the reunification process can be improved for all the reasons that she rightly gave.
I have a couple of questions on the inclusion of children in meetings, which is relevant to clause stand part and to amendment 36. My first question is: what guidance will accompany the new provisions? In some cases it will be obvious that a child should not be present, but beyond that it is perhaps difficult to generalise. Of course we trust professional judgment, but I wonder about the extent to which further guidance may be useful. I am thinking particularly of children with learning disabilities, who sometimes feel that things are done that affect their lives in a big way and they have less of a say than other children, because somebody has made that judgment when perhaps they did not need to. Secondly—this is a minor point in the grand scheme of things—I wonder why the legislation and the explanatory notes do not say that a child may be present for part of the meeting. It may be appropriate to have part of it with the child and part of it without them.
The Chair
I call the Minister. [Interruption.] I call Tom Hayes. It is helpful for the Chair if you rise in your place if you intend to speak.
Tom Hayes
Thank you, Sir Christopher; that is helpful advice.
I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North, and will speak to oppose proposed amendments 36, 37 and 18. I think the Bill is in fact very child-centred; it is focused on the needs of children.
Before I was elected to this place, I ran a mental health and domestic abuse charity, so multi-agency working at a local level is very familiar to me. From that role, I know just how little local authorities have felt empowered by central Government, but so much expertise and experience sits at that level. There is so much passion and knowledge in the social workforce, yet social workers do not feel empowered and trusted to get on with their job. By providing them with the ability to deem what is appropriate and to progress on that basis, we are showing our social workforce that we respect their judgment. On balance, from working with social workers, I know that they are significantly motivated by the interests of the child and they always speak on behalf of the child.
The service that I ran embedded caseworkers within social care settings. It was intended to provide support to children in difficult circumstances, often arising from parents experiencing significant mental ill health, domestic abuse, substance misuse—mainly those three things—and other related issues. Most children sitting in the meetings will be in their teenage years. They should not be sitting in those meetings. The meetings would traumatise them. Expecting them by default to attend would not serve the needs of the child, or the needs of those around the child who want to provide wraparound support, have frank conversations and arrive at what is best for the child. That is why I support the Bill.
I listened carefully to what Mr O’Brien said, and I take the point that he made about—
The Chair
Order. You need to refer to people by their constituency, rather than by their name.
Tom Hayes
In that case, can Mr O’Brien remind me of his constituency? [Interruption.] The acoustics in this room are quite bad, so I did not catch all of that, but I will write the constituency down next time; I apologise, Sir Christopher. I have listened carefully to what the Opposition spokesperson said, and take his point about wanting to assess the number of children who will no longer be in care as a result of these measures.
Let me broaden the debate out. A significant reason for care proceedings is that parents are experiencing mental ill health, so making progress on tackling some of the major reasons why parents in our society have mental ill health will bring significant benefits. In my experience, those reasons tend to fall into three categories: employment security, housing security and income security. The measures this Government are introducing on housing security will see a significant improvement in the families’ conditions, and the Government’s measures on employment security will see a significant improvement in families’ security. The measures to tackle the cost of living crisis that people are experiencing, such as the Bill’s provisions on free school breakfasts and the cap on uniform items, will help families with some of their cost of living concerns.
I do not agree with the amendments. The measures in the Bill are satisfactory. I will leave it there.
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
It is an honour to serve under you as Chair, Sir Christopher, and to be a part of this thoughtful and considered Committee, which is taking this landmark legislation through Parliament. I thank hon. Members for the spirit in which they have discussed the safeguarding aspects of the Bill. I appreciate the support that has been expressed, and thank Members for their questions, concerns and amendments, which I will seek to address.
Amendments 36 and 37 stand in the name of the hon. Member for Twickenham but were presented by the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire. I thank him for his support for the clause and acknowledgment that family group decision making is a family-led process. A family network is unique to every child, so we decided not to be prescriptive about who should attend the meetings. That will be assessed and determined by the local authority, which will consider who it is appropriate to invite, and we will publish updated statutory guidance to make it clear that the local authority should engage with the full scope of the family network. That should take place with a view to supporting the wellbeing and welfare of the child, because the child’s voice and views are an integral part of the family group decision-making process.
The process is, by its very nature, child-centric, and is designed with the best interests of the child in mind. The meeting facilitator will talk to families and the child about how best the child might be involved in the meeting. I recognise some of the points made about the extent to which the child should take part in the process, but the child’s participation will clearly depend on several factors, including their age and their level of understanding, and an independent advocate may also be used to help the child to express their views.
As has been set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North, in some cases it may not be appropriate for the child to attend. However, there is time for the child to voice their experiences or concerns through the dedicated preparation time for those meetings. The facilitator will take further action where they think it may be required if they think that there are safeguarding concerns, and we are confident that local authorities will continue to be guided by what is in the best interests of the child. For the reasons that I have outlined, I ask the hon. Member for Twickenham not to press her amendments.
Amendment 18 has been tabled by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston. I thank him for the spirit in which he presented his amendments and put on record his concerns about the situation that children find themselves in and wanting the best outcome for them. The amendment relates to the 26-week rule for children subject to family court proceedings. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Children and Families Act 2014 introduced the 26-week limit on courts to complete care and supervision proceedings when they are considering whether a child should be taken into care or placed with an alternative carer. I reassure him that we prioritise reducing unnecessary delay in family courts and securing timely outcomes for children and families.
Clause 1 relates to a specific and critical point before court proceedings are initiated. It gives parents or those with parental responsibility the legal right to a family-led meeting when they are at the point of the risk of entering into care proceedings. There is robust evidence to show that strengthening the offer of family group decision making at that crucial stage will in fact reduce applications to the family courts and prevent children from entering the care system at all.
As much as we acknowledge the concern raised, we are confident that no provisions in clause 1 would result in an extension to the statutory 26-week limit for care proceedings, which starts when the application for a care or supervision order is made. We think it is right that families are given the time and support to form a family-led plan. By strengthening the offer of family group decision making for families on the edge of care, concerns about children’s safety and wellbeing can be addressed swiftly, with the support of skilled professionals, and avoid escalation into potentially lengthy care proceedings. We want to avoid missing those opportunities for children to remain living safely with their families, so the child’s welfare and best interests are very much at the heart of clause 1.
If the local authority believes that the child’s circumstances or welfare needs might have changed at any point during pre-proceedings and it would no longer be in their best interests to facilitate the meeting, the court proceedings can be initiated immediately. The local authority should always act in accordance with the child’s best interests. Indeed, that family work can continue throughout court proceedings being initiated, and family group decision making can also continue. For the reasons I have outlined, I kindly ask the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston not to press his amendment.
Amendment 49 is in the name of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. Clause 1 gives parents or those with parental responsibility the legal right to the family-led meeting at the specific and critical point, which I referenced, when they are at risk of entering into care proceedings. As I said, we have the clear evidence to show that involvement of the wider family network in planning and decision making at that pre-proceedings stage can divert children from care and keep more families together.
Although clause 1 focuses on the critical point at the edge of care, we already encourage local authorities to offer these meetings as early as possible and throughout the time that the child is receiving help, support and protection, including as a possible route to reunification with their birth parents or a family network where appropriate. We are clear in guidance and regulations that, where a child is returning home to their family after a period in care, local authorities should consider what help and support they will need to make reunification a success and set it out in writing. We will continue to promote the wider use of family group decision making, including by updating statutory guidance where appropriate and through best practice support. We believe that this legislation is a transformative step change that will be helpful in expanding these services for the benefit of children and families right across the country.
I turn to some of the specific questions that have been raised by Members, some of which I have addressed in my comments.
Catherine McKinnell
I may well be coming to the hon. Member’s question, if I can pre-empt her. If not, she is welcome to intervene again.
On reunification specifically, “Working together to safeguard children 2023” was updated to ask local authorities to consider
“whether family group decision-making would support the child’s transition home from care, and the role the family network could play in supporting this.”
It made it clear that family group decision making cannot be conducted before a child becomes looked after, but that it should still be considered as an option later. Family group decision making should be considered at all stages of a child’s journey in reunification with birth parents and the family network, wherever it is appropriate. Although the duty will make it mandatory to offer that family group decision making at the pre-proceeding stage, as I said, we will also be encouraging local authorities to offer it throughout the child’s journey and repeat it as necessary, because we encourage a family-first culture.
Ellie Chowns
Will the Minister respond directly to the thrust of amendment 49? The Bill is shifting from a position where the consideration of family group decision making is already encouraged to a statutory requirement before starting care proceedings. Amendment 49 asks for a mirroring of that at the potential end of care proceedings. Why does the Minister feel that it is important to move to a statutory footing at the start but not the end, particularly given the statistics that I have referenced on the frequency of breakdown? Would it not be entirely consistent for the Bill to specify this—bookending both ends of the care process?
Catherine McKinnell
I do think I have responded to the hon. Lady’s specific request, and explained why we are mandating and putting on to a statutory footing the requirement to offer family group decision making at this crucial point before care proceedings. We obviously encourage local authorities throughout their work with children in these circumstances to take a family-first approach and to offer family conferencing. Indeed, family group decision making can be used at any stage of a child’s journey through their relationship with the local authority. However, our decision to mandate it at this crucial point is very much based on the evidence that this reduces the number of children who end up going into care proceedings, and indeed into care.
A lot of issues were raised and I will do my very best to cover them. The hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston raised private law proceedings. The Ministry of Justice offers a voucher scheme to provide a contribution of up to £500 towards the mediation costs for eligible cases, supporting people in resolving their family law disputes outside of court. Similarly to family group decision making, family mediation is a process that uses trained, independent mediators and helps families to sort arrangements out. I take on board the concerns he has raised that all children should be able to benefit from family group decision making where possible. On the impact assessment, as we said in the second evidence session on Tuesday, the Regulatory Policy Committee is considering the Bill’s impact assessments and we will publish them shortly and as soon as possible.
Neil O'Brien
I know that the Minister is trying to get us the impact assessments and is completely sincere about that. Will she undertake to get them while we are still in Committee?
Catherine McKinnell
I believe I can, but I will check and report back in this afternoon’s sitting. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s request.
Ian Sollom
I thank the Minister for her response. We have heard from across the Committee how much support there is for the principles of the clause. I hear what Government Members have said about the amendments not giving the relevant social workers and facilitators enough flexibility in their decision making. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham pointed out, there is a risk that without a stronger direction to include the child in those meetings, not enough emphasis will be placed on it. Amendment 36 would insert the words “should, where appropriate”, which leaves the decision in the hands of the local authority, but gives a stronger steer that, where possible, the child needs to be included. That is something that many child-centred charities would support. We will not withdraw the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Committee proceeded to a Division.
Ian Sollom
I will withdraw it then, sorry; I was not clear on the process. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Chair
I invited the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment and he said that he wished to press it, so that is why we had a Division.
As a number of people in this Committee are on a learning curve, I will just say that, if the people who tabled the other two amendments in this grouping wish to put them to the vote, that request needs to be put to the Chair now. They can then be moved formally and we can then have a Division on them. If that is not done now, those amendments will not have been moved and they will just fall. Does anybody else wish to move any of the amendments in this group?
Neil O'Brien
Yes, Sir Christopher.
Amendment proposed: 18, in clause 1, page 2, line 26, at end insert—
“(10) Nothing in this section permits an extension to the 26-week limit for care proceedings in section 14(2)(ii) of the Children and Families Act 2014.”—(Neil O'Brien.)
This amendment clarifies that nothing in this section should imply an extension to the statutory 26-week limit for care proceedings.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Ellie Chowns
I wish to ask the Minister if she would meet with me to discuss this matter.
The Chair
You can ask them later on some other issue—I am sure the Minister will always be willing to meet you. But do you wish to press your amendment to a vote?
The Chair
Okay, so that does not matter.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Inclusion of childcare and education agencies in safeguarding arrangements
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Catherine McKinnell
By strengthening the role of education in multi-agency safeguarding arrangements, clause 2 recognises the crucial role that education and childcare play in keeping children safe. It places a duty on the local authority, police and health services, as safeguarding partners, to automatically include all education settings in their arrangements, and to work together to identify and respond to the needs of children in this area.
The clause includes the breadth of education settings, such as early years, academies, alternative provision and further education. This will ensure improved communication between a safeguarding partnership and education, better information sharing and understanding of child protection thresholds, and more opportunities to influence key decisions about how safeguarding is carried out in the local area.
Multiple national reviews have found that although some arrangements have worked hard to bring schools to the table, in too many places the contribution and voice of education are missing. Education and childcare settings should have a seat around the table in decision making about safeguarding, so we are mandating consistent and effective join-up between local authority, police and health services, and schools and other education and childcare settings and providers. We know that many education and childcare settings are well involved in their local safeguarding arrangements, but the position is inconsistent nationally, which can lead to missed opportunities to protect children.
This change will improve join-up of children’s social care, police and health services with education, to better safeguard and promote the welfare of all children in local areas. It will also mean that all education and childcare settings must co-operate with safeguarding partners and ensure that those arrangements are fully understood and rigorously applied in their organisations. I hope that this clause has support from the Committee today.
Neil O’Brien
The Opposition do not have amendments to this clause, but we do have some questions. This change is generally a very good idea and we welcome it. I have sat where the Minister is sitting, so I am conscious that, even when a Minister wants to answer all the questions posed by the Opposition, it is sometimes impossible—but I hope, thinking about some of the questions in the last part of our proceedings, that she will continue to consider those and see whether she can get answers to them. I know it is utterly impossible to answer all these questions in real time.
On the Opposition Benches, we welcome the inclusion of education agencies in safeguarding arrangements. All too often, the school is the one agency that sees the child daily and has a sense of when they are in need of protection or are in danger. Our conversations with schools all underline that. We have heard that they welcome this change and that it is a good thing. Last year, schools were the largest referrer of cases, after the police, to children’s social care, and I know from friends who are teachers just how seriously they take this issue. One of my teacher friends runs a sixth form and she spends her spare time reading serious case reviews, so I know that teachers take this issue deadly seriously, and we want to help them to have as much impact as they can.
My questions relate to nurseries, particularly childminders, because this clause is about an extension to education, not just to schools. We understand that child protection meetings can take place via video conference to make them easier to attend. We would just like the Government to confirm and talk about what conversations they have had with those kinds of organisations, which are often literally one-woman bands, about how they will be able to participate, given their very limited staffing and the imperative to look after children in their care effectively.
If the childminder has to go off to some meeting and are shutting down their business for the day, do they have to ask the parents who leave their children with them to find their own childcare? How do we make it easier for these organisations, particularly in relation to really small, really vulnerable children, to take part in this process? We do not doubt that they will want to contribute; we just want some reassurance that the Department is thinking about how that will work well in practice.
The Government argue that education should not be a fourth safeguarding partner because, unlike with other safeguarding partners, there is not currently a single organisation or individual who can be a single point of accountability for organisations across the whole education sector and different types of educational institutions. I understand the Government’s argument, but there are other views. Barnardo’s says in its briefing that
“the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care recommended that the Department for Education make education the fourth statutory safeguarding partner, highlighting that the Department should ‘work with social care and school leaders to identify the best way to achieve this, ensuring that arrangements provide clarity.’
However, the new Bill falls short of this recommendation, mandating only that education providers should always be considered ‘relevant partners’. This should improve the recognition of the importance of education providers in safeguarding arrangements, but we believe that this does not go far enough to protect children at risk.
We recognise that the diverse nature of the education sector could pose a practical challenge in identifying a relevant senior colleague to represent education as a statutory partner. Education settings have a wealth of experience in working with children to keep them safe and we believe it is vital that options are explored to ensure they are able to fully participate in…the planning and delivery of local safeguarding arrangements.”
I want to hear what the Government’s response to those arguments is. As the Minister said, this is a rare legislative moment, so we want to ensure that these important contributions and questions are heard and answered.
Turning to a slightly different question, I understand that there might not be a single point of accountability—which is why this Government, like the previous Government, are not pursuing education providers as the fourth safeguarding partner—but to make this work well, a single point of contact for education might be sensible. Can the Minister confirm that, to support the successful operation of this provision, every local authority currently provides childminders in particular with a line they can call to discuss any concerns, both specific and more general? Schools generally know where to go, but is that true at the moment of nurseries and childminders?
Munira Wilson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I will say very little on clause 2, because the Liberal Democrats strongly support and welcome it—it is much needed. However, I echo the official Opposition’s question why education and schools are not being made the fourth statutory safeguarding partner. I know that is something that the Children’s Commissioner and the various children’s charities that were quoted are pushing for. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on that.
The Chair
Just to be helpful, last time you said you wanted to speak after the debate had closed. What you could have done was to participate again in the debate before it ended. It is open to anybody who is a member of the Committee to speak more than once in a debate—there is no limit on the number of times you can speak in a debate, but you cannot speak after the question has been put.
If you wanted to tell the Minister that you were dissatisfied or that you wanted to have a meeting, then the time to have done that would have been during the debate. At the end, you could have caught my eye and you would have been able to participate. I am trying to help people so that nobody feels that they are being excluded, because I know how difficult it must be for new Members who have not got the support of an established network in this place.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank Members for their contributions, and I appreciate the support—generally speaking—for the change. I can give the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston confidence that the impact assessments will be produced before the Committee has ended, so there will be an opportunity to study them. In response to his question, we are not making schools the fourth safeguarding partner with this measure. As the hon. Gentleman set out and appreciates, the education and childcare sector does not have a single point of accountability in the same way that a local authority, a health service or the police do. There is not currently an organisation or individual that can take on the role of a safeguarding partner.
The measure is therefore crucial to ensuring that education is consistently involved in multi-agency safeguarding arrangements across England. It places a duty on safeguarding partners to fully include and represent education at all levels of their arrangements in order to ensure that opportunities to keep children safe are not missed. It gives educational settings a clear role in safeguarding locally. It is a vital step towards consistency in local areas, and sends out the clear message that education is fundamental at all levels of safeguarding arrangements.
I appreciate the question that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston asked about childcare settings, and about childminders in particular. We deliberately ensured that the measure includes all educational settings, covering early years, childcare and all primary and secondary schools. It spans maintained and independent schools, academies, further education institutions, colleges and alternative provision. It is important that the measure covers the breadth of education and childcare settings in a local area to ensure that opportunities to help and protect children are not missed. I appreciate that, in some childcare settings, those arrangements will be more formal and practised than in others, but it is important that we ensure that no child is left out.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Multi-agency child protection teams for local authority areas
Catherine McKinnell
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 3, page 3, line 33, leave out
“the director of children’s services for”.
This amendment and Amendment 2 make minor changes relating to local authority nominations to a multi-agency child protection team.
Catherine McKinnell
Amendments 1 to 5, in my name, relate to the nomination of individuals by safeguarding partners for multi-agency child protection teams. These important amendments ensure that primary legislation is consistent. To be consistent with the Children Act 2004, the reference to those who nominate should be to the safeguarding partners, not to specific roles. It is, after all, the safeguarding partners who are best placed to make the nomination for individuals, and have the required expertise in health, education, social work and policing. We will continue to use the statutory guidance, “Working together to safeguard children”, to provide further information on safeguarding partner roles and responsibilities, which will include nominating individuals in the multi-agency child protection teams.
These amendments ensure consistency with the Children Act and set out that safeguarding partners are responsible for nominating individuals with the relevant knowledge, experience and expertise to multi-agency child protection teams.
Neil O’Brien
I have nothing to say about these amendments. I will reserve my comments for our amendment, which is in a different group. I completely understand what the Minister is doing.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendment made: 2, in clause 3, page 3, line 36, leave out
“the director of children’s services for”.—(Catherine McKinnell.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.
Neil O’Brien
I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 3, page 5, line 3, at end insert—
“16EC Report on work and impact of multi-agency child protection teams
(1) The Secretary of State must report annually on the work and impact of multi-agency child protection teams.
(2) A report under this section shall include analysis of —
(a) the membership of multi-agency child protection teams;
(b) the specific child protection activities undertaken by such teams;
(c) best practice in multi-agency work; and
(d) the impact of multi-agency child protection teams on —
(i) information sharing;
(ii) risk identification; and
(iii) joining up services between children’s social care, police, health services, education and other agencies, including the voluntary sector.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to report on the effectiveness of multi-agency child protection teams.
Neil O’Brien
Members will know that we are extremely supportive of this principle and agenda. We generally welcome the clause and think it is sensible, but we of course have questions, and we have tabled an amendment.
Members know that a huge amount of good multi-agency work is already going on to safeguard children, and it has the potential to address some of the really serious information-sharing gaps that have been so visible in pretty much every serious case review, from Victoria Climbié to the present day. Although we welcome the introduction of the multi-agency child protection teams, we have some substantive questions about them.
First, will the Minister set out her expectation for the activity of these teams? Teams can have a formal meeting, but then there is what they really do. If there is just one team in a local authority, that team may become a source of advice but not really generate new activity. I have a question about the scale of different local authorities and how many teams there will be in an area. This might seem a bit specific, but obviously there is a huge difference between Rutland, which is a single unitary authority with a population of 40,000, and Birmingham, which is also a single unitary authority. We need to ensure—I will come back to this in a second—that we can have provision for these teams to meet and work on a geography that makes sense.
The Government are building on a lot of activity that already exists, but they are slightly changing it in various ways. Will the Minister be specific about what these teams will do that is not being done today? How do they relate to, and how are they different from, existing multi-agency safeguarding hub teams? Linked to that, should we assume that they will be resourced to deal with all section 47 referrals? If they are not, it will potentially become another gatekeeping process—they would be making judgments in good faith, but not necessarily with the information to make them safely. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that the teams will be expected to do things like carrying out home visits, attending strategy meetings and having a much clearer view of health information.
There is also the crucial area of private law proceedings, where children are all too often invisible. I wonder what the expectation is for the involvement of these teams in private law cases. There are real concerns, as we heard the other day, that when CAFCASS makes a referral to the local authority in these cases, it looks like the threshold is not met because of the lack of social services and police involvement with the family in the past. Particularly in cases of domestic violence, we know that those kinds of appearances can be deceptive.
The clause makes provision for two or more local authorities to work together to deliver multi-agency child protection teams, and the explanatory notes state that that would enable police and health services to work within local authority boundaries to make the best use of their resources, which they do not always do. I can see the sense in that. To go back to our neighbours in Rutland, they come under Leicestershire and Rutland for the police and for health, and they have a lot of cross-border students in their schools. However, I want to check that the reverse is also true, and that there will be no impediment to having multiple teams within a local authority, and no sense that the police or health services with a bigger geographical footprint should not be expected to service more than one team in a large local authority. That question is about the geography.
Another question is about the timeliness of meetings, which is crucial. The best possible group of people in the world could be down to attend a meeting, but if they do not meet often enough, things will go wrong. Does the clause give the Government the power to specify in regulations how often such meetings take place? Do the Government intend to specify that kind of thing, or—maybe perfectly reasonably—not? Will they try to establish some norms around the frequency of these teams meeting? I do not have an incredibly strong view; I am just interested.
I also have some questions about the cast list, which was the subject of the last group of amendments; we went from a named person with a specific role to someone from a particular organisation. Subsection (4) lists a social worker, a police officer, a health professional and so on. Is the assumption that it will be the same person who attends each time? What happens in the absence of those people? Presumably, a person of the same category can be substituted for a period—for example, if the policeperson on the team goes off sick, someone can be substituted.
Although I am not an expert, I think that having the same cast list each time is broadly the right model. It is a much better model than one where, for example, the social worker for that case turns up once and perhaps do not go to that meeting ever again or for another year, meaning they are not in a position to join the dots. However, there is always a risk that appointing specialists within a team deskills others on the team. That sense that everybody has to stay alert and maintain professional curiosity gets a bit lost, and there is an assumption that the specialists on the team will deal with it. That is obviously not what the Government intend, but can we get some reassurance that they have thought about how to avoid that?
In oral evidence on Tuesday, we heard from—[Interruption.] May I ask you, Sir Christopher, whether we are going until 1.30 pm? The Opposition Whip is looking anxiously at the clock.
The Chair
The Opposition Whip may be looking at the clock, as indeed am I. Under the rules that have been agreed, the Committee will meet again at 2 o’clock. If people wanted to have a reasonable time for lunch, normally, by convention, the Committee would adjourn at 1 o’clock and come back at 2 o’clock. That is obviously in the hands of the Committee itself—
The Chair
But I detect that Vicky Foxcroft wishes to move a motion.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Vicky Foxcroft.)
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Eleventh sitting)
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 100 stand part.
I apologise for my voice—it is probably divine intervention trying to stop me speaking in the Climate and Nature Bill tomorrow.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Clause 99 relates to testing. The clause allows the Secretary of State powers so they may by regulation require a person specified in the regulations, such as manufacturers, importers or other relevant parties, to carry out tests on the products to ensure they comply with any of the registered requirements. Testing is a sensible thing to be able to do, subject to making provision for far more new tests to be carried out, because it is important that testing is done properly.
Some examples of where the Secretary of State has given flexibility include the timing and methodology; where, when and how the tests are to be done; who is authorised to carry out testing on behalf of the specified person, so whether a manufacturer or a third party can undertake testing themselves; how the products are to be tested, for example if all products are to be tested or just a sample; whether samples are required to be provided to a third party for testing; and whether there will be any charges for tests, which could be set based on the costs involved or other regulations.
Subsection (3) states that charges will apply and subsection (2)(e) allows regulations to specify how those charges will be used, including provision on whether the fees collected can be kept by the authority responsible for testing or whether they should be paid into a consolidated fund via the Government’s general revenue. Subsection (4) states that any regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, so voted for in Committee.
I have a few points to raise. The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to specify a person who would be required to carry out the test. It is important to clarify who that person might be, and whether it refers to manufacturers, importers, independent testing bodies or other stakeholders. As I have already mentioned, it would not be reasonable to get big tobacco companies to mark their own homework, so how will the Secretary of State determine who is specified for those tasks?
Additionally, once the product is tested and deemed compliant, will there be any follow up or long-term monitoring of product safety and health impact over time? There is post-market surveillance for medical devices, but what mechanisms will be in place to monitor the ongoing compliance with consumer products post market? At the moment, it seems that all a company needs to do is say what is in a product, be believed and be registered with the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. Currently, that happens simply on a company’s word. I am sure that in most cases—perhaps almost all—the company’s information is fair and true, but, in some cases, as has already been shown, that has not been the case, so it is important to consider that issue.
Furthermore, the phrase
“selection of products for testing”
in subsection (2)(c) is vague and could be exploited. The provision could allow a situation where only certain products are selected for testing, potentially skewing the results if products likely to fail are excluded from the testing process. If it is not properly regulated, that could result in cherry-picking, where only the “cleanest products” are tested to ensure they meet regulatory requirements.
There will clearly be some cost to industry for testing. Does the Minister have any further information on how much those costs will be? Based on the impact assessment, costs for the testing requirements and the testing of individual components could be quite high, so will the Minister provide more information about that?
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Roger. I am sure the shadow Minister can come in after me if she wishes to opine on clause 100.
Clause 99 grants the Secretary of State the authority to introduce and amend regulations concerning tobacco and vaping products. The provision ensures flexibility and responsiveness in the ever-evolving landscape of tobacco control that we have talked about previously. It is vital to ensure that the UK’s tobacco and vape regulations remain robust and up to date, especially given the increasing prevalence of vaping among young people and the emergence of new tobacco alternatives.
There are a number of real positives about clause 99. First, it provides adaptability to emerging public health concerns. The regulatory flexibility allows the Secretary of State and his Ministers to swiftly address any new health risks. A 2021 study by Action on Smoking and Health UK found that youth vaping rates had risen from 4% in 2020 to 7% in 2021, so, by ensuring that new products can be regulated promptly, clause 99 provides a mechanism for responding to those emerging trends.
The clause aligns us with international partners and best practices, and with global tobacco control standards, such as the World Health Organisation’s framework convention on tobacco control. Nations such as Canada and Australia have successfully implemented similar regulatory powers to adapt quickly to the new threats posed by novel tobacco products, demonstrating that adaptable regulations lead to better public health outcomes.
The final positive of the clause is the stronger consumer protections. Without the ability to introduce rapid regulatory amendments, harmful substances may enter the UK market. As I have mentioned, in 2019 illicit vaping products containing vitamin E acetate led to serious lung illnesses, noted in the US. By strengthening the regulatory framework, Government can proactively prevent such issues.
I have a couple of potential challenges. First, as I mentioned, there is always potential for malign industry influence. The tobacco and vaping industries have a history of lobbying against stringent regulations. Indeed, since this Bill Committee has been sitting over the past week or so, my inbox has filled with such representations. The UK must ensure transparency and public health prioritisation in all its regulatory decisions.
Secondly, in balancing the public health and economic impacts, we have to be careful about over-regulation possibly stifling innovation within the vaping industry, which some argue plays a role in harm reduction by helping smokers quit traditional cigarettes. Opposition Members have made that point a number of times: we want to ensure that the regulations are effective and robust, but, where vaping is being used as a smoking cessation tool, the regulations must be flexible enough to allow novel products to come on to the market, which could in future help smokers even further.
Clause 100 clarifies the scope and the applicability of the Bill, which means that it ensures coherence of enforcement. A clear definition of which products and businesses fall under the new rules will prevent, I think, ambiguity in their implementation. The positives of this clause are that, where there is clear application, the reduced ambiguity in interpretation and enforcement means that businesses will understand their obligations and consumers will know their rights. That is absolutely essential.
For example, the smoke-free public places legislation that came into effect in 2007 clearly benefited from the defined scope, which reduced any legal disputes. By defining the reach of the Bill, clause 100 allows authorities to target enforcement promptly. Without clear application provisions, which we see in this clause, regulatory loopholes could be exploited. The clause closes them.
Likewise, tobacco companies may attempt to bypass our regulations by selling non-compliant products online from overseas suppliers. Again, the strong application in clause 100 ensures that the law extends to online and cross-border sales. However, perhaps the Minister will outline how he understands that that will be enforced.
That brings me to my real concern, or I suppose question, about clause 100. The risk of online sales makes enforcement much more complex than it would have done had we introduced such a Bill 10, 15 or 20 years ago. How will the UK work with other international bodies to curb illicit cross-border sales, especially when things are sold online? Also—I have mentioned this point before, but I will continue to do so—when small retailers are struggling with compliance, there has to be some form of education and support for them from Government so that they can comply. The majority of the vaping industry, where we have decided it is legal, obviously needs a clear set of guidelines from the Department and the regulatory bodies to comply with the regulations.
Dr Johnson
Clause 100 concerns product safety, which is important. Even when a product is not safe, it should still be as safe as it can be and should contain only those things that are expected. When Lincolnshire police took a sample of vape devices from children from a school in my constituency, they found that many of the vapes contained dangerous ingredients that should not have been in there, including, in one case, I believe, an ingredient banned in the UK for many decades.
Clause 100 is important: the Minister must ensure that items on the market are safe. I come back to the evidence from Dr Laura Squire from the MHRA. She said that licensing a medical product does not mean that it is safe, and that these vapes are not medical products either. I am grateful to the Minister for saying in the last session that he is looking for a new home for the licensing and registration process for vapes and vaping products, because “MHRA-registered” suggests to the consumer that those things are in some way safer and more fully tested than they have been.
Clause 100 suggests very sensible regulation, but it gives the Minister the power to do that without significant oversight, even though the affirmative procedure applies. Since clause 90, all the Bill has done is to confer powers on the Secretary of State to regulate without actually providing a huge amount of detail on the Secretary of State’s intent. One never knows what the intent of a future Secretary of State could be in this regard.
Will the Minister comment on why regulation will be in secondary legislation rather than being detailed in the Bill? I understand the need to be agile and to think quickly to try to stay ahead of an industry that will try to adapt to addict more people to nicotine in other forms, but it would have been possible for the Minister to put much of that detail in the Bill, and to have taken a power in a final clause to amend parts of those regulations by statutory instrument. Most of the intent and most of the regulation would then have been known very quickly, but could be altered and adapted later. Why has the Minister taken the approach that he has, rather than a more up-front approach?
Clause 100(1)(a) requires
“producers or importers to have processes in place”.
Again, this is an important point. Most of these products seem to be made overseas, where of course the UK courts do not have jurisdiction. It is at the point of import, and with regards to the person who is importing, that we may need to be more responsible than with a producer where the items are made overseas.
I also urge the Minister, echoing the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon, to consider online sales. We see already that some regulations that are in place for the real world rather than the virtual world create loopholes for regulations to be circumvented. Clearly, public safety has to be the Government’s first priority. The testing in clause 99 and the product safety regulations in clause 100 are a welcome initiative, but clearly the devil will be in the detail and the detail is not available to us today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
I am sorry that your croakiness is getting the better of you, Sir Roger, but hopefully you will be on fine form tomorrow for the private Member’s Bills—I am not sure whether the Whips on either side of the House are praying for that.
On clauses 99 and 100, I will go through the questions posed by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon. It is the responsibility of trading standards to test products if they believe a product contains illegal substances or could contain too much nicotine. Trading standards currently test products on an ad-hoc basis, which is contingent on funding. We aim to establish a testing regime to regularly check that products on the shelves are what they say they are. That will support overall enforcement, will ensure that registered products are safe for consumers and will allow retailers, in both brick-and-mortar establishments and online, to have greater clarity about and confidence in the products that they are able to stock to sale.
It is really important to consider online sales as a growing area. These measures have to be taken within the wider context of clauses and measures that we have already debated, in that any product for sale in the United Kingdom, whether in a shop or online, will have to be registered, and any retailer, whether a shop or online, will have to have the appropriate licences in place. There are clear and substantial penalties for breaching those licensing arrangements, and there are real and substantial consequences for selling products that are not in accordance with the descriptions on the registration of those products. When all of that is put into context, and testing is added in, we believe that this will be a robust regime.
Dr Johnson
Clauses 101 and 102 deal with the treatment of, and matters dealt with by, the 2016 tobacco regulations. Again, they provide the Secretary of State with powers to make regulations. Whether or not that will be done well, we are not really sure at this stage.
I understand the point the Minister made in response to the last debate, and it is of course true that regulations can be different in each part of the United Kingdom. In his discussions with Ministers in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, they may have wished to proceed with regulations after the Bill, rather than to put them on the face of the Bill. However, that does not explain why the Minister has chosen to do the same, and I would be grateful if he could explain his choice to make regulations after the Bill, rather than to put them on the face of the Bill, with the power to modify. I ask particularly because we are now into, I think, the 12th consecutive clause that provides powers to regulate and that offers detail only on what any regulations might or might not say, rather than necessarily on what they will say.
In that vein, clause 101 outlines provisions to allow the Secretary of State to make regulations similar to, or corresponding with, the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016. That is to be done under a new regulatory framework, which would seem to be designed to cover gaps that may exist in the powers under those regulations. Subsection (1) says:
“The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision…that is similar to or that corresponds to any provision of the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016…other than Part 7 of those Regulations”.
Part 7 of those regulations deals with electronic cigarette advertising. The Minister may feel that later parts of the Bill will deal adequately with this point, but I would be grateful if he could explain why that part has been taken out. That is not instinctive, because other aspects of those regulations could be too. What is the reason for excluding that part? Otherwise, I have no particular points to make about clauses 101 and 102.
Andrew Gwynne
Clause 101 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations similar to any provisions set out in the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations 2016 —the TRPR, which we discussed in our debate on the earlier clauses—thereby amending them if needed.
In 2016, the TRPR implemented the 2014 EU tobacco products directive. The TRPR deals with the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco and related products, including herbal products for smoking, nicotine, vapes and refill containers, as well as smokeless and novel tobacco products. However, it does not regulate all products. As we know, new nicotine products such as nicotine pouches have emerged on the market—we discussed such things in our earlier deliberations—and we currently have no powers to change the regulations. We are also limited in what we can do within the existing powers—for example, on vape packaging.
The Bill builds on the TRPR and allows us to go much further, with new powers on, for instance, packaging and flavour requirements, and new registration powers that could be extended to non-nicotine vapes, nicotine pouches, heated tobacco devices and cigarette papers. As we have ascertained, the tobacco and vaping industries are extremely innovative and have previously attempted to circumvent regulations and exploit loopholes. The clause helps to stop them doing that by allowing us to amend the TRPR if necessary.
Clause 102 enables regulations to be made under powers in part 5 of the Bill to amend provisions in the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations that are within scope of those powers. This is a technical provision because, as I said in the previous debate, we have limited powers to amend the TRPR. For instance, if we introduce new vape packaging requirements using powers in the Bill, the clause will allow us to amend the TRPR if necessary, so that the new packaging requirements fit with those imposed under the TRPR.
The shadow Minister raised issues relating to secondary legislation. The technical and detailed nature of many of the Bill’s requirements means that they are not suitable to be put on the face of the Bill. For example, we may need to amend those requirements in response to market changes. It is also necessary to include detail on the circumstances of when products must be recalled, which will change over time.
There is a broader point here: with all the regulations that we propose to bring before Parliament, we want to get the measures right. We have a statutory duty in the Bill to consult before bringing in regulations, which is in part why we are making the measures in the way that we are. Part 7 of the TRPR is excluded because those things will now be in part 6 of the Bill. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 101 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 102 to 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 105
Sub-delegation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
Clause 105 states:
“Regulations under this Part may confer discretions.”
I confess that I do not understand what that means. I would be grateful for the Minister’s explanation.
Clause 106 is about the power to make provision binding on the Crown, which we have discussed at some length. My only point is on subsection (4), which clarifies that public servants are still accountable under the regulations. Some may have concerns about the enforcement of regulations within Government bodies. Could the Minister say anything further on that?
Clause 107 gives the Secretary of State power to make amendments to this legislation through regulations. It is quite a broad and flexible position: the Government can remove outdated laws that are inconsistent with new regulations established under the Bill and ensure that the regulatory framework can evolve. To some extent, that makes sense. Again, the Government seem to be keen to ensure that they can stay one step ahead of a very adaptable industry and try to protect the country from nicotine addiction. However, the clause is quite broad. I would be grateful if the Minister could further elaborate on his intent in it.
Clause 108 provides for the consequential removal of section 94 of the Children and Families Act 2014 because it is no longer needed. Clause 109 is about enforcement.
Clause 110 is about the consultation process. The requirement to consult before making regulations promotes transparency and accountability in the decision-making process and allows for adjustments and feedback from various groups, in the same way that line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill allows adjustment in line with discussion. It ensures that regulations are fair and based on a broad range of insights and evidence. However, I would be keen for the consultation not to be so long as to delay bringing in the regulations. As I have said before, much of the Bill hinges on the regulations the Government can provide. If the consultation processes are very long and drawn out, it could be a long time before any of these measures come into force to protect our children, in particular.
Andrew Gwynne
Sub-delegation allows functions to be carried out by someone who is not named in the primary legislation. We believe that that is vital for flexible implementation of Government policy and to keep the wheels of Government turning. Sub-delegation is a long-accepted part of the legislative process, and having the ability to allow technical experts to undertake technical tasks, or to set out very detailed technical criteria in guidance instead of using parliamentary resource, will allow us to get on with implementing the measures in part 5 of the Bill.
The shadow Minister is right to be concerned about having safeguards to ensure that any sub-delegation of authority is not abused. Sub-delegation to persons must be set out in regulations. As I have previously said, there is also a statutory duty to consult on any regulations made under part 5. The regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, meaning that Parliament will have an opportunity to consider any sub-delegation before the regulations take legal effect.
On the wider consultation the shadow Minister referred to, the Government chose to include consultation clauses because we want valuable input from different stakeholders on our proposals before they are introduced. As is conventional with such clauses in primary legislation, the clause does not prescribe the specific people the Secretary of State must consult. That is to ensure that the Government can consult appropriate stakeholders, and the list may evolve over time.
UK-wide regulations made under part 5 might deal with devolved matters. The UK Government are therefore required to seek consent from the devolved Governments. My Department will continue to work closely with the devolved Governments on proposals for UK-wide regulation of products. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 105 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 106 to 113 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 114
Publishing advertisements
Dr Johnson
I beg to move amendment 87, in clause 114, page 63, line 16, after “product,” insert
“except for the public health purpose of promoting vaping as a cessation tool for existing tobacco smokers,”.
This amendment would allow vapes to be promoted as a quit-aid/public health measure.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Amendment 88, in clause 115, page 64, line 3, after “product,” insert
“except for the public health purpose of promoting vaping as a cessation tool for existing tobacco smokers,”.
This amendment would allow vapes to be promoted as a quit-aid/public health measure.
Clause 115 stand part.
Amendment 89, in clause 116, page 64, line 30, after “product,” insert
“except for the public health purpose of promoting vaping as a cessation tool for existing tobacco smokers,”.
This amendment would allow vapes to be promoted as a quit-aid/public health measure.
Clause 116 stand part.
Amendment 90, in clause 117, page 65, line 18, after “product,” insert
“except for the public health purpose of promoting vaping as a cessation tool for existing tobacco smokers,”.
This amendment would allow vapes to be promoted as a quit-aid/public health measure.
Clause 117 stand part.
Amendment 91, in clause 118, page 66, line 3, after “product,” insert
“except for the public health purpose of promoting vaping as a cessation tool for existing tobacco smokers,”.
This amendment would allow vapes to be promoted as a quit-aid/public health measure.
Clause 118 stand part.
Amendment 92, in clause 119, page 67, line 8, after “product,” insert
“except for the public health purpose of promoting vaping as a cessation tool for existing tobacco smokers,”.
This amendment would allow vapes to be promoted as a quit-aid/public health measure.
Amendment 93, in clause 119, page 67, line 24, after “product,” insert
“except for the public health purpose of promoting vaping as a cessation tool for existing tobacco smokers,”.
This amendment would allow vapes to be promoted as a quit-aid/public health measure.
Clause 119 stand part.
Before I call the shadow Minister to speak to amendment 87, I should indicate to her that, since the clauses each have amendments proposed to them, it would be helpful to know as we work through the debate whether she wishes to press them to a vote.
Dr Johnson
Amendment 87 is to clause 114. This group of clauses represents a substantial part of the Bill, as it applies to advertising and sponsorship. Those became an issue as part of the Health and Social Care Committee review of vapes back in the last Parliament. They were also discussed during debate on the last iteration of the Bill last Easter. In fact, I tabled a fair number of amendments on the subject in the last Parliament.
Clause 114 creates an offence where a person, acting in the course of business, publishes an advertisement in the UK promoting certain regulated products such as tobacco, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products. To commit the offence, the person must know, or have reason to suspect, that they are publishing advertisements for such products and that the advertisement will promote those items.
Subsection (2) outlines the penalty for this offence, which is up to two years in prison, a fine or both. For summary conviction, the penalties vary by jurisdiction, with different maximum prison terms in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but a fine may be imposed in all cases. The clause aims to regulate the advertising of tobacco and nicotine products by placing responsibility on businesses and individuals publishing such advertisements, to ensure they comply with the law.
I return to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire regarding use of the word “publish”, and I have in mind particularly the online environment. Could the Minister confirm who is the publisher of, for example, a TikTok video? Is it the individual who uploaded it, or is it TikTok itself?
I also have a question about the words “purpose” and “effect”. Are they too vague? Could they lead to overreach and confusion about what constitutes promotion? It is unclear whether an advertisement needs to explicitly promote a product or whether a more subtle influence will be sufficient. How broad does the Minister intend the interpretation of “purpose” and “effect” to be? Can an advertisement for a lifestyle product that features someone smoking or vaping in the imagery be considered as promoting a tobacco product, even if it is not the main focus?
Another issue arises from the clause’s reliance on subjective knowledge or suspicion. The clause states that a person commits an offence if they know or have reason to suspect that the advertisement has the purpose or effect or promoting the product. In cases where the individual involved in the publication of an advertisement did not have direct knowledge of, or did not suspect, the advertisement’s purpose, what level of proof is required to say that they “know” or “have reason to suspect”? For example, if an advertisement is published by the third-party platform or agency, perhaps online, can a person who did not directly control the advertisement’s creation still be held liable? This is really important when it comes to the online world, where the sheer volume of hosts may make it incredibly challenging for an online provider to look at every single post that is put up.
On advertising, the impact assessment provided by the Government says on page 101:
“Despite advertising restrictions existing for nicotine vapes in some settings including television, radio and through information society services, such as internet advertising or commercial email, evidence shows advertising is noticed more by young people, and this has increased in some settings in recent years. Additionally, despite being prohibited under TRPR, the ASA report social media is increasingly being used to advertise vapes to children.”
I note the differences between the devolved nations. Under the Health (Tobacco, Nicotine etc. and Care) (Scotland) Act 2016, Scotland has powers to go further on advertising and sponsorship—for example, powers to ban nicotine vape advertising in more settings than those in TRPR, to ban sponsorship agreements involving nicotine vapes, and to introduce regulations on brand sharing.
Paragraph 655 of the impact assessment says:
“CRUK estimate the annual cost of advertising for the sector in 2019 was £32m. Under this policy proposal, no advertising would be permitted so this previous cost would be saved by businesses, and partially offsetting their lost profits from reduced vape sales outlined in the monetised costs section.”
Paragraph 666 states:
“Similar to the monetised benefits above for vapes, businesses who currently fund advertising of nicotine products, herbal smoking products, and/or cigarette papers will save this money”.
Of course, advertising companies will need to find their revenue somewhere else. To me, it seems sensible to restrict the advertisement of these products, as I said before.
We must remember that young people are at the heart of this Bill, and the impact assessment also notes how susceptible young people are to advertising and why this clause is of particular relevance. Paragraph 499 highlights a survey conducted by Cancer Research showing that advertising is more noticed by young people. The survey results reveal that
“for all types of media analysed, apart from ‘email/SMS’, youth (16 to 19 years) noticed advertisements more than adults (18 years and older) in 2018 in England. The locations and media channels surveyed included: inside shops selling cigarettes; kiosks; web/social media; billboards/posters; newspapers/magazines; events/festivals; bars/pubs; and email/SMS. The largest difference in the two age groups was seen for 'billboards and posters’ with 31.4% of youth noticing marketing compared to 5.9% of adults.”
It also notes that
“youth (16 to 19 year olds) never users (who have never smoked or vaped) report higher noticing of vape advertising across all media types, apart from email/SMS compared to adult exclusive smokers”.
Action on Smoking and Health did a survey which found that
“more than half (55%) of 11 to 17-year-olds are aware of vape promotion in shops compared to 37% two years ago, while 15% see adverts on billboards, up from 12% two years ago.”
It is clear that advertising needs to be restricted.
Amendments 87 to 92 ask the Minister to consider how to ensure that people who are smokers understand the information that is available to help them quit. At the moment, a smoker might go into a doctor’s surgery or an antenatal clinic and see information on smoking being bad for them, which is appropriate. They may also see information on opportunities for nicotine replacement therapies, or even on vaping as an alternative. If the Minister is keen to ensure that people who are smokers can use vapes as an alternative, which is believed to potentially be better for them than continuing to smoke, how will they be given that information if the products cannot be advertised or promoted?
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is eloquently articulating the necessity of controls around advertising. Does she share my concern about the risk of creating a loophole, whereby advertising could still happen if there were warning notes on adverts? The Bill seeks to reduce any type of loophole through which an advertiser might promote vaping—with words underneath that this is a smoking cessation device—in all settings. Does she also agree that the NHS is already able to articulate smoking cessation methods to patients, without the need for brand advertising?
Dr Johnson
The hon. Gentleman and I agree that we need to restrict the advertising of these products, because we do not want people, particularly young people and children, to start becoming addicted to nicotine. We agree on that. However, the Bill does not say an advert needs to promote a brand of nicotine product to be considered promotion or illegal under the Bill. It simply says “a nicotine product” or “a tobacco product”. I am keen to ensure the Minister clarifies that a doctor—I declare an interest as a doctor—or other health professional such as a pharmacist, like the hon. Member for North Somerset, will not find him or herself on the wrong side of the law for promoting vaping to individuals who smoke.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Current medicine regulations do not allow products to be advertised, but do not get in the way of smoking cessation clinics that currently take place at GP surgeries or pharmacies. The amendments the hon. Lady is proposing are, therefore, not needed. In fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford suggests, they could be used as a loophole for advertising by an industry that has been shown to be very successful at finding ways around legislation to increase market share and the numbers of smokers and vapers.
Dr Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He comes to this debate with significant experience as a pharmacist himself. In bringing forward this amendment, it is not our intention to create a loophole. None of us wants to see children vaping or using nicotine products and developing an addiction they struggle to quit for the rest of their lives, with the associated costs to their health and their purses. However, I want the Minister to assure the Committee that he has considered the position of pharmacists and people who will legally be selling these products as a stop smoking device, perhaps in a hospital clinic or as a health professional, and made sure they will not be criminalised.
If we are to follow the chief medical officer’s advice—that vaping is not suitable for children but is suitable for adults who smoke as a harm reduction measure—and are to have that harm reduction process in place, which I believe is the Minister’s intention, it is important to consider how it will continue under these regulations. It is important to consider how pharmacists and other health professionals will be able to have discussions with their patients or clients in which they may wish to say, “Vaping is better for you,” and in so doing effectively promote the process—not a specific product, but the genre of products.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I share the concerns expressed by the shadow Minister and by my hon. Friends about inadvertently creating a loophole, which we know the tobacco industry and others will drive a coach and horses through. I understand that part of the purpose of tabling the amendments is to get reassurance and clarity on certain aspects of the Bill, but on the point she was just making, is not the relevant provision subsection (1)(a), which refers to the person
“acting in the course of business”?
I am sure the Minister will clarify later, but perhaps the clause deals not with medical practitioners, pharmacists or doctors, but with media agencies or companies whose reason to exist is as a business for selling media, for publishing, for design. They do not operate cessation services and are not medical professionals or pharmacists themselves. In the realm of instructions to a service industry, whether it be a publisher or a business that designs advertisements, does this provision not simply make it crystal clear that, no caveats, they cannot do anything that is listed in the clause, because to do so will be an offence?
Dr Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but while pharmacists are highly trained clinicians with the capacity to prescribe a number of products in specific cases, they are also businesses. One’s local pharmacy is a business. Pharmacists sell products; they take money and make variable amounts of profit. A GP is a private entity, as the Minister will have learned during the national insurance contributions debate. Some GP practices are dispensing practices—the GP prescribes a product, which is dispensed from that practice. There are also private clinicians who provide GP surgery or stop smoking services at a price. I do not think that “in the course of business” necessarily provides the distinction that the hon. Member for Cardiff West hopes it does, but perhaps the Minister will provide further clarity.
It might be possible for the Minister to include an extremely narrowly drafted exemption for medical professionals providing advice in relation to stop smoking services and antenatal clinics giving advice to a current smoker, but perhaps he feels that those clinicians are covered already. One of the reasons for tabling the amendments is to have this debate and ensure that the clauses are carefully considered. All of us, on both sides of the Committee and the House, want to improve the health of the nation; we all want the Bill to improve the health of the nation. If the chief medical officer’s advice is that for adult smokers, vaping is better, those products need to be available to adult smokers.
I will move on to clause 115, which extends the offence in clause 114 of publishing advertisements to those who design the advertisements for regulated products, such as tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products. As in clause 114, to commit the offence the person must know that the advert has the purpose of promoting one of the regulated products and that it will be published in the UK. The latter part is important. Again, I would like the Minister to ensure that there is no loophole for people to design things and say they are expecting them to be promoted abroad, and then they are promoted in the UK. That could be quite a significant loophole. Businesses could get around that with contract clauses, I suspect.
Subsection (2) establishes the penalties for the offence, which are a conviction on indictment of two years, a fine or both. Summary convictions carry varying penalties based on the jurisdiction in which the offence was committed. That does leave the situation where somebody who has committed the same offence in England, Scotland and Wales by publishing it across those jurisdictions could face several different fines in different jurisdictions for exactly the same advert.
Another question is about the designers. Individuals may be involved in the design of advertisements, but not have full control over the final content or how the advertisement will be published. Should liability be extended to individuals working on the design, or should it lie more squarely with the business or entity that ultimately publishes it? Is it fair to hold designers accountable for advertisements over which they have limited control? If they have only designed part of the advertisement, and it is not the bit in which the product is promoted, will they still be liable for the whole advertisement?
Clause 116 introduces another offence, this time for businesses that print advertisements that promote tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products. They must know or have reason to suspect that they are printing an advertisement for those products—if they are printing it, they should know what they are printing—and that the advertisement will be published in the UK. Again, that will presumably have to be dealt with by contract law and involve some quite significant fines.
Clause 117 makes it an offence for persons acting in the course of business to distribute the advertisement. The question here is about physical and digital adverts. If a person is distributing the adverts on a sheet of paper, putting billboards on the wall or driving around a truck with a billboard on the back, it is clear that they know what they are doing and it is clear who is doing it. If adverts are appearing online or being distributed online, can the Minister specify who will be held responsible? Could somebody sharing an image that was produced by somebody else be a loophole?
Clause 118 expands the scope of responsibility to those who cause advertisements to be published and distributed within the UK. That seems sensible.
Clause 119 is the Government’s attempt to focus on the businesses that provide internet services. The provision is quite broad. Not all providers are UK-based, though. If they are not, how can they be held accountable? The provision could be seen to apply to various types of online platform, including social media search engines and website hosts. The key issue is whether a business that merely provides a platform or service for the publishing and distribution of advertisements can be held liable for content that is uploaded or shared by third parties, particularly where there is a huge volume.
The clause places responsibility on service providers that know or have reason to suspect that advertisements promoting tobacco or vaping products will be distributed through its services. That could apply to a wide range of internet service providers, from major global tech companies that are household names to the smaller, niche providers that operate in the UK market. I understand why that is important, but will the Minister say more about the person who is paying for the advertisement? The Bill covers publishing, designing and distributing an advert and providing it on the internet, but what about the individual paying for it? Ultimately, an advertisement rarely comes for free. How is that to be regarded?
The measures to reduce advertising for vapes and smoking products are sensible public health measures to reduce uptake. As we discussed in the debate on diet and obesity earlier this week, advertising clearly works. I recalled in that debate some of the adverts I remember from my childhood, such as “The red car and the blue car had a race” for Milky Way—I was pleased that the blue car won in that case, Sir Roger—and “A finger of fudge is just enough to give your kids a treat”. Those memories stick in the mind for many years. Advertising is effective and induces children to try products, so banning advertising for vaping and smoking products should be very beneficial, but I urge the Minister to consider whether he has covered the full scope of those who are responsible for adverts and at the same time excluded those who may play only a very small part in the advert and not realise that it will later become an advert for a smoking or vaping product. Has he considered carefully how a medical professional, clinician, pharmacist or similar person can still provide and openly discuss vaping products with their patients and clients, so that they can use them as a quit aid?
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I just want to go through something again. Obviously, the purpose of part 6 of the Bill is to establish the rules about advertising, which I completely understand. It sets out that it is an offence for a person in the course of business to publish an advertisement, to promote products, to design advertisements, to print an advertisement, to distribute an advertisement, to cause publication, design, printing or distribution in the UK, or to provide an internet service by means of which an advertisement is published or distributed.
Gregory Stafford
I do not intend to opine for very long on these clauses, because they have been covered amply by my hon. Friends. I caveat everything I am about to say with an absolute commitment: I continue to believe that this is the right Bill, that the clauses that we are discussing are the right clauses, that we should be trying to stop people smoking tobacco products and that people under 18 should not have any access to vapes.
However, I have mentioned on a number of occasions that vapes could be and are used as a smoking cessation tool. This is why I perhaps go further in my desire than the shadow Minister does in relation to the amendments that she has put forward. I do not know whether she will press them, but I do ask the Minister to think about the issue of smoking cessation. The shadow Minister talks about how someone who is promoting smoking cessation might fall foul of these rules as they are written—the Minister shakes his head, and I am sure that he will be able to give us reasons for that in a minute.
I would go one step further. For example, we allow the promotion and advertisement of gums and nicotine patches, because they are classed as a medical product, being effective smoking cessation tools. Of course we do not want anybody who does not smoke, either an adult or a child, to be chewing nicotine gum or wearing nicotine patches—to be frank, I am not clear whether there is any evidence that they do, but I suspect they are not seen as, to use the word I think the Minister used last week, “sexy”. I do not think anyone thinks that chewing gum is particularly sexy, and certainly a patch on the arm is not sexy, so I accept that those are not in the same bracket as a vape with colourful packaging and so on. However, gums and nicotine patches are monitored by the MHRA.
I know that the Minister has indicated that a new home is being sought for vapes, but as it stands in the law, they would be monitored by the MHRA. If we are going to say that they are in a similar vein to a patch or a gum in terms of smoking cessation, it is possible that we might want to be able to promote and publicise them, maybe through something in a doctor’s surgery or in a maternity ward, as my hon. Friend the shadow Minister said, that says, “Don’t smoke. Instead, use a vape, a patch or a gum.” If that advert in a doctor’s surgery said “gum” or “patch”, there would be no problem, but if it said “vape”, my understanding is that it would fall foul of these clauses. As my hon. Friend said, they may not want to fall foul of the law, but we might want to be able to advertise vapes as a smoking cessation tool in that very limited circumstance and in an appropriate place—that is, in a pharmacy or a doctor’s surgery.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
I want to add something to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, which is interesting and relevant, about smoking cessation services and how they currently work. I have run and managed smoking cessation services. As it stands, when a smoking cessation adviser is talking to a person who wants to stop smoking, they discuss nicotine patches, gum and whatever other options may be available. They do not promote vapes or actively say that they are an option.
The reason for that is the public health evidence. In public health, we apply the precautionary principle, by and large, where we think that there may well be harms ensuing from using a particular product, but the evidence is not yet sufficient. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that, in the case of smoking, using vapes is much more preferable for a person’s health, but in terms of smoking cessation, as clinicians and advisers, we need to be careful in how we apply clinical norms, and that is relevant here.
Gregory Stafford
The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. I will not labour my point any further, because I think I have made it; I am sure that the Minister can respond to it when we get there.
The only other thing I will mention is the online advertisements mentioned in a number of the clauses. Is the intention to do with the website displaying the advert, the person who has put forward the advert or the intermediary companies? Online, a lot of adverts are now tailored via cookies. When the Minister goes on to a website, the adverts that he sees are tailored to the things that he has been looking at. I could go on to exactly the same website at exactly the same time and receive a different set of advertisements based on my internet viewing preferences—[Laughter.] I do not know why my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor is laughing. I get a lot of weird stuff, mostly for hoof trimming videos—I am not sure what I typed in to get those. Maybe it is my rural seat. I do not know.
My point is that those advertisements are totally unconnected to the website that I am looking at, which essentially has no control over what adverts are being displayed, as far as I understand it. Because the internet is so complicated, what thoughts does the Minister have about the fact that essentially, the internet provider and the website may not have any knowledge of what adverts are being put on?
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
As part of the solution, legislation must already be in place, because human and veterinary prescription-only drugs are not allowed to be advertised to the public, but they can be advertised to medical professionals. There must be legislation that prevents rogue companies from advertising in the UK products that they are not allowed to advertise to the general public, and I imagine that it should be incorporated into the Bill to address the problem that the hon. Gentleman talks about.
Gregory Stafford
Forgive me; I am not sure I fully understand the hon. Member’s point in relation to what I was just saying, but that is probably because I have not explained myself well enough, not because he has misunderstood it. I entirely agree that the advertising of tobacco and vape products should be banned, and I agree with the sentiment and the outline in the law. All I am saying is that when the Minister or the relevant authority seeks to prosecute somebody for this offence, there may be occasions, given the complexity of the internet these days, when people may not know that their website is hosting said adverts. I do not want to labour that point again, but I am sure the Minister can respond.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
Members will be glad to know that I have curtailed my remarks, because the Conservative Benches almost seem to be in agreement, which will delight the Whip. However, I do have concerns about part 6 and some questions on a couple of specific points, and I would appreciate it if the Minister considered them.
One of my concerns is the potential weakness of the public consultation aspect. It is my understanding that other parts of this Bill—particularly flavours and packaging restrictions—will be consulted on before secondary legislation is introduced, but that that is not necessarily the case for this part. This part should be subject to that same level of public scrutiny. It seems to me that experts, consumers, retailers and even legitimate parts of the vaping industry should have the opportunity to have their views heard on these clauses before the Government move forward with the legislation.
The first of the overriding concerns that have been articulated is that the Government should not accidentally make it harder for adult smokers to switch to vapes and other safer nicotine products. The Government’s own risk assessment mentions that as a risk, so I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that.
Secondly, we have to be a little bit careful about imposing burdensome restrictions on compliant small businesses, particularly convenience stores. It is my understanding that, for some convenience stores, up to a quarter of their sales come from tobacco and vapes.
On the top lines on part 6, it seems to me that the advertising and promotion of vapes and other nicotine products, including nicotine patches, could very well be an effective means of reaching adult smokers and helping them to switch. What assessment has the Minister made regarding the effect on switching rates that this advertising ban may have?
ASH reported that half of smokers incorrectly believed that vaping was more harmful than, or equally harmful to, smoking, and that trend is one that has increased. Is the Minister not concerned that, by banning the advertisement of these products, the Government could be at risk of inadvertently exacerbating that problem and undermining its own public health messaging that
“Nicotine vaping is substantially less harmful than smoking”?
To my mind, if we are to continue to encourage smokers to switch, it is crucial that they are aware of the relative risks of vapes and nicotine patches compared with cigarettes. I know that the Minister has made the point that no level of use is safe, but we are talking about the relative risks here. To my mind, there should be provision in this legislation to allow for the promotion of information on the relative harms of vapes and nicotine patches compared with cigarettes. I think that is part of the nub of what my hon. Friend the shadow Minister is getting at.
Dr Caroline Johnson
My hon. Friend is making some good points about the importance of ensuring that people can access nicotine replacement therapy in its various forms if they wish to stop smoking, because that will be healthier for them. I understand what the hon. Member for Winchester has said about prescription-only medicines, and that it is illegal to advertise prescription-only medicines to the public, but not all nicotine replacement therapies are prescription-only medicines, so those can be advertised to the public at the moment.
Jack Rankin
I thank my hon. Friend for her comment. I was struck in the written evidence—we have been overwhelmed with written submissions; I am not sure whether we were expected to read them all—by a comment by a Professor Peter Hajek when he was speaking to the Health and Social Care Select Committee. He said:
“In Tokyo there were huge, big posters showing the risk of smoking and, at one tenth of it, in a histogram, was the risk of IQOS”—
I would translate “IQOS” as heated tobacco. He then said:
“Within about five years—it has never happened before and is a fantastic achievement for public health without any involvement of Government—sales of cigarettes in Japan dropped by 50%.”
As I understand it from his description of that histogram, it was an advert by a private heated tobacco company, showing the relative sizes of the risks of cigarettes and of heated tobacco. That is something that this advertisement ban might prohibit, but that might help the Government in their aims to move to a smoke-free generation.
Dr Johnson
I am afraid I might need to break the happy agreement on the Conservative side. While I understand my hon. Friend’s laudable aim of encouraging those who smoke to use a less harmful product, which is a good thing, the clear evidence we have seen is that tobacco, in all its forms, is essentially harmful. Moving people from smoking tobacco in cigarettes to using heated tobacco may or may not reduce the harm, but it would still be significantly harmful. It would be better if an individual saw their pharmacist or clinician to get proper nicotine therapy, which is designated by the MHRA as a properly medically regulated product, rather than moving on to a different commercial product that is still harmful for them.
Jack Rankin
My hon. Friend makes her point well, and she is right that there is a slight disagreement between us. The Government should be wary—
Jack Rankin
I am going to make some progress. Even judging by the Government’s own standards, we should be treating vaped tobacco and heated tobacco very differently from cigarettes. We should be a little careful about the unintended consequences of this measure, and I hope the Minister can say how he might consult other bodies to look at those unintended consequences.
I have a small concern with the internet services measure in clause 119. Again, it seems that the Government’s aims in this legislation is to prevent targeted communication on vapes and nicotine products to adult smokers, such as via emails or digital channels, which can reach them directly. I understand the point about not wanting to aim such communication at children, but targeted communication, such as using people’s internet search history, could be an effective means of encouraging smokers to quit. I mentioned a few weeks ago the work that NHS Essex is doing with a vaping company, targeted at adult smokers. I do not think the Government, in achieving their aims of a smoke-free generation, should be too prescriptive on this.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to hon. Members for our discussion on amendment 87 and subsequent clauses. These amendments intend to make an exemption under the advertisement ban to allow vaping products to be promoted by businesses as a smoking cessation tool for existing tobacco smokers. I am sympathetic to the shadow Minister’s intention behind the amendment to ensure that smokers are encouraged to use vapes as a quit aid. That is why the Bill as drafted will continue to support the promotion of vaping as a quit aid for smokers through the appropriate channels. By “appropriate channels”, I say to the hon. Lady that we mean public health authorities.
Dr Johnson
I want to clarify one small point, if I have not made myself completely clear. On a personal level, I do not particularly want people to be persuaded to go from smoking to vaping, because I think it is an alternative addiction that they will get stuck on. I would much prefer them to be directed towards other forms of nicotine replacement therapy, which will be effective and more short lived. However, given that the current medical advice is that vaping is better, I think it is important that it is available.
Andrew Gwynne
I get that the shadow Minister is dancing on a pinhead, but she has brought to the Committee a set of amendments for which that would be the purpose. If they are pushed to a vote, I am sure we will have the bewilderment of the shadow Minister yet again abstaining on measures that the shadow Minister has brought before the Committee.
We believe it is for public health authorities to promote vaping as a quit aid for current smokers. For example, local stop smoking services will continue to be able to promote vapes to smokers as a less harmful alternative following the passage of the Bill. We strongly believe that any promotion of vaping as a way to quit smoking is best led and delivered by the appropriate authorities, such as local stop smoking services, public health professionals and the national health service.
The clauses in part 6 of the Bill, taken in totality, will form a complete ban on advertising and sponsorship for tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products, bringing them all in line with tobacco. It is unacceptable that children are exposed to vape adverts on the sides of buses and in shop windows when they make their way to school.
Clauses 114 to 117 make it an offence for anyone
“acting in the course of business”
to publish, design, print or distribute an advertisement
“whose purpose or effect is to promote”
a relevant product within the Bill. Upon conviction, anyone who has committed an offence under part 6 will be liable to a fine, imprisonment or both. These clauses are an essential part of the overall suite of restrictions that will ban advertising of relevant products within the UK. Taken together they will ensure that even if someone has not designed or published an advert, it will still be an offence to print or distribute that advert. This is key to stopping their eventual distribution. I hope that answers the questions about whether there is a loophole allowing adverts produced for international markets to be distributed in the United Kingdom. The distribution of those adverts will be an offence.
Clause 118 makes it an offence to cause the offences I have just set out. It would be an offence if a person “knows or has reason to suspect” that they are causing these things, whereas if someone unknowingly delivered a package containing leaflets, they would not be guilty of the offence. Without this clause, it would be possible to instruct others to publish, design, print or distribute adverts without committing an offence. Clearly, we need to ensure that it is also an offence to cause these things to happen.
Lastly, clause 119 makes it an offence to provide an internet service in the course of a business by means of which an advert for a relevant product is published or distributed. This would mean that an organisation that provides a service to a person—for example, Sky or TalkTalk—would commit an offence if they provided a service that enabled the online advertisements to happen and if they permitted that space to be used to promote relevant products. That could include becoming aware that the service is hosting a vape advert and subsequently failing to take that advert down. This is particularly important, as young people, and some not-so-young—we now know that, if we have a hoof that needs trimming, the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon is our man, although I am not sure whether he provides the service or just passes the request on—
Andrew Gwynne
Clause 119 is important, as children spend a lot of time online and therefore are more exposed to a variety of internet services. It is unacceptable that a child using the internet to study might be exposed to a variety of vape adverts. We need to take action to stop these products being deliberately advertised to children, to protect future generations from becoming hooked on nicotine.
The shadow Minister’s amendments would in theory allow any shops or businesses to advertise vaping products to existing tobacco smokers. It would be incredibly difficult to target the advertisement of vaping products to current smokers alone, without the risk of children and non-smokers seeing the promotional material. That would not only make enforcement complicated, but make the messaging about the ban inconsistent. Research on tobacco advertising bans has shown that comprehensive bans were significantly more effective than partial restrictions in reducing smoking rates.
Hon. Members has posed a number of questions, which I will address. What constitutes an advert and how will the decisions be made? The Advertising Standards Authority is the regulator, and it will take a proportionate approach. All adverts are captured. Decisions on whether something is an advert will be made on a case-by-case basis, and it is for the ASA to decide. If the purpose or effect of something is to promote a product, it will most likely be captured. I say to the hon. Member for Windsor, “Worry not”: the ASA knows how the internet works, because it is dealing with it daily, and as we speak.
How does liability work? The offence will be charged on a case-by-case basis. In most cases, we expect that this will involve a company. The ASA is experienced in making decisions on tobacco restrictions at the moment, and the provision merely extends the powers and responsibilities that it is already undertaking with regard to a variety of other products. On social media influencers, it depends on how the ASA approaches the matter; if it decides that something is constituted as an advert, action can be taken. Nobody is above the law of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Windsor asked why we are making changes to the law without consulting. To be clear, tobacco adverts are already banned under the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002, and the provisions in part 6 of the Bill will simply maintain the existing ban on tobacco advertisements. We were elected with a mandate to carry out our manifesto commitments, one of which was to stop the advertising of vapes to children. We already know that the measures to restrict vape advertising are strongly supported: 74% of adults in Great Britain support banning the advertising and promotion of e-cigarettes at point of sale, at the till, in stores and as people enter shops, and only 6% are opposed.
Does aligning vapes with tobacco in this area contribute to misconceptions that vapes are just as harmful as tobacco? Although the approach towards vapes and towards tobacco will align in this area, our future regulations on other vape measures will be carefully considered so that there is a clear difference between these products. Given that vapes are less harmful than tobacco, we do not intend to treat them in exactly the same way as tobacco. To be clear, there is no more dangerous product that is legally sold in our shops than tobacco—a product that kills two thirds of its users—but we do not want to inadvertently addict a new generation to nicotine. That is the reason for the advertising measures.
Will the ban on the advertising of heated tobacco products increase the demand for traditional cigarettes? The Department’s opinion is that heated tobacco products are covered under the 2002 Act, which prohibits the advertisement and sponsorship of tobacco products. The new definition just ensures clarity on the scope of the legislation, as well as future-proofing policy. This is not a new ban; we believe that the existing tobacco advertising ban appertains to heated tobacco products in any case.
We very much want people to give up all forms of tobacco. That is why this Government have invested a further £70 million for smoking cessation services in the new financial year, and why I maintain that, although we are saying to tobacco companies, “This is as good as it gets,” we will move heaven and earth to shrink their customer base even further with appropriate smoking cessation. With that, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw her amendment, and commend the clauses to the Committee.
Dr Johnson
The Minister knows that I believe strongly that we need to stop people smoking, because of its dangers, and that we need to stop children from taking up any form of nicotine, because we have heard how harmful nicotine is to them. He will also be aware of my argument—which I made in relation to the previous iteration of the Bill—that advertising, marketing and sponsorship should be included to reduce the appeal of the products to children. I support the clauses, but I was keen to debate how smoking cessation services will be able to discuss these products. The Minister has been reasonably, if not absolutely, clear on that, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 114 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 115 to 119 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Twelfth sitting)
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 121 stand part.
Government amendment 1.
Clause 122 stand part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
It is good to see you back in the Chair, Mr Dowd. These clauses concern the defences and exemptions to the advertising bans on relevant products—tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products and nicotine products—as set out in clauses 114 to 119, which we have just debated.
Clause 120 sets out three situations in which someone has a defence to the advertising bans. Those are trade adverts, sending information in response to a request and adverts for outside the United Kingdom. The clause sets out that adverts contained only in communications between members of specific, relevant trades in the course of business will have a defence if charged with an offence. For example, a vaping company could send promotional materials to someone responsible for buying products to sell, but that would otherwise be banned if aimed at members of the public. Similarly, a defence exists if the advert is contained in a publication that is not printed or intended to be marketed in the UK. The final defence is that if businesses receive a direct request about their products, they are permitted to respond to that request with material that would legally be considered an advert.
Clause 121 restates existing law that allows specialist tobacconists to advertise specialist products in their shops. Specialist tobacconists will therefore be exempt from the restrictions on advertisements in part 6 of the Bill, provided that their adverts meet certain criteria, such as being visible only inside the shop. The clause empowers the appropriate national authority in each of the devolved Administrations to make regulations to specify what health warnings and information must be included in the adverts. Specialist tobacconists make up a tiny percentage of the market in the UK and are focused on specialist products such as pipes and cigars, and this exemption reflects the specialist nature of the trade carried out by these shops. However, tobacco is a uniquely harmful product, so we will continue to monitor the specialist market closely in case the situation changes.
Clause 122 ensures that no offence is committed under part 6 of the Bill for something that is regulated under the law on displays. For example, displaying a relevant product or the price of the product in accordance with any regulations concerning displays would not be considered an advertisement for the purposes of advertising offences. Without this provision, a display of a relevant product or other material that is permitted may be prohibited as an advertisement. The provision therefore allows for shops to display a vape, subject to the restrictions set out in legislation on their display, without it being considered an advertisement.
However, in the relevant provision for Scotland, the clause refers only to the legislation on the display of the tobacco products themselves and does not include the legislative provision on the display of the prices of the tobacco products. Government amendment 1 has been made to ensure that both are captured when determining whether something is subject to the law relating to displays, as the equivalent provisions do for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. That has been done at the request of the Scottish Government to make the approach in Scotland consistent with that in the other three jurisdictions across the United Kingdom. It is for that reason that the Government commend this amendment and clauses 120 to 122 to the Committee.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I noticed that Government amendment 1 was included in this grouping. Does the Minister want to talk about it?
Dr Johnson
Oh, sorry. I must have had a moment.
Clause 120 concerns advertising defences. I wanted to ask specifically about the defence relating to the relevant trade communication being directed solely at persons involved in that trade. Does that include adverts within trade magazines? Does it include trade shows and trade stands where these adverts might be visible? Will these adverts or promotions need to be explicitly directed at trade, and will they need to be only visible to trade, or could this actually create a loophole in which there is a suggestion that these are trade magazines, but are actually more widely available than that and therefore provide an advert to the public? How will that work? What if one is doing a trade show in a relatively public venue such as an exhibition centre?
Andrew Gwynne
I can answer that very quickly and clearly, because it was set out in my opening speech. I am not sure whether the shadow Minister was fully paying attention, because it also included Government amendment 1, in relation to bringing Scotland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom on these measures. The legislation sets out that adverts contained only in communications made between members of specific relevant trades in the course of business will have a defence if charged with an offence. I think that is pretty clear.
Dr Johnson
I understand what the Minister is saying, but if members of a trade body are being spoken to at a trade show, for example, will the people running the show need to make sure that people who are not members of the trade do not come? Sometimes, people may bring other people along with them. Will there need to be provisions to ensure that when that trade show is advertised, it is not done in a way that promotes the product itself? If the show is to happen, people will need to know about it, so how will they find out? This is just about making sure there are no loopholes.
There is also the business of who is publishing and who is distributing. If someone were to design, produce and print leaflets in the belief that they would be distributed abroad, but then someone gave some young delivery chap, perhaps in his teens, some money to deliver them to a group of households, as happens with pizza delivery adverts and such things, the young lad would be committing an offence of which he may or may not be aware. That is no excuse under the law, of course, but the person with greater culpability would be the person who gave him the leaflet. How does the Minister intend the law to be applied in such a situation?
Clause 121 concerns specialist tobacconists. The Minister has been quite consistent on every aspect of this legislation—apart from penalties—in saying that tobacco in all its forms is bad for people and needs to be eliminated, so I am interested in this specialist tobacco exemption. I understand that the advert is going to be available inside the store, and not visible from the outside, and that it will exclude cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco. I am interested to understand why it will specifically exclude those and not other forms of tobacco. The Minister might say, “That is what the legislation says at the moment, and we want to keep it the same,” but passing new legislation is an opportunity to change things, review what we currently have and decide whether it needs to be different. I am interested in his reasons for that decision.
The clause defines a “specialist tobacconist” as a shop
“more than half of whose sales…derive from the sale of cigars, snuff, pipe tobacco and smoking accessories.”
That would appear to be on the basis of the cost or value of sales. What is the reason for that definition? It may be that that is the existing definition, but has the Minister considered whether specialist tobacconists should be defined according to whether they sell a greater or a lesser amount of such products? Also, we see vape shops on virtually every high street now, so how will the Bill apply to them?
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Dowd. My understanding is that Government amendment 1 simply makes a correction to bring things into line, so I very much doubt that we will oppose it.
It is clearly necessary and right to have some defences written into law, but I have a few questions about clauses 121 and 122. As the shadow Minister said, the Minister and the Government have been extraordinarily clear that tobacco-based products, as well as vapes, are unhealthy and have a significant impact on public health. It is therefore interesting that the Minister has not been so consistent when it comes to what one might call specialist or traditional tobacco.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is talking about specialist tobacco. Can he or the Minister enlighten the Committee as to whether specialist tobacco is less harmful than any other form?
Gregory Stafford
I do not claim to have a medical qualification, but my guess would be that there is no difference between specialist and other forms of tobacco. One might even say—again, I am not medically qualified —that specialist tobacco may be more harmful, because a pipe has no filter, and nor are there other things that could mitigate, at least minimally, the harmful nature of the tobacco. The shadow Minister is right, and the Minister has been clear, that there is no such thing as safe smoking in any form.
It is interesting that the Minister has decided to exempt specialist tobacconists in this regard. Perhaps he could enlighten us as to how many specialist tobacconists there are in the United Kingdom, and how many consumers currently buy their tobacco from a specialist tobacconist. That would give us some indication of how prevalent the issue is.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
I encourage my hon. Friend not to criticise the Minister for doing something quite sensible in pursuing this evidence-based approach. I have said before that people who have a cigar on new year’s eve and who use specialist tobacconists—that is where I get mine—are the kind of people we should be letting off a little. The Minister is right.
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend and I agree on most areas of policy, but this is probably one on which we do not entirely see eye to eye. Another hon. Member asked me yesterday to mention the personal benefits of cigars for his stress levels. I informed him very clearly that reducing any amount of stress with a cigar only exacerbates the effect on his lungs; although he might feel a little less stressed in the moment, he will feel much more stressed when, unfortunately, he has a tobacco-related disease. I therefore disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor.
That being said, and I have mentioned this previously on other clauses, we must be consistent between larger and smaller retailers and not bring in anything that will disadvantage the smaller ones. Perhaps that is what was in the Minister’s mind when he included this clause.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is making a very important point. Does he agree that the timing will be important too, because this legislation will come into force more quickly than the regulations? The Minister said that he would “go like the clappers”, but we have not had further definition of what that means or of how quickly regulations will come into force. Regulations on displays may lag behind the Bill’s provisions on advertising, so companies are likely to use the display provisions to circumvent the advertising provisions until the Minister brings the regulations in.
Gregory Stafford
I completely agree. It is essential that not only this clause and the regulations it will bring in, but all the clauses we have talked about—both those where regulations are included on the face of the Bill and those that give the Minister, the Department for Health and relevant authorities the power to implement other regulations and restrictions—are phased appropriately, so that retailers and manufacturers can adjust to the new laws. They must also be introduced rapidly enough that there are no loopholes, and in the right sequence so that people cannot take advantage of any loopholes.
That brings me to the point that vigilant enforcement and clear guidelines are necessary to prevent such exploitation. I would be interested to know from the Minister whether that links back to the previous clauses, in which we talked about the display of notices.
Likewise, we need to ensure that there is consistency across the jurisdictions. We have devolved government in this country, but if regulations concerning the display and advertisement of tobacco and vape products vary between the different countries of the United Kingdom, there could be cause for some legal issues. It is therefore vital to ensure that clause 122 is applied consistently across all parts of the United Kingdom to prevent confusion among retailers and to maintain the stated aim of the Bill, which is uniform public health standards.
I have a few questions to the Minister. First, will he be developing comprehensive guidelines for what constitutes a display versus an advertisement? These guidelines should include visual examples to assist retailers in understanding and complying with the regulations. I mentioned it before, but regular training and communication is essential so that retailers can be educated about the distinctions and the legal requirements. Continued regular communication will help to address any ambiguities and keep retailers informed about any changes to the laws or regulations that the Minister or his successors might introduce. The Minister is laughing, but I think it is more that he received a funny text than because of my speech.
Finally, robust monitoring and enforcement is essential to ensure that there is compliance with clause 122. That should include routine inspections and clear processes for addressing violations to ensure that the distinction between displays and advertisements is respected. In conclusion, the clause plays a pivotal role in balancing the rights of retailers to display their products with the necessity of restricting advertising that could promote tobacco and vape usage. We on this side of the Committee—mostly—agree with the clause, and I hope that the Minister will answer some of the queries that we have raised.
Andrew Gwynne
I thank hon. Members for their questions. The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon just referred to my smirk, and it was indeed a text from somebody asking whether we should define “clappers” in our guidance as well.
To return to the substance of the Bill, the Government amendment is minor and technical; there was a drafting error, and the Scottish Government have since requested the amendment to correct it and to ensure the regulations and the law, as it appertains to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, will be the same for Scotland.
On the subject of “specialist tobacconists”, let me first make a point of clarification for the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon. We are not saying there is specialist tobacco—there is no such thing. Tobacco is dangerous and uniquely harmful. Tobacco is tobacco. There is nothing specialist about it. A very small number of retailers around the United Kingdom sell niche products; they are specialist tobacconists. That is different to the tobacco being special. There is nothing special about tobacco. The tiny number of retailers that sell things such as pipes and cigars exist in a limited number of places and there are already exemptions in the law for them. As we move towards smoke-free, the reality of market economics means that those specialist tobacconists are not necessarily likely to be around at some stage in the future.
The impact assessment that the Government have provided alongside the Bill makes it very clear. With the measures in the Bill, by 2050—25 years’ time, that is all—we are looking at smoking prevalence in the under-30s being nearly zero. Given that reality, the Government believe that the current exemptions for that small number of retailers will continue. Due to the specialist nature of their trade—they focus on a small number of other tobacco products, such as cigars—they only make up a tiny proportion of the UK market. We know that all tobacco products are harmful, so the Government will, of course, keep a watchful eye on it to make sure that we do not inadvertently grow a new market but, at this stage, we do not believe that will happen.
Specialist tobacconists are not permitted to advertise cigarettes or hand-rolling tobacco because those are the most commonly used types of tobacco. The existing bans on tobacco advertising therefore relate to the sale of those products, whether in specialist tobacconists or the local supermarket, so we are really talking about the advertising exemption for other products. That is a continuation of the existing exemption, which has not caused any issues such as younger people taking up smoking. Any advertising the retailers have cannot be visible from outside the premises. That is really important so that a child walking past one of these random Hogwarts-looking shops that sell a product of which they are hopefully not aware will not ever be attracted to what goes on inside.
Dr Johnson
I am pleased that the Minister is considering how shops look from the outside because, when one walks down the high street at the moment, it is not uncommon to find shops where the entire shop window has been turned into a picture of various types of vapes.
Andrew Gwynne
Absolutely—I agree with the hon. Lady that how it looks from the outside does matter. That is why, when these exemptions were put into earlier legislation, it was clear that none of the adverts for these niche products could be visible in the shop window from the outside, precisely to protect future generations from ever being enticed to think, “I wonder what a pipe tastes like, or what a cigar is like,” although I am sure the hon. Member for Windsor could, if he chose, give us an hour-long explanation. That is why the legislation is drafted in the way it is. However—and hopefully the industry is listening to this—the Government will, of course, continue to keep an eye on whether this exemption is working in the way that it has previously worked and that we expect it probably will work in the future. If in the future we have evidence that it is not working, the Government can come back and look at it again. However, as things stand, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 120 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 121 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 122
Exclusion for advertisements that are displays
Andrew Gwynne
The clause provides the Secretary of State with the power to introduce regulations that prohibit or restrict the brand sharing of tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products or nicotine products. Tobacco brand sharing is already prohibited. Brand sharing, also known as brand stretching, is a form of indirect advertising that promotes the use of a service or product by putting its branding on other products or services, or vice versa. For example, using a tobacco product on a logo or a T-shirt or a confectionery company using its branding on a vape are examples of brand sharing if the intent is to promote vapes. There is a clear association between tobacco advertisements and the uptake of products.
Associating nicotine or vape products with a reputable brand may also incentivise consumers, particularly children, adolescents and other vulnerable groups, to buy the product. We want to stop that happening and to protect young people and future generations from becoming addicted to nicotine. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Gregory Stafford
The clause grants the Secretary of State the authority to regulate brand sharing related to tobacco products, vaping products, nicotine products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers. I think the provision is instrumental in preventing indirect advertising strategies that could undermine the public health efforts in the Bill aimed at reducing consumption of those products.
Brand sharing, in my understanding, refers to the practice of using a brand name, a logo or some kind of distinctive feature associated with a particular product across a range of different product categories. In the context of tobacco and vaping products, brand sharing can manifest in several ways. Cross-product branding uses a tobacco brand’s name or logo on a non-tobacco product such as clothing or accessories to maintain brand visibility despite the advertising restrictions.
On event sponsorships, my hon. Friend the shadow Minister mentioned how we banned the advertising of tobacco products at Formula 1, the cricket and so on. Associating a tobacco or vape brand with events indirectly promotes the brand to a broader audience. Merchandising—the selling or distributing of merchandise bearing the branding of tobacco or vape products—can appeal to various demographics, especially young people.
Jack Rankin
I wholeheartedly support the Government on tobacco, but does my hon. Friend agree with me that there might be an inconsistency being applied here? For example, vaping and nicotine products are being outlawed, but sport is awash with gambling and alcohol brand sharing. Does he not think that that is an inconsistent application of the message?
Gregory Stafford
I do not want to put words into the Minister’s mouth; I am sure he can respond to my hon. Friend when he gets up. I think there has been relative unanimity on the Committee. Unlike alcohol and gambling, to use the two examples that my hon. Friend gave, tobacco is significantly more dangerous. Whereas there are safe levels of indulgence in gambling and alcohol, there is no safe indulgence in tobacco products. I think the Minister has made that very clear. If I have misinterpreted what he said, I am sure he will correct me.
The rationale for the clause is important: it closes advertising loopholes. Traditional advertising channels for tobacco products have been progressively restricted to reduce their appeal and accessibility, especially to young people. However, brand sharing could present a loophole that companies could exploit to continue to promote their products indirectly. By regulating brand sharing, the clause aims to close that gap, ensuring the intent of the advertising restrictions, which we have previously discussed, is fully realised.
Secondly, as with measures throughout the Bill, the clause aims to protect public health. Indirect advertising through brand sharing can subtly influence consumer behaviour, particularly among impressionable groups such as adolescents. Exposure to branding on non-tobacco products or at events can normalise tobacco and vape use, potentially leading to their initiation and then continued usage. Regulating brand sharing is therefore a critical step in protecting public health by limiting the avenues through which these products are promoted.
Once again, the clause brings us into line with a number of international standards. Many countries have already recognised the risks associated with brand sharing and have implemented regulations to address it. For example, the World Health Organisation’s framework convention on tobacco control, which I previously mentioned, recommends comprehensive bans on all forms of tobacco advertising, promotion and sponsorship, including indirect forms such as brand sharing. By empowering the Secretary of State to regulate brand sharing, the UK is aligning itself with international best practices in tobacco control.
However, there are some challenges and considerations. The first is defining the scope of brand sharing. One of the primary challenges I see in regulating brand sharing is establishing clear definitions and boundaries. Determining what constitutes brand sharing requires careful consideration to avoid an ambiguity that could be exploited. I hope the Minister will give us some understanding of what the guidelines and boundaries might look like. Clear guidelines are essential to ensure that both regulators and businesses understand the limitations and comply accordingly.
The definition of brand sharing in subsection (2) involves broad and somewhat ambiguous terms, such as
“anything which is the same as, or similar to, a name, emblem, or any other feature”.
The use of such open-ended language could create uncertainty about what constitutes a violation of the regulations. How precise must the similarities between a relevant product and another service product be in order to be considered brand sharing? It would be helpful if the Minister could help us understand that.
There is also then the balancing of the regulation with commercial rights, which I think my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor alluded to earlier. While the object is clearly to protect public health, it is also important to consider the commercial rights of businesses. Over-restrictive regulation could have unintended economic consequences, particularly, again, for small businesses involved in merchandising or event sponsorship. I have said this before: if the product is legal to consume, we must ensure that whatever regulations we apply are equal and fair for both a large retailer or manufacturer and a small retailer or manufacturer. The regulation is either highly restrictive or highly permissive, but it must be the same. A balanced approach is necessary to achieve the public health goals without imposing undue burdens on legitimate commercial activities.
As I have said before in debates on other clauses, enforcement and compliance potentially bring some logistical challenges. The monitoring of so many various channels, including events and merchandise digital platforms, requires substantial resource. Ensuring compliance among diverse industries and settings necessitates a co-ordinated effort between regulatory bodies, industry stakeholders and the public.
In addition to the questions I have already asked, could the Minister tell us what will be in the accompanying comprehensive guidelines? I urge the Minister to collaborate with public health experts, industry representatives and legal advisers to formulate clear and detailed guidelines on what constitutes prohibited brand-sharing practices. Those guidelines should be regularly updated to address any emerging trends and technologies, which we have discussed previously.
Stakeholder engagement is entirely appropriate and important. That includes with businesses and consumer groups, because we need to understand the regulations and encourage, where possible, voluntary compliance rather than compliance through enforcement operations. Educational campaigns can help stakeholders recognise the public health rationale behind regulations.
Finally, to go back to what I said about having robust monitoring mechanisms, we need to establish some kind of body to oversee and monitor to ensure compliance. Using technology and public reporting mechanisms can aid in identifying the violations and taking prompt action.
In conclusion, I support the intentions of the clause, but the ambiguity around what exactly constitutes brand sharing is something I would like to hear about from the Minister. Potentially, some challenges in enforcement are posed if the clause and the Bill become law.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful contribution and questions. First, to be clear, we are aligning with the same regulatory framework that was used for tobacco. Tobacco brand sharing was done via regulations following the introduction of TAPA—the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002—and the necessary consultation through that process. We will of course consider brand-sharing restrictions for vapes once the Bill has received Royal Assent.
It is also important to say that following the ban on direct advertising, we will consider whether further regulation of brand sharing is needed at that point. If it is deemed necessary, we will need to assess the scope and the impact of any regulations to ensure that they are proportionate—precisely the point that the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon was setting out. My belief is therefore that it is more appropriate to regulate brand sharing via secondary legislation following consultation, not only to get that proportionate balance, but to ensure that any regulations are well understood, workable and enforceable.
An added issue is that advertising is devolved to Scotland and Northern Ireland—but not to Wales—so the Secretary of State must obtain consent from Scottish Ministers and the Department of Health in Northern Ireland before making any regulations containing provisions that would be within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Executive. We want to have the measures in place across the United Kingdom—so that there is no loophole, with brand sharing north of the border but not south of it, for example—so it is important that we go through the correct procedures to ensure that my counterparts in Scotland and in Northern Ireland are fully content with the direction of travel that we may wish for when it comes to England and Wales, which is the responsibility of the Secretary of State in the UK Government.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 123 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 124
Sponsorship: tobacco products
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
The clauses deal with sponsorship. Clause 124 covers tobacco products, and clause 125 vaping, nicotine and other products. Why do businesses get involved in sponsorship? Basically, as a way of advertising their products and to associate them with whatever sponsors them. They might want to associate their products with Formula 1, because it is seen by many as sexy, as the Minister put it—fast or cool, or a good thing to be associated with. They might want to associate their products with other sports such as football or rugby, because athletes who participate in them are seen as healthy, fit and cool. Businesses are therefore associating their brands, which may not be healthy or cool, with those athletes.
On the clauses, the Government’s own impact assessment talks about linking sports sponsorship to smoking. A UK study found that when cigarettes were advertised in motor racing, boys aged 12 to 13 who liked motor racing were significantly more likely to smoke than boys who were not so interested in that sport. Clearly, such advertising works; if it did not, companies would not spend so much money on it. Sports sponsorships and endorsements are highly effective marketing tools.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
That is a very interesting point, and it goes to the heart of commercial contracts. Money talks and money is very powerful, but we must be careful about that when establishing these rules, because the legal system will always find a way to argue. I can imagine some big cases being brought in relation to this if we are not careful.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is, of course, correct.
On advertising and sponsorship, page 101 of the impact assessment states:
“Sponsorship agreements are a form of indirect advertising”—
I agree—
“and there has recently been growing concern about the existence of agreements which promote vaping and nicotine products. These agreements normalise the products and may make them seem cool, having a potentially negative influence on the usage of the products among children and non-smokers.
For nicotine vapes, Ofcom regulations prohibit sponsorship of news and current affairs programmes, and any sponsorship of programming which promotes nicotine vapes. The Communications Act 2003 also prohibits sponsorship of on-demand programme services or a programme on these services which promote nicotine vapes. However, for broader settings such as sports events and teams, music festivals and cultural events, sponsorship which promotes nicotine vapes is permitted.”
It is good that the Minister, in this clause, seeks to prevent such sponsorship—particularly the sort of sponsorship that targets children.
Subsection (1)(a) of both clauses states that a person is party to an agreement entered into “at any time”. That provision does not appear to differentiate between agreements made before and after the Bill becomes law. I understand that the Minister wants to ensure that there is not a sudden flurry of activity in the commercial world to put sponsorship agreements in place before these regulations come into force—we do not want companies to say, “Well, we are bound by this contract for so many years, Minister. We are stuck now”—but does he intend to apply the clause retroactively? Somebody who saw the Bill when it came before the House in March and April, saw it in its other format, or saw the manifesto commitments of all major parties to this Bill in some form or another, may have entered into such agreements already. I would be interested to hear what plans the Minister has to deal with those circumstances.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
In my previous life, I worked in commercial contracts. The hon. Lady can be reassured that a typical commercial contract would require that any participant to it must adhere to the laws and applicable regulations in any jurisdiction in which the contract is governed. Regardless of the Government’s intention, which I am sure the Minister will talk about, there should be an overarching clause in most standard commercial contracts about adherence to applicable laws and regulations in the jurisdiction to which the contract applies.
Dr Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. That is another example of why it is important to have a wide spectrum of people on Committees. Of course, that is usually the case, but I am interested to know what the Minister’s intention is with “at any time”. Does he intend it to apply to contracts retrospectively? Presumably he does, but I want to clarify that.
I welcome the constraints on tobacco, vape and nicotine product advertising and sponsorship for this purpose, but I would be grateful if the Minister could answer those questions.
Gregory Stafford
I have some brief points to make on clauses 124 and 125 about the prohibition of sponsorship and the exceptions to it. Clearly, indirect advertising through sponsorship is a subtle form of advertising, associating brands with popular events and activities to enhance their appeal. By prohibiting such sponsorship, the Bill seeks to close that indirect advertising channel, and that is important, especially when it comes to youth protection. Sponsorships often target events frequented by young people, such as concerts and sporting events. I accept that neither of those things are exclusively for young people, but they often have a preponderance of younger people. Preventing such associations reduces the likelihood of youth exposure to brand imagery that could encourage the initiation of smoking or vaping.
I understand why there need to be exceptions to the sponsorship prohibition, and clause 125 mentions some. But although those exceptions acknowledge certain realities—I am not going to pretend that they do not exist—they need to be carefully regulated to prevent abuse. As I said in debates on previous clauses, clear guidelines are necessary to delineate the boundaries of the exceptions. I hope the Minister can once again give us some clarity and assurance on those.
Jack Rankin
In my home office, I have a wonderful watercolour painting of the Lord’s pavilion that celebrates Lancashire winning the Benson & Hedges cup final sometime in the mid-1990s. I know the Minister is a proud Lancashire man, like me, and I agree with him that although we want to see again the days of Lancashire winning cricket tournaments, none of us would want to go back to the days of Benson & Hedges sponsoring sports competitions, so I will support the Minister and the Government on clause 124.
On clause 125, however, I will have to disagree with the Government. As we have already discussed, vaping and nicotine pouches are significantly less harmful than cigarettes. In my view, this clause opens us up to inconsistency across the board. I say that because sponsorship is currently permitted for alcohol and gambling. To me, it makes no sense for vapes to be treated differently. In response to my earlier comments, the point was made that tobacco is uniquely harmful; it is different, in its public health damage, from alcohol and gambling. But I do not fully buy that. I see these things as a spectrum. If people want to say to me that cigarettes are uniquely harmful versus alcohol and gambling, I am prepared to believe that, but I am afraid that when it comes to tobacco and nicotine products and to gambling, these things are a spectrum.
I represent Ascot and Royal Windsor racecourses. Ascot racecourse is in effect the Wembley of racing worldwide, and Royal Windsor is very much in the top tier. I find myself having to defend them quite often when people want to legislate on gambling, because having a cash bet at a racecourse event is a healthy thing to do as part of a day out. That should be treated very differently from somebody in an online casino in the early hours of the morning or on a fixed odds betting terminal. Gambling is a spectrum, and I suggest to the Committee that tobacco and nicotine products are also a spectrum.
I say this with sincerity. The Labour party’s seats may spread much further than they used to, but certainly Labour’s core seats, which perhaps the Minister and the Chair represent—
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
From a public health point of view, I just point out to the hon. Member that we are basing this Bill on evidence and therefore we are looking at the evidence of tobacco harm, which I think we agree on. There is incontrovertible evidence; tobacco is undoubtedly harmful. People should not start smoking tobacco, and we should assist those who come forward to stop.
In relation to vaping, I go back to a previous comment I made, about the precautionary principle. There is evidence on vaping; there do appear to be some harms associated with vaping. There is not sufficient evidence right now for it to be incontrovertible, but it would be irresponsible not to adopt the precautionary principle that we use in public health.
In relation to gambling, I just urge caution—again, on the evidence. There may not be incontrovertible evidence about gambling, but there are undoubtedly health harms from gambling that we need to look at as we move forward.
Dr Johnson
I just want to add to the point made by the hon. Member for Worthing West about the precautionary principle. One of the differences between tobacco products—for example, cigarettes—and vapes is that tobacco products in the form of cigarettes are relatively more uniform in their component parts than are vapes, and it may take quite a long time to work out which of the chemical components of vapes are harmful, so we do need to be more precautionary with that.
Jack Rankin
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and I will seek to address both interventions in my further remarks. The point I was making to the Labour party is that a lot of its Members have made the case quite eloquently that things such as fixed odds betting terminals, which are often aimed at working-class communities and in particular young men, are like crack cocaine. That is an incredibly dangerous part of gambling. I think online casinos fit in that higher band of harm. I suggest that in the broad sense of tobacco and gambling, online casinos would be more harmful than, for example, the odd cigar that I have had recreationally—I have already made that point—so I think there is very much an inconsistency here.
Look at the Premier League, for example. Hon. Members know that there are 20 football teams in the Premier League. Aston Villa FC is sponsored by Betano, and Bournemouth FC is sponsored by bj88; Betano is an online casino, and bj88 is an Asian gambling site. Brentford FC is sponsored by Hollywoodbets.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
We are straying from the point a little, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Premier League will shortly initiate a shirt front ban on gambling sponsors? His examples of free advertising and sponsorship of gambling will probably be out of date soon.
Jack Rankin
I am glad to hear that—it sounds like positive news, but I will finish my point and go down the list. Crystal Palace FC is sponsored by Net88, a Vietnamese betting company; Everton FC by Stake, an Australian online casino; Fulham FC by SBOBET, a Philippine gambling company; Leicester FC by BC.Game; Nottingham Forest FC is—
The Chair
Order. I take the point, but I can allow the comparison to go only so far. We are not talking about gambling. Members must try to stick to the debate that we should be having, not to the one that we should not be having.
Jack Rankin
I will bring my remarks to a close, Mr Dowd, but I will make the point that some of these sponsors are online crypto casinos. I would argue that they are worse than vapes, so I think some inconsistency is being introduced in the law.
Let me suggest one way in which we could un-work that inconsistency, which I have seen in the Six Nations. Guinness Zero now sponsors the competition, rather than Guinness. It seems to me that we should allow low or no-alcohol beers to engage in these activities, and I see vaping as analogous. I believe that there is an analogy there, but an inconsistency is being applied by this clause.
I will also make a point about the technicality of some of the clauses—I hope that the Minister can point to some of this later. Clause 125(1)(c) mentions sponsorship of
“a herbal smoking product…cigarette papers…a vaping product…a nicotine product,”
but annex B of the explanatory notes on page 102 mentions
“any device which is intended to be used for the consumption of tobacco products or herbal smoking products”.
Will the Minister provide clarity on what other devices we are seeking to capture? For instance, will tobacco filters fall under the sponsorship ban? Will his Department propose a Government amendment to update the text of the Bill to provide clarity and remove that potential loophole?
Sarah Bool
I will make two points. First, I understand where my h F the shadow Minister is coming from in terms of the questions about enforceability and when these things come into effect. Clause 124(1)(a) states that for tobacco products:
“A person commits an offence if…the person is party to an agreement (entered into at any time),”
which will obviously be consistent; but clause 125(1)(a) states that a person commits an offence only if
“the person is party to an agreement entered into on or after the day on which this section comes into force”.
I can see the point that the Minister is making. Will we see a rush of sponsorship agreements on vaping coming in in the next few weeks before we get this Bill on the statute book? That is a legitimate question to raise, and we should all be aware of that possibility.
Generally, it is important that we tackle and take on seriously the role of sponsorship. I do not think that I am alone in recalling the impact of Pepsi and its sponsorship of the Spice Girls when I was young. Its campaign aimed at Generation X had 92 million cans with the Spice Girls on them, which obviously had a big impact. I will be honest and say that I loved the Spice Girls, but seeing anything like that has a massive impact when we are children, so tackling it is absolutely right. Pepsi sponsors the National Football League, Coca-Cola sponsors the Olympics and I think Carlsberg has always sponsored Liverpool FC, so we can see that brand alignment.
Dr Johnson
I thank my hon. Friend for making the point much more eloquently than I did that there is a difference in the clauses between the days when they come into force. As she is a lawyer who has been involved in contracts, can she confirm that there is no limit to how long someone can enter into a contract? If a contract were entered into in terms of sponsoring vaping or nicotine products before the Bill comes into force, it may last for quite some time.
Sarah Bool
That is a possibility. It always depends on the terms of the contract itself, but in theory they could agree a 10 or 15-year contract and sponsorship deal. It is interesting that this could be one of the overhangs that we see, so we have to be aware of it going forward.
Andrew Gwynne
The clauses make it an offence for a person to be involved with a sponsorship agreement where the purpose is to promote in the course of business tobacco products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products or nicotine products. Anyone convicted of an offence under the provisions may be subject to imprisonment, a fine, or both. Tobacco sponsorship is currently banned under the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002. There is a long-standing, well-established relationship between tobacco advertising and tobacco consumption.
Clause 124 restates the current position for a person involved in the sponsorship of a tobacco product. We are consolidating existing tobacco legislation in the Bill to provide a coherent narrative for readers, rather than have it spread over lots of different pieces of legislation. A large part of the Bill brings the legislation into one place, so that from Royal Assent onwards, the go-to place for anybody with any questions about tobacco control will be this piece of legislation, rather than it being dispersed across different Acts of Parliament.
Tobacco sponsorship is already banned, but importantly, the Bill expands the offence to include herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping and nicotine products. The restriction will mean that vaping and other nicotine product companies will, for example, not be permitted to sponsor sports teams, which is something that we have seen in recent years. It might upset the hon. Member for Windsor, but I have to say that not a single child should ever be able to look up at their favourite sports stars—people who should be role models—and see them covered in branding for products that are harmful and addictive. That is the point here.
Dr Johnson
Would the Minister like to comment on whether many of the athletes may feel uncomfortable wearing shirts with such branding on?
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
To reinforce the point that athletes may be uncomfortable wearing that type of branding, they are not only role models for children, but the epitome of health, fitness and what the human body can achieve. It seems outrageous that they should be advertising harmful products.
Andrew Gwynne
Well, some of them are—the way Man City have been playing this season, I am not quite sure. Anyway, we will get back on to the Bill as quickly as possible.
The ban will apply to agreements entered into after the clause comes into force, two months after Royal Assent. It will be an offence if a contribution is made from either party after the specified date, which will be set out in future regulations. The ban will apply to any agreements entered into after that date, and will therefore not apply to existing contracts. The reason for the two-month period is to provide businesses with advance warning and to prevent them from entering into new agreements.
The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire asked whether this could create a rush to get sponsorship deals in place within that two-month window. That is a fair question, but I think that is unlikely for a number of reasons. First, sponsorship deals are pretty tricky contracts and it tends to take more than two months to reach contractual agreement. Secondly, even if matters were expedited, most clubs already have their deals in place, and they would not replace something when they already have a contractual arrangement for something else. Were that unlikely scenario to play out, we would be looking at only a small number of cases anyway.
When drawing up the regulations, we will have to be careful to ensure that no new contract can be signed, and certainly not for the kind of time period that the shadow Minister set out. That would be really out of the spirit of this legislation and the Government might have to come back to tighten it up further.
Dr Johnson
I have a couple of questions about the rush of people trying to get contracts. First, presumably such a contract would not need to start straight away, so one could enter into a sponsorship agreement for some future period. As the Minister said, the sponsorship agreements are done for this season and being negotiated for the next, but presumably that would not stop a business entering into a contract to provide sponsorship for the next season, or even the season after. When the Government brought in VAT on private school fees—I should declare an interest here—they put in a forestalling measure that prevented anyone from entering into a contract to pay them ahead from, I believe, 28 July last year. They seem to be taking a much more lenient approach to the advertisers and sponsors of vaping and nicotine products than they are to parents wishing to pay for their children’s education.
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Lady raises an interesting point; I will take that away and look at it. Perhaps with the exception of the hon. Member for Windsor, everyone on the Committee agrees that we do not want our footballers, rugby stars or athletes to be emblazoned with adverts for vaping products, so the more we can do to tighten up the legislation further, the better.
I will just politely correct the hon. Member for Windsor that the term for someone from the historic County Palatine—including yourself, Mr Dowd—is a Lancastrian. My late father was the Lancashire cricket correspondent, first for Cricket Call, which was a BT paid-for service, and then for BBC North West. He was there in 1990 when Lancashire won both the NatWest and Benson & Hedges cup finals—the double at Lord’s. I still have copies of my late father’s book, “Double Delight”. I would say that they are available at all good booksellers, but they are available from me if the hon. Gentleman wants one.
The hon. Member for Windsor made an important point. I had just come out of secondary school in 1990, which shows how long ago it was, but it was pretty commonplace for tobacco companies to advertise at major sporting events like Lancashire cricket matches and others. The fact is that that was a long time ago, and things have changed for the better. The Benson & Hedges cup final, in cricket of all games, is a thing of the past. Hopefully, at some stage in the near future, we will look back at vape sponsorship of football clubs as a thing of the past, because that is where it deserves to be.
Sarah Bool
This is just off the top of my head, but on a technical point about clause 125(1), in terms of vape sponsorship, a person will be guilty of an offence only after the provision comes into force. I appreciate that there is the two months, but they also have the window of time while the Bill goes through Parliament, so they potentially have a couple more months for that.
I do wonder about how this is going to work in practice, because, in theory, a company that is offering sponsorship—if they enter into that agreement now—will not be in trouble for the next couple of years for doing that, yet under preceding clauses anyone who designed or printed material for any of those sponsorship deals would be guilty of an offence. We suddenly have a position where, potentially, the sponsors themselves are not guilty of an offence while the actual designers, and those who are publishing the sponsorship material, are. That is an interesting nuance.
Andrew Gwynne
The hon. Lady makes a really important point. When we look at things in isolation, as we tend to do with these clauses, we look at them through a narrow prism, but this Bill contains a wide range of powers and legal responsibilities that will help to make things like those sponsorship deals incredibly difficult before the legislation is in force. It is very clear that, after Royal Assent, the requirements that the hon. Lady rightly sets out in terms of advertising, printing, publishing and so on will apply, and separately there will be this two-month window that we are giving, but the whole of the law needs to be read together. Hopefully that gives some assurances on why we believe that these measures, taken in the round, are as robust as they can be.
Mr Barros-Curtis
I am grateful that the Minister will take away the point raised by the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire, discuss it with officials and come back to us. When doing so, it will be worth reflecting on the fact that, as the hon. Lady knows from her previous work, a lot of commercial contracts tend to have force majeure clauses, which may well envisage legislative changes in countries relevant to the jurisdiction of the contract that could impact the commercial value of that contract. This may not be as big a problem as some fear, but it is something to be looked at as part of this work. Of course, given that the average wealth of a Premier League club is £1.2 billion, I am sure they would survive such a clause being activated in those examples.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am grateful that we have somebody from the legal profession on this Committee to advise this Minister, who is not a lawyer, on provisions that may well be put into any kind of contractual discussion that may be starting now, and to alert the parties to such a contract that the law in the four jurisdictions of the United Kingdom is changing and will therefore affect any agreements that are being put into place in advance of that legislation coming in. That is an important point.
Mr Barros-Curtis
There is one further point that I wish to make. The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire and the shadow Minister were talking about the display of logos or company names on football shirts as an example of the practicalities of enforcement. Would my hon. Friend like to comment on the fact that, in European games, when teams that are sponsored by, for example, an alcoholic beverage or gambling company are playing countries where that is prohibited, the shirts of the relevant football team tend to have black tape over the logos, to prevent them from being displayed in the ground and on TV across the world.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend, as well as being a sound lawyer, is a sound mind reader, because that was precisely my next point. Rightly, Members are testing the legislation. The purpose of this Committee is to tease out how we expect the legislation to work. When it comes to sporting events, from time to time there will be English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish teams playing in other countries, and more importantly teams from other countries playing within the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend rightly points to the existing practice that where something is illegal, those images are covered up.
Gregory Stafford
I am going to test the Minister’s legal knowledge now—perhaps his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West or one of his officials can come in and save him. Is the Minister saying that when that happens in other countries, it is due to a legal requirement? I understood that it was to be culturally sensitive to the nation we were playing in, rather than there being a legal requirement—for example, covering up alcoholic drinks in a country that does not approve of alcoholic drinks. Conversely, in the Bill and in the regulations, is there something that says that those sponsorships, which would be vapes or tobacco in this country, would require some sort of covering up or a change to a kit with vapes advertised on it if a country were playing here?
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to the hon. Member for that question. The answer is going to be the stock answer that I have given throughout—that much of this detail will be down to how we draft the regulations and so on. The law of the United Kingdom and its four respective jurisdictions of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland is the law of the land. This Parliament, in passing this legislation, expects the law of the land to be adhered to. If the law of the land is not adhered to, there are strong enforcement measures and penalties for those not applying the law as passed by Parliament.
Going back to existing contracts, it is really important to emphasise the legal advice that the Government received in the drafting of the Bill: that we need to be proportionate and pragmatic and we cannot retrospectively legislate to stop existing contracts. It is really important that we avoid retrospectivity in the design of the clauses in front of us, because the principle that underpins our legal system is that the law is prospective, not retrospective.
Mr Barros-Curtis
I appreciate that, and I completely agree. Learned colleagues and others with legal training will probably remember the auspices of what Parliament can and cannot do. I appreciate that this is something the Minister will have to take away but, while fully agreeing that Parliament cannot be retrospective in the legislation it passes, is it not the case with commercial contracts that there will typically be a requirement for the parties to adhere to the laws that apply to the jurisdiction and to the parties themselves?
Of course, those laws can change in the future. It is not that it is a day one obligation at the time the contract is entered into and then is never checked again. It has to be an ongoing obligation. While I fully understand the point and agree with what the Minister is saying, can he take away that point about the ongoing obligation and the advice? That way, people who have these types of contracts can rely on knowing whether they are or are not in breach of the Act—if, as we all hope, the Bill gets Royal Assent and becomes an Act.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend sets out a really important point. I am happy to take that away for officials to look at. We want to ensure that companies that currently sponsor sports kits are no longer able to do so, and that sports clubs that have entered into such contracts are not allowed to extend them beyond the dates of their current existence. His brain is much more legalistic than mine, and we do not want the intention behind the law to be circumvented using legal routes that the best lawyers in the land will probably use to try to find a way around it. I will ask my officials to look at that in more detail, because it is a really important point. I hope he accepts that response.
Dr Johnson
I understand the point that the hon. Member for Cardiff West is trying to make about a standard clause being that if a contract breaches the law, the contract falls. In clause 125, however, the Minister appears to be giving a company that promotes vapes by sponsorship an opportunity to enter into a contract, before the legislation comes into force, that would be legal afterwards.
Andrew Gwynne
The shadow Minister is right. There will be a narrow window in which that will be possible—[Interruption.] She asks why, and it is because once the Bill receives Royal Assent, it will bring in a two-month window. That is how the law is shaped, to give us the scope to get these measures right and ensure that we make the framework as watertight as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West wants. We believe that that is the proportionate way forward. We cannot make retrospective decisions; if contractual arrangements are under way at Royal Assent, an immediate cut-off could leave the Government open to challenge.
Sarah Bool
I understand that two-month period, but does it also apply to the earlier provisions on the creation of offences relating to publication? If we had some alignment there, neither party could potentially be in breach. That is merely a technical point, however.
The other point—perhaps for when the Minister goes back to the Department—is about force majeure, which the hon. Member for Cardiff West mentioned and which I would like more investigation into. Force majeure concerns acts of God, or something unexpected. I think lawyers would argue that a Government Bill was expected and foreseen, so there would have to be some other form of break clause or right. This debate is getting far too technical for this forum, but it is perhaps something that the Minister can take away.
Andrew Gwynne
As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West, we will take all this away and look at it in detail, and we will come back to Members. I am just about legally savvy enough to understand the point that the hon. Lady is making that a break clause or something like it would probably be required, because the coming into law of the Tobacco and Vapes Bill on Royal Assent is expected—it is not an act of God, and it will not come as a complete shock and surprise.
Finally, clause 133 allows us to extend all of part 6 to cover devices that enable a
“tobacco product to be consumed”
or
“an item which is intended to form part of such a device”,
but that are not in the Bill.
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
On the conversation we were having previously, does the reference in clause 125(3) to a “specified date” mean that we can have an open discussion with the Secretary of State in the next stage of the Bill’s passage about deciding at what point the provision will apply to the contracts?
Andrew Gwynne
I will take that away, because I do not know the answer off the top of my head. In bringing forward regulations, the Secretary of State and I will want to ensure that we get these measures right. That is why there are statutory duties to consult on secondary legislation throughout the Bill. That will ensure that we get these measures and the details right, and that there will hopefully be no ambiguity about the different dates for the offences of printing, publishing and distributing advertisements or about those related to sponsorship deals and the production of the kits that come out of them. With that, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 124 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 125 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
International Day of Education
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the International Day of Education.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond.
Tomorrow, Friday 24 January, we mark the United Nations International Day of Education. As we do so, we will be reminded of the transformative power of education. It is the cornerstone upon which societies are built, economies are strengthened and individuals are empowered. Education is not merely a privilege; it is a fundamental human right. Article 28 of the UN convention on the rights of the child enshrines that right.
However, as we reflect on our global commitments, particularly sustainable development goal 4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and to promote lifelong learning opportunities for all, we must confront the stark reality that progress has been uneven and significant challenges remain if we are to reach SDG 4 targets. In considering the progress towards some of the SDG 4 targets, I will focus first on target 4.1:
“By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.”
Since the adoption of the 2030 agenda, strides have been made in expanding access to education, and enrolment rates in primary education have increased globally. According to the UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Report 2024, 110 million more children and youths have entered school since SDG 4 was adopted in 2015, and there is a growing recognition of the importance of quality education, with 40 million more young people completing secondary education today than in 2015.
However, those achievements mask deep disparities. According to UNESCO, approximately 251 million children and youths are still out of school worldwide, which means that since 2015 the out-of-school population has reduced by only 1%. Some 33% of out-of-school children and youths are from low-income countries, in contrast to only 3% from high-income countries, and over half of all out-of-school children and youths are in sub-Saharan Africa. We have also seen the terrible impact of the policies of the Taliban in Afghanistan, which have deprived girls of their right to education. Urgent action must be taken by the international community to ensure that these regional disparities are urgently addressed if we are to meet the SDG 4.1 target.
Crises such as conflicts, natural disasters and public health emergencies pose formidable barriers to education. In 2016, 75 million children did not have access to quality education due to forced displacement, humanitarian crises and climate change events. Nine years later, that figure has trebled to 224 million. Even children who do have access to school are not learning the basics, with over half those children—127 million—not meeting the minimum standards of literacy and numeracy.
There has been a regression in meeting both SDG 4.5, which is about eliminating all discrimination in education including for children in vulnerable education settings, and SDG 4.6, which is about ensuring all youths achieve a minimum standard of literacy and numeracy. That is deeply worrying, with UNICEF reporting that 70% of children in low and middle-income countries are unable to read a simple story by the age of 10.
The root cause of these crises, which disrupt education, needs to be tackled by the international community. UNICEF estimates that climate change alone disrupts the education of nearly 40 million children every year. In countries affected by emergencies, children lose access to safe drinking water, healthcare and food, alongside their education. Schools, which should be sanctuaries of learning, are often the targets of attacks. Between 2015 and 2019, attacks on education were reported in 93 countries. More recently, in Gaza ongoing conflicts have devastated educational infrastructure and left more than 1 million children in Gaza in dire need of educational support.
In Sudan, more than 17 million children are not in education, and schools are often used to house displaced children. In the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, more than 1.3 million children are out of school because of an escalation of violence, and children also risk being killed, maimed, abducted, abandoned and recruited into armed groups. Closer to home, the impact of the war in Ukraine has also had a devastating effect on children’s education.
Organisations such as Education Cannot Wait have been instrumental in addressing those challenges. As the global fund dedicated to education in emergencies, Education Cannot Wait works to ensure that children in crisis settings receive uninterrupted education. Its multi-year resilience programme and emergency first responses have reached millions of children worldwide.
Adequate financing is pivotal to achieving SDG4, yet education often receives less than 3% of humanitarian aid. According to research by UNICEF, children-focused overseas development aid fell by 56% from 2016 to 2022; in the UK, it fell from 11% to a shocking 4% over the same period. The International Parliamentary Network for Education estimates that the annual financing gap for achieving SDG4 is £100 billion.
The funding gap is exacerbated by the debt burdens of low and middle-income countries; in some cases, the interest owed to private creditors is more than those countries’ entire education budgets. Christian Aid’s report “Between life and debt” found that 25 African countries spend more on repaying debt than they do on their education budgets, including in Kenya, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Zambia and Malawi. Unless there are international structural changes to tackle unsustainable debt, education in low-income countries will never get fixed, and that will hamper efforts to provide quality education, particularly in low-income countries and crisis-affected regions. Education is one of the most underfunded areas of humanitarian law, receiving only approximately 3% of international humanitarian funding. That is clearly not enough.
One of the central tenets of achieving SDG4 is teachers. There is a global shortage of teachers: the National Education Union estimates that roughly 44 million additional teachers will be required, 15 million of those in sub-Saharan Africa, to meet sustainable development goals for education. To achieve that ambition, we need a new global teacher strategy to train, recruit and retain qualified teachers in the global south.
In many low-income countries, there are huge pressures on teachers, including with regard to working conditions, class sizes and equipment. Teachers are also often the victims of attacks, and in some instances they are denied regular pay. The UN has recognised this as an important issue, especially in low-income countries with fragile economies. A key recommendation of the UN high-level panel on the teaching profession was the creation of a global fund for teachers’ salaries, so that children can continue to receive education during crises.
I have a number of questions for the Minister before I conclude. The first relates to international education aid. Will the Government bolster their financial contributions to global education initiatives and ensure that funds are directed towards the most marginalised and crisis-affected children? That would include supporting organisations such as Education Cannot Wait and UNICEF, which are on the frontlines of delivering education in emergencies. Breaking down barriers to opportunity was one of the Labour party’s key missions. Will the Minister confirm that as aid funding for education aligns with that mission, education will receive the priority it deserves?
I also want to ask the Minister about advocacy for safe schools. As I mentioned earlier, a significant factor in children’s not receiving education is conflict. Can the Minister advise me whether the Government will champion the protection of educational institutions in conflict zones? By supporting the safe schools declaration and advocating for the adherence to international humanitarian law, we can work towards ending attacks on education.
As I mentioned earlier, teachers are the backbone of education systems. Providing them with adequate training, resources and support, especially in emergency contexts, is crucial, as is ensuring they are paid for the work they do in very difficult circumstances. Do the Government support the creation of a global fund for teachers’ salaries to help pay for teachers in conflict areas?
Finally, on the promotion of inclusive education, children with disabilities are doubly disadvantaged in receiving education in crises. Can the Minister advise whether the Government will support programmes that target providing education for children with disabilities in crises?
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for securing this debate. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond.
One of the key barriers for all children, particularly children with disabilities, is inadequate access to water and sanitation. Some 200 million children do not have a toilet at all in school, and that issue affects 50% of schools in sub-Saharan Africa. Does he agree it is also important to look at the other sustainable development goals, including SDG6 on water and sanitation, to ensure that efforts are joined up?
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. SDG4 should not be seen in isolation. We need to target a number of SDG goals to make sure children receive the education they need. Water and sanitation is clearly one of the top ones that we need to target. I thank my hon. Friend for making such an excellent point.
I conclude by saying that education is a beacon of hope in the darkest of times. It is the key to breaking cycles of poverty, fostering peace and building resilient societies. As we mark the UN International Day of Education, let us reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that every child, regardless of their circumstances, has access to quality education. The challenges are immense, but with a collective will and concerted action, we can turn the tide. The UK has both the responsibility and the capacity to lead in this endeavour. Let us seize the moment to make a lasting difference in the lives of millions of children worldwide.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing this debate.
Education is what we think of when we want to invest in the future. So much of what we discuss in Parliament is about conflict, aid and the present, but education is investment in the future. As we mark the United Nations International Day of Education tomorrow, I want to highlight the case study of Sudan.
The United Nations has warned that over 19 million school-age children lack access to education in Sudan. To put that into context, we have about 14 million children in the UK, most of whom are receiving some sort of education and most of whom are in school. The 19 million who are not receiving education in Sudan makes this one of the worst education crises in the world. Schools there have been destroyed, teachers have fled and classrooms have become shelters for displaced families. According to UNICEF, 171 schools are now being used as emergency shelters.
The conflict has also brought on the awful concept of the child soldier, and child recruitment into armed groups is rife. An entire generation is growing up without education. The war in Sudan, like many other global conflicts, will have some lasting consequences. These ongoing attacks, some of which are on children, persist, as warring factions violate one of the most basic principles of the law of armed conflict: protecting children. With schools often targeted or repurposed, learning is being disrupted not just for those who are child soldiers or involved as combatants, but for others. The loss of education will have profound, long-term repercussions for those individuals, including reduced incomes, poorer health outcomes and limited opportunities. For the society of Sudan as a whole, it will lead to cycles of poverty and instability in the future.
According to the United Nations, the education crisis in Sudan is
“the worst education crisis in the world”.
When schools close, children become vulnerable to various risks, including exploitation, forced recruitment and abuse. The psychological toll leaves many children unable to resume their normal schooling, even when schools reopen. As of December 2024, over 14.8 million people have been displaced in Sudan—11.5 million of them internally displaced. This is the largest displacement crisis in the world, and over 53% of those displaced individuals are children. With school buildings converted into shelters, children have now gone 22 months without education. The educational facilities themselves have been attacked; they have been destroyed, looted or occupied. Children who once attended school every day are instead working in markets, polishing shoes and performing manual labour to survive. That forced separation from school, as well as from their fellow school pupils, is making it increasingly unlikely that they will return to school even when the conflict abates. The chance that these children who are exposed to violence go on later to perpetrate violence themselves is greater, and, even if they do not do that, they are more likely to underachieve or drop out.
I will focus on the work of a small charity because I want there to be a note of optimism in this otherwise pessimistic window on what is going on in Sudan. Windle Trust International has operated in Sudan since 1999. It provides educational opportunities for refugees and internally displaced people. Before the current war, the organisation ran eight schools in Khartoum and two for Ethiopian refugees. It supported 426 refugees from Chad, the Central African Republic, South Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Yemen, Somalia and Syria, and partnered with 42 universities to offer higher education scholarships. It provided 558 university scholarships, supported more than 68,000 girls to stay in school, and trained nearly 9,500 teachers.
The effect of the war on Windle Trust International is that it has had its offices in Khartoum looted, its staff scattered and its operational funding curtailed. This has caused the closure of programmes and the ending of staff contracts. None the less, it is still able to operate a presence in Blue Nile State, where a smaller field office supports Ethiopian refugees in a camp that hosts approximately 12,000 people, 58% of whom are of school age. Windle Trust International does receive some funding from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, but that is barely enough to cover two schools, teachers’ salaries, uniforms, education materials and training, so it is a pretty dire circumstance for a small NGO operating in-country.
The Sudanese Government at federal and state levels can no longer adequately sustain their own education system. Teachers have gone unpaid for 22 months and reports indicate that 10,000 children have been recruited into armed groups. Education in conflict zones is their way out. Beyond imparting academic skills, schools can provide routine, security and hope. Where education is withheld, children suffer harm, lose future opportunities and lose the recovery prospects of their country as a whole. If Sudan fails to educate a generation of its children, its path towards development—and, ultimately, a growing economy—will become increasingly difficult.
I want to close by thinking about financial support for organisations operating in country, and education that is provided through what was the Department for International Development and is now the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. We have had a cut in the development budget in the UK from 0.7% to 0.5% in the last few years, and that is currently being exacerbated by the use of official development assistance funding. The UK’s Independent Commission for Aid Impact, or ICAI, has oversight of that funding, and it has pointed to how £4 billion of it is being spent on asylum hotels, for example, when it could go so much further if it were spent in country on such things as education. The purchasing power that we would have by spending overseas as opposed to in the UK would be so much greater. Other countries do not do things this way; Sweden limits its in-donor refugee costs to a maximum of 8% of its aid budget, and Austria and Luxembourg declare no asylum costs as official development assistance. This is a choice that the UK Government are making right now.
In any comprehensive response to Sudan’s crisis, education must be prioritised as long-term development, not just the conflict aid we think of, such as food, shelter and healthcare. Small NGOs like Windle Trust International are doing their very best to facilitate that, but they could do so much more if the west—and the UK Government, for example—were to step up in support.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) on setting the scene and giving hon. Members the chance to participate in this debate. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond—I think this might be your first time chairing Westminster Hall, and if it is I wish you well for the future, but if it is not, I apologise for not being here whenever you were here before. I am not quite sure how that could have happened, but that is by the way.
It is a pleasure to speak about this massive issue. Education is the cornerstone of our society—a vital tool that empowers individuals and strengthens communities. As we mark International Day of Education, I wish to focus—it probably will not come as a surprise to hon. Members here—on the role of freedom of religion and belief, and the policies we have implemented in Northern Ireland. I will focus on what we do in Northern Ireland and how it affects education in other parts of the world; in my constituency of Strangford, it is basically all done through the mission societies, mission groups and churches. In Northern Ireland, we promote equitable access to education and foster community wellbeing globally, because we believe that is what we should be doing.
Education is not merely the transmission of knowledge; it is also, very much so—as the Minister and other Members will be aware—the foundation of human dignity and freedom, and it is therefore vital. All hon. Members’ contributions today will be excellent—I never doubt that. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) outlined some of the countries across the world where the problems are now, and I want to focus on them too, when I get the chance. Around the world we see how education serves as a cornerstone of development, fostering equality and creating opportunities for millions. That is the purpose of education.
As a grandfather, I am now watching my two youngest grandchildren—Freya, who is four, and Ezra, who is two and a half—learning in nursery classes, and seeing their thirst for knowledge. That is just at my house for about three days a week whenever I am home, but I see through them what others across the world would wish to achieve. That is why this is important.
In some regions, children are deprived of their right to education, simply because of their religious identity or beliefs. Denying education based on those grounds violates not just human rights, but the very principles of humanity and fairness. On this International Day of Education, we have an opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to ensuring that every child—irrespective of their religion, ethnicity or gender—has access to a quality education. Through this debate, we also champion freedom of religion or belief, standing against all forms of discrimination that threaten the right to learn—a very basic request, but a priority that we must all focus on.
In Northern Ireland, we are very proud of our charitable giving, which is the highest per capita in the whole United Kingdom—and I believe that, compared to the rest of the world, for a population of 1.9 million, it is probably the highest anywhere. It is deeply rooted in our Christian faith, reflecting our values of compassion and stewardship. The Bible is very clear: one tenth of our earnings should go to the Lord’s work. I am not better than anybody else—I never will be or try to be—but I try to adhere to that biblical rule, as many others do.
Much of our generosity is directed towards supporting children and young people in health and education, both locally and globally. Faith-based charities and local churches play an instrumental role in supporting feeding and educational programmes worldwide. These initiatives bring hope to some of the most vulnerable communities, offering not just education, but nourishment, safety and the promise of a better tomorrow.
The Eden church in my town has a mission. It goes to Swaziland, Zimbabwe and Malawi, and every year, the Swaziland choir comes over—every one of the children in that choir has, unfortunately, been affected by AIDS, which in most cases they contracted through their parents while in the womb. They have a most incredible talent for singing; I do not—whenever I sing the rain comes on—but whenever they sing, it transports me. That is one of the charities that the missions support: helping young children with AIDS, who, without these missions, would probably not have the hope of an education, health or a future at all.
Eden church is not the only one that does that—there are many more. I am very blessed in my constituency of Strangford to have many churches that are all committed to the very same thing. I understand they do work in Sudan, Congo, South Africa, and Nigeria, which I mention because I have had the chance to visit it.
Everyone has mentioned the international gaps filled by charitable giving, but I cannot help but mention the disparity—I will make this comment but it is not for Minister to respond to at all—between per capita funding for Northern Irish students and other UK students.
FORB—freedom of religion or belief—is the universal human right that guarantees individuals the freedom to have, adopt, change, or leave a religion or belief, as well as to manifest it without coercion. In other words, people can practise that freedom in the way that they so wish, whether they are a Christian, of another religion, or none at all; that is what I believe in. This freedom is closely intertwined with education. Children and young people must be free from discrimination based on their religion or belief, or that of their parents. Faith-based organisations often lead the way in advocating for those principles, ensuring access to education for marginalised and vulnerable communities worldwide.
When the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth mentioned Sudan and Congo, he reminded me of Nigeria, where I was around two or three years ago—time goes so quick. I remember meeting some Christians from a north-east state of Nigeria who were displaced to the central plateau, and some Muslims who were displaced as well; education, even in those displaced camps, was still important. Who drove that? Governments were helping, but it was mostly the charitable groups, the NGOs and people outside of Government policy or strategy who were actually doing it. The volunteers were teaching at a rudimentary level, but it was an education and it was so vital.
I also think of whole schools of young girls in Nigeria who have been kidnapped by Boko Haram and Daesh, and some have never been freed. Unfortunately, as so often happens at an early age, they are abused by their captors and they end up with children as well. One such example is Leah Sharibu, who was kidnapped about seven years ago and never been returned to her parents. She is now a mother of two children, according to the information that has come out. Even now, when she is a lady and no longer a school pupil or teenager, we think of her in captivity, as we think of all those young girls who are eager to be reunited with their families.
The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth was right to mention what is happening in Sudan, but unfortunately the same thing is happening in other parts of the world. I have been fortunate to visit Pakistan on two occasions, and I have seen the rudimentary housing in which Christians live. I always remember my first visit, when we saw two or three volunteer teachers teaching children of all ages, from four to 16, in one massive class, and they were all getting the education that was coming through. Again, education is so important to give children opportunity and chance, as well as hope, which is also important.
Pakistan sets aside 5% to 6% of jobs for Christians. However, for young Christians—I mention this because they were the people I was speaking to—those job opportunities can come only if they have the education to become a nurse, a doctor or a teacher and to move on. The last time we were there, we met the archbishop of the Roman Catholic Church in Pakistan, who outlined what they were doing with their schoolchildren to give them opportunities. Personally, it gave me heart to hear what was happening, but there are many people who fall outside that.
Again, education is so important, and we need to do a whole lot to make it happen. It is about opportunity, equality, human rights and somebody having the same chance to go for a job as somebody else who just happens to be a Muslim or a Hindu. Religion is not important; it is about a person’s ability to do the job, so the opportunities should be there for them.
Research consistently shows that high-quality early education has long-term benefits, particularly for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Expanding access to early education programmes and ensuring that they are adequately funded should be a priority. As the Minister knows, I am incredibly pleased to see her in her place. She very ably grasps our requests and does her darndest to ensure that our questions are answered, so I look forward to what she has to say. I also look forward to the contribution from the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton). We have fought many debates together, and we have been on the same side many times. We will be on the same side today as well, and I look forward to her contribution. By making early education a priority, we not only support individual children but strengthen families and communities, creating a ripple effect of opportunity and hope, which is so important. We do that at home, and we must also do it abroad.
I have an example from back home of what we try to do in education—it is from my constituency, rather than being a global issue, but it is still part of education. One of the most effective residents’ associations in my constituency of Strangford is the Scrabo Residents’ Association, which runs projects that build confidence among young men. In Northern Ireland we have a large number of people, including young Protestant males, who have not achieved the educational standards to get them a job or an opportunity or to give them hope. The Scrabo Residents’ Association understands their potential and breaks their cycles of unemployment, and the success stories include young people who did not do well in education going on to drive heavy goods vehicles and to work in factories and farming. Their pride in their achievements is inspiring and demonstrates the value of grassroots initiatives. That is replicated by the church groups across my constituency of Strangford, and particularly in Newtownards.
Things such as the Engage programme, the nurture units and community-led projects could be used by church groups, missions, NGOs, and those who have a particular interest and passion for what happens in Africa and across the world. I think of those missionary groups that are committed to the provision of life education—that is just one example. They educate children at primary school level and the whole way through, and get those children to the point where they can have jobs—that is where we need to be. Global education today will lead to jobs tomorrow. The ambitions of young people, such as those in that Swaziland choir, to be teachers, doctors or nurses, or to have their own businesses, start with education.
Taking a step back, we should be amazed by what education does and can do for the future. Education is not just a pathway to personal achievement; it is a collective endeavour that shapes our society and future. By emphasising the role of faith, upholding freedom of religious belief and ensuring equitable policies, we can build a world where every child, regardless of their circumstances, has the opportunity to thrive. That is worth fighting for.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing today’s debate. As he pointed out, quality education is not just an important sustainable development goal, but an integral part of the achievement of all SDGs. It enhances individual productivity, fosters economic growth, builds resilient communities in fragile states, develops skills for quality work opportunities, challenges harmful discrimin-atory values, and promotes peace, the rule of law and respect for human rights.
Every child has a right to a quality education, no matter who they are or where they live, yet more than 250 million children worldwide are out of school, and marginalised groups such as girls, children with disabilities and those from remote or conflict areas bear the brunt of that exclusion. For example, in Afghanistan, the Taliban has created the world’s most egregious women’s rights crisis, with restrictions impacting access to secondary school and higher education for 1 million girls and women.
The provision of inclusive, equitable education is fragile in many more states than I have time to mention. Nigeria accounts for 20% of all out-of-school children in sub-Saharan Africa, and it would take Pakistan at least 50 years at the existing rate to enrol all girls in school. A September report from the United Nations Relief and Works Agency suggests that children’s and young people’s education in Gaza will be set back by five years, risking a lost generation of permanently traumatised Palestinian youth. With a ceasefire now in place, it is vital that the UK Government scale up the spending on education in their humanitarian response. Satellite images verify that more that 90% of schools in Gaza have been damaged and that no universities are still in place.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) pointed out, the lack of education in conflict and post-conflict zones puts children at further risk. These are traumatised children. Our own experience here in the UK during the pandemic showed that a school fulfils so much more than an academic responsibility; it is the frontline for a child’s wellbeing and development.
The UK has been proud to stand as one of the largest donors to global education, and has consistently advocated for the transformative impact of education, but UK funding for global education has steadily declined over the past decade—from 13.5% of bilateral official development assistance in 2013 to just 3.5% in 2023. Of course, that is in part a result of the ODA budget being cut from 0.7% to 0.5% of gross national income, but education has faced much sharper cuts than other sectors, decreasing by 40%, compared with an average 25% decrease in other sectors. Can the Minister outline what steps the Department intends to take to remedy this disproportionate budget cut to global education in the next financial year? I note that the Government have commissioned three reviews of their international development policy, so I would be grateful to hear from the Minister when those will be published and what commitments will be made on education, including girls’ education, for the upcoming financial year.
As we commemorate the International Day of Education, let us be reminded that by investing in inclusive and equitable quality education, we are not only fulfilling a fundamental human right, but paving the way for a more prosperous, just and sustainable future for us all.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I echo others in thanking the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing this valuable debate.
Tomorrow, on the United Nations International Day of Education, we must turn our attention to a fundamental truth: education is the foundation of opportunity, equality and progress. This year’s theme could not be more relevant as we grapple with the rapid changes reshaping our world. Sustainable development goal 4 is a bold commitment to deliver quality education for all, yet with just five years left until 2030, we are worryingly off-track. Across the globe, nearly half of primary schools cannot cater for children with disabilities, and more than 20% lack basic sanitation for girls. Those are stark reminders that millions of young people are being denied their right to learn.
Conflict has only made matters worse. In Ukraine, more than 7,000 schools are out of action, and millions of children have seen their education upended. And it is not just Ukraine: as my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) said, Sudan has suffered greatly, as have other places, including Syria and Gaza. Education is often a casualty of war, and the future of too many children hangs in the balance.
Closer to home, although there have been some improvements in the global rankings, our own education system faces significant challenges. Teacher shortages, overstretched special educational needs and disabilities funding, and falling programme for international student assessment scores paint a picture of a system that is struggling to meet the needs of today’s pupils.
Meanwhile, on the international stage, the UK Government’s decision to slash bilateral aid for education from £757 million in 2017 to just £336 million last year is deeply shameful. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on what the Government aim to do to address those massive cutbacks, which have affected global education so much.
Education is not just about classrooms and textbooks; it is also a catalyst for progress, prosperity and peace. For the Liberal Democrats, that is non-negotiable. We would reverse the aid cuts, commit 15% of our development budget to education and prioritise support for women and girls. We would also create a UK sustainable development goal tsar to ensure real accountability for delivering SDG4 at home and abroad. Let us not forget that education transforms lives. It is the great leveller, opening doors to opportunity and hope. As we mark the International Day of Education, let us commit to ensuring that every child, wherever they are, has the chance to learn and thrive.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous), the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on global education, on securing the debate. I am grateful to Members for their contributions, and I have to single out the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who, as always, demonstrated his vast knowledge and understanding of international development matters.
As we mark the UN International Day of Education, I am reminded of the inextricable link between education and international development. We see that reflected in UN sustainable development goal 4, and the work the Conservative Government did to expand access to education, particularly for women and girls worldwide. Remarkable progress has been made, but we must remember the challenges we face around the world. There is of course much more to do, but we are clear that education is one of the best investments we can make.
Since 2015, we have supported 19.8 million children, including more than 10 million girls, to gain a decent education. We know that girls’ education, alongside all its intrinsic benefits, leads to safer and more prosperous societies, more effective peacebuilding, gender equality and greater resilience against climate change. In 2023, we launched the international women and girls strategy, which set the approach for the rest of the decade by placing women and girls at the heart of the work of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
To be clear, we do not value boys’ education any less highly; on the contrary, only by involving boys and men can we address harmful gender stereotypes and break down the barriers that often hold women and girls back. I have asked the Government before about their plans to build on our work on the international women and girls strategy. I would appreciate a clear reassurance from the Minister that she has no plans to tinker with it, and that she will simply get on with what we started rather than risk the hard-won progress that has been achieved.
As the Minister knows, making progress in education is possible only if we work with the right partners, and that is why in government we were the top bilateral donors to the multilateral education funds: the Global Partnership for Education and Education Cannot Wait. Together, they reach more than 80 countries, including in the most conflict-affected areas. GPE reports that it has reached 253 million children in partner countries since 2022; and as the Minister said recently, ECW, the global fund for education in emergencies, recruited or financially supported 23,449 teachers in 2022-23 alone. What are the her plans for supporting global education funds such as GPE and ECW, and what representations is she making to the Treasury ahead of the spending review?
Education was embedded in our international development work in government. That was reflected in the three Es of the international women and girls strategy:
“Educating girls, Empowering women and girls and championing their health and rights and Ending gender-based violence.”
Those priority themes represent the areas where the challenges are most acute but the potential gains are greatest, and where the UK is best placed to add value and catalyse progress.
Like the international women and girls strategy, our 2023 international development White Paper is a road map to 2030. In the White Paper, we identified UK higher education and research as important partners in delivering development. Through direct research, international education, student links and scholarships, our education, science and research institutions are part of how the UK builds capacity with development partners.
Both of the first malaria vaccines to be recommended by the World Health Organisation drew on UK science and health expertise. Yesterday—22 January—marked exactly one year since the roll-out of the first malaria vaccine, which has now reached children in over 17 countries. The first, Mosquirix, was developed by GSK, a British company, and the second, R21, at the Jenner Institute at Oxford University. Given that impactful legacy from our time in Government, I ask the Minister how she plans to build on our support for the education and research sectors. I am sure she understands that continuing to leverage home-grown excellence will be crucial in achieving our development objectives.
I will turn to the development review. I know the Minister has received extensive evidence from Baroness Shafik, who has now submitted that independent review to her and the Foreign Secretary. I understand that they are currently considering the findings, and we eagerly await their plan to publish them. I give the Minister the opportunity in this debate to commit to engaging with Members on both sides of the House and to publishing the findings in full. I also invite her to share with us whether the review has considered education, as she will recognise the interest that hon. Members rightly have in that area.
Before I conclude, I will touch on two deeply concerning contexts. First, in Afghanistan, an estimated 3.7 million children are out of school, 60% of whom are girls. The Taliban blocked women and girls from pursuing secondary and higher education over the age of 12, and recently suspended access to medical education following the closure of many other educational routes. Will the Minister update us on the bilateral and multilateral discussions she is having to mobilise action on women and girls’ education in Afghanistan?
Secondly, I will mention Myanmar, because we are concerned that 4 million children are currently out of school due to the humanitarian situation. I understand that the Government are taking a highly localised approach to aid delivery in Myanmar, and I appreciate that the Minister will not necessarily be able to speak in detail about local partners in order to protect their safety. However, I would be grateful if she could update us on some of the work that she is doing to help with access to education in Myanmar.
Quality education is an integral part of international development, and, as we mark the UN International Day of Education, let us celebrate our successes while remaining vigilant towards the challenges that we face today. The UK has a key role to play in working with partners and leveraging home-grown expertise to support education worldwide alongside our other international development objectives.
The Minister for Development (Anneliese Dodds)
It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing this important debate on the eve of the UN International Day of Education. I am grateful to all hon. Members for the important points that they have raised during our relatively short debate. We have heard some illuminating speeches and I will do my best to respond to the many important points raised.
As many hon. Members have said, although there have been many improvements, such as in the absolute number of children able to access education, we know that education overall is in crisis. Globally, 250 million children and counting are not in school. As we have heard, poverty, gender, disability and lack of schools or teachers, particularly trained teachers, all play a part in that.
The climate crisis and conflict are now disrupting the education of more than 220 million children and counting every single year. Last year alone, extreme weather events meant that children in low-income countries missed out on 18 days of school. As I discussed with some young people in South Sudan, the children who are flooded out of their schools during the rainy season are the same children who are not able to learn because it is too hot during the dry season. That means that in many of those countries, some children are missing up to a whole month of school. Millions of the children who are in school are not learning effectively, including the 70% of children in school in low and middle-income countries who are still unable to read a basic text by the age of 10.
Young women and girls are disproportionately affected by all that, so I am grateful to the Opposition spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), for raising the situation for women and girls, as she has done frequently. That particularly applies when it comes to access to higher and further education. If we look at sub-Saharan Africa, for example, only 7% of eligible women are enrolled in universities and colleges, compared with the global average of 42%. I am pleased that the right hon. Lady also mentioned the role of the UK’s higher education sector in this context, because it is incredibly important to bring in that expertise. We are seeking to build that; I recently met Baroness Smith and other experts to talk about the UK’s international education efforts.
When we consider that every additional year of learning provides a 10% increase in later earnings annually, it is clear that education has a key role to play in tackling poverty and supporting resilient, long-term growth. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding) ably set out how important education is not just economically, but for so many other things, such as stability, security, healthcare and other outcomes that we need to see. She has considerable expertise in this area, given her previous roles with the British Council. However, we know that the financing gap for education in low and middle-income countries is an estimated $97 billion every year. More than 60% of that gap is finance that would be provided by the Governments of those countries.
When we look at the overall contribution of official development assistance to education, we see that it makes up 3% of education budgets. As was mentioned rightly by my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green, who is really passionate about this issue, some 3.3 billion people are now living in countries that are spending more on servicing their debt than they are on the health or education that would underpin long-term, resilient and inclusive growth. All of that comes at a time when populations are on the rise in sub-Saharan Africa.
In short, we need the kind of massive global effort that many Members have said is necessary during this debate, to ensure that people are provided with a quality education. Over the last six months, I have been making the case for action around the world, from South Sudan to the General Assembly of the United Nations in New York, and at the World Bank in Washington and the COP29 climate summit in Baku. I also met the young people from across our country who have been championing global education in schools when they came to Parliament —perhaps other Members also met them; they were incredibly powerful advocates.
The UK is determined to work in genuine partnership with like-minded donors, multilateral organisations and countries and communities across the global south, so that we address the global learning crisis effectively and efficiently. Consequently, today I will highlight four areas that correspond to points raised by hon. Members.
First, we are making foundational learning for all a priority. That means using the best available evidence to support reforms and helping Governments to provide all children with the building blocks for their future. That work uses UK expertise to focus on foundational mathematics, and I saw how it made a huge difference when I was in Malawi. It involved moving away from rote learning, which often does not teach children the skills they need. Such work is important not just for numeracy, which I mentioned, and literacy; it is also important for the development of social and emotional skills, so that we can prepare children and young people to navigate a rapidly changing world.
Of course, we also need to target the most marginalised groups, including those living in poverty or conflict, refugees, those caught up in crisis, and girls; we seek to do that. The Opposition spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, mentioned the international women and girls strategy. She will know that where the previous Government aimed to make sensible reforms, my approach and the Government’s approach is not to put those plans in a drawer and not enact them. We are determined to make progress speedily. Of course, we must ensure that the strategy is up to date. However, we will not say that the main tenets of those reforms—especially those around education for girls, which we have been discussing—should not be held to in the future. We really want to enact those reforms—it is the key thing for us—and to embed long-term progress.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green rightly mentioned disabled children, and Myanmar was equally rightly mentioned by the Opposition spokes-person. This morning, I met—virtually, obviously—some education specialists based in Myanmar. As the Opposition spokesperson rightly said earlier, given the regime in Myanmar and how it operates, I cannot go into a huge amount of detail about exactly which organisations are involved. However, I am really proud of the fact that the UK is working directly with local communities and local experts, so that children, including disabled children and children who have had limbs amputated because of landmines or because other problems have befallen them, can access education. That is really a case where, as my hon. Friend said, education is not just a privilege but a right for children, including disabled children.
I should also inform the Chamber that in October, we announced that the UK will launch a global taskforce to tackle sexual and physical violence, and psychological harm, in and around schools. Horrific abuse, both within schools and outside them, devastates lives, and it accounts for about 5% of school drop-outs and lower attainment worldwide. My hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green rightly raised that issue. We have to make sure that schools are safe. We are determined to advocate for that, which is in line with the fact that the UK is of course a signatory to the safe schools declaration. I am grateful to the previous Government for signing up to that declaration; it was right that they did so.
Of course, safety also has to be provided when it comes to freedom of religion and belief. I was grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for raising that issue, which he always champions, and I thank him for his kind words. It is absolutely right, as he said, that education provides dignity, and that a lack of literacy, numeracy and other skills disempowers people and prevents them from being able to make the choices that they might need to make for themselves and their families.
The hon. Gentleman also talked about the schoolgirls abducted in Nigeria. I have talked to schoolgirls in Zambia and I remember that they get up at 5.30 am to clean the place where they live. They were young—some as young as 13—but they do all the cooking for the household. They get ready to learn and they learn all day. They are thirsty to learn; they are determined to learn. We must always ensure that they have the safety that is surely their right, wherever they are in the world.
Secondly, we are scaling up finance for education around the world and seeking to make it smarter. We are sharing our trusted research and evidence to encourage philanthropic organisations to collaborate more and maximise our impact. We are pivoting away from funding education directly and towards helping Governments improve the way they support the sector for the long term, particularly with partners across the global south.
We are making the most of UK expertise and our diplomatic reach to champion innovative new ways to mobilise finance. The UK plays an important role in developing the international finance facility for education, which provides a sevenfold return on investment—it really is an incredible instrument and provides exactly the kind of multiplying effect we need to have on the funding available. We are now calling on others to join us in backing it. Together, we can unlock $1 billion in additional affordable finance for lower and middle-income countries’ Governments. Thirdly, we are determined to ensure that more children are safe and able to learn; that includes those, mentioned by many hon. Members, who live through conflict and in communities affected by the climate and nature crisis.
As Members have also mentioned, even with the welcome ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, the impacts of that conflict remain devastating for education. In Gaza, 95% of schools have been damaged or destroyed. So in addition to our funding for the UNRWA core budget, the UK is contributing £2 million to Education Cannot Wait and £5.6 million to the Global Partnership for Education, to improve access to education for hundreds of thousands of children across Gaza and the west bank as they start to rebuild. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Esher and Walton and many others mentioned that.
The case of Afghanistan was also rightly mentioned. Appalling measures have been adopted by the Taliban—particularly in relation to girls’ secondary education, but also medical education and so many other areas in that country where women and girls are seeing their rights systematically stripped away. The UK Government are determined to play our part. To support girls in Afghanistan, we are ensuring that at least 50% of our education funding is going to support their education; we are determined to ensure that. We are also advocating more generally for girls and women in Afghanistan. I was recently pleased to announce in this Chamber that the UK is now one of the countries that is politically supporting the case when it comes to Afghanistan on the basis of the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.
In November, we announced £14 million for education programmes in Sudan and for Sudanese refugees, where, as has been mentioned, 17 million children have had no access to education since April 2023. I was grateful for the words of the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) in that regard. In some areas 90% of children are now out of formal schooling in Sudan. The hon. Member, like the Government, has been determined to not just raise the profile of that appalling conflict, which is the worst displacement crisis in the world, but also to advocate for measures that will directly support Sudanese people; he knows that we have doubled the UK’s support to Sudan and to Sudanese people who have been displaced. We are using every avenue to push for an end to the hostilities and to ensure that international humanitarian law is upheld. Like him, I pay tribute to organisations such as the Windle Trust that are so critical for the education of children in Sudan. I am very proud that it is based in my constituency. It really does impress me that an organisation based in Oxford is having such an impact all around the world.
The role of faith-based organisations was rightly mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford, because they so often have a huge impact for communities all around the world. I thank him for mentioning that. The use of schools as shelters, which was mentioned in relation to Sudan, was also a problem in Lebanon when there was the crisis there. The UK was determined to ensure that we were playing our part for the children no longer able to go to the schools being used as shelters, and that they would get the emergency education that they needed.
A number of Members raised the issue of funding, including my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green, who asked about overall funding. I confirm that, as well as supporting Education Cannot Wait and the Global Partnership for Education, we have a number of bilateral programmes that focus on promoting learning. We are currently the top bilateral donor to the Global Partnership for Education, and the second largest bilateral donor to Education Cannot Wait. I had the privilege of being at Education Cannot Wait’s annual general meeting. Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister, is a strong advocate for the organisation and is achieving incredible things with it. We are in the middle of a spending review process and we will, of course, bear in mind hon. Members’ powerful comments about the importance of education as we develop our allocations and decisions for that spending review, both for the immediate future and the longer term. We will update the House on that as soon as is practicably possible.
There are three reviews at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, one of which, being undertaken by Baroness Minouche Shafik, is specifically focused on development capability and capacity in the FCDO. It comes after many years of a lot of turbulence around the UK’s approach to international development—in particular a huge amount of financial turbulence, which was not helped by the untrammelled growth of in-donor refugee costs in ODA. There was not a consistent approach but we are determined to have a consistent approach for the future. I hope that Members see that in the way that we are facing up to these issues.
On the point about teachers, I am sure that the National Education Union is keen to link its important work with work by Education Cannot Wait and the Global Partnership for Education. Education Cannot Wait provides a lot of support for teachers, including direct financial support, support around recruitment and psychosocial support when teachers are operating in dangerous environments. There is an over-representation of fragile and conflict-affected states in the countries that receive the UK’s contribution to the Global Partnership for Education—60% of our funding to GPE goes to such states. There is a lot of work in this area and I am sure that the NEU will want to engage with it. I would, of course, be very happy to discuss that with the union if that would be useful.
Finally, we are investing to make education systems more resilient to the climate crisis and better able to help students thrive beyond their school years.
Richard Foord
Does the Minister agree with the Chair of the International Development Committee, who called the use of official development assistance for hosting asylum seekers in hotels “a spectacular own goal”?
Anneliese Dodds
I have enormous respect for the Chair of the International Development Committee and I have had a lot of discussions with her and other members of the Committee on this subject. The decision to count in-donor refugee costs within the overall category of overseas development assistance is, of course, a statistical decision taken by the OECD.
Different countries have had far lower levels of overseas development assistance going into those in-donor refugee costs. They have not seen the untrammelled increases that we saw under previous Governments. As I said, the current UK Government are determined to have a longer-term approach to the issue, and to get the costs down. In fact we have been doing so, as has been reflected in the decision taken by the Chief Secretary of the Treasury to increase the yearly ODA just after the new year. Part of that was from the reduction in in-donor refugee costs. It is a priority for the Home Secretary and the whole Government to ensure that we are dealing with those issues, so I am grateful to him for raising that point.
We are investing to make systems for education more resilient. At COP28 in Dubai, the UK helped to launch a new global declaration on the common agenda for education and climate change, through which 90 countries have now committed to action on climate that helps protect education. Ahead of COP30 in Brazil this year, we are working with our partners to prioritise the role of education in combating the climate and nature crises and to secure further action to protect children, including when they are learning, from extreme weather.
In response to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald), who is no longer in her place, I should say that she is right to underline the relationship between education, water and sanitation. That is important because children should be able to do something as basic as go to the toilet when they are at school; it is particularly important when it comes to girls’ education, because when there is not access to water that poses a particular problem for menstruating girls.
When it comes to resilience, we must ensure that we join up the UK’s strength in artificial intelligence and education technology, and harness their power responsibly so we can support marginalised children, tailor learning to students’ needs and boost the capacity of teachers, enabling them to reach children who cannot join them in the classroom. We are determined to ensure that more children can gain the skills they need to make the leap into higher and further education and employment. Once again, many thanks to all Members who have taken part in the debate. It has been an incredibly important one, and I look forward to the closing remarks.
Bambos Charalambous
This has been a very positive debate, and it is great that there is cross-party support on this important issue. I thank all Members for their contributions and the Minister for her positive response. I look forward to how that investment from the Government is taken forward to build on the previous Government’s commitment to education. The Minister is obviously a passionate advocate for education, and will want to see the fruits of the investments and steps the Government are taking to achieve SDG4 as soon as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the International Day of Education.
Rare Retinal Disease
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered innovation in the field of rare retinal disease.
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I very much look forward to the contribution of the Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling). I think his contribution will be a personal one and important to the debate. I am pleased to see the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), in his place, and I look forward to his contribution. I am also pleased to see the Minister here. I have given both the shadow Minister and the Minister my speech with my highlighted comments, as requested. I thank the hon. Members for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) and for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) for coming along.
I thank the Backbench Committee for granting the debate. I am aware that it is niche, because only 25,000 people across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland suffer from the condition, but it affects 25,000 people and 25,000 families. As one who has tried to promote rare diseases on every occasion, I asked for this debate; the Members in the Chamber today have a particular interest.
As the wearer of glasses since the young age of eight, which was not yesterday, I am thankful that the issues with my eyes are easily diagnosed and treated. My annual appointment with Mackey’s opticians in Newtownards keeps me right. It was with their help that I realised I had type 2 diabetes. With diabetes, we have to be a wee bit more careful with eyesight issues.
I remember going to an event in Cambridge, where I got my eyes tested on one of the new machines they had. A guy came up to me and said, “Jim, when was the last time you got your eyes tested?” I said, “I get them tested every year.” He said, “Well, here’s my read-out. Take it back to your optician.” I took it back, thinking I had glaucoma. My dad had glaucoma, so I was rather worried. I was probably a wee bit perturbed because I had been to my opticians a few months before and was not aware of anything. I went to my optician and she said, “Jim, do you want to do the big tests?” We did the big tests up in Belfast. They did everything that they could possibly do with my eyes, and thank goodness I did not have it. The point I am making is that it is really important that eyes are tested regularly.
There is a well-known saying that the eyes are the window to the soul, and so they are, but they also are an indication of overall health and therefore eye care is as vital as any other part of our national health. The hon. Member for Torbay and I talked before the debate. Chris McCausland, who did “Strictly Come Dancing”, has a rare retinal disease but look at what that man can do—his sense of humour, as a comedian, and his talent. He whizzed round the floor better than someone with full eyesight. He inspired the nation and rightly won.
Although rare diseases are individually rare, they are collectively common, with one in 17 people affected by a rare disease at some point in their lives. In the UK that equates to approximately 3.5 million people and 110,000 in Northern Ireland. My interest in rare disease goes back to the Northern Ireland Assembly where I served for 12 years before coming here. This debate today will focus on a niche rare disease, and specifically on rare diseases relating to retinal diseases that lead to sight loss.
Inherited retinal dystrophies—IRDs—is the collective term used to describe inherited sight loss conditions that occur when cells in the retina deteriorate in an unpredictable way. I will talk about research and development because that is really important. IRDs are the most common cause of blindness in children and working-age people in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Although the conditions are rare, with some 25,000 people affected in the UK and 600 in Northern Ireland—some are my constituents, which is why I have introduced the debate—the impact on the people living with them is significant. When I ask people which sense they would not want to lose, they always say sight, because the eyes are the window to the world and to the soul—they help people appreciate what is around them. Although the other senses are also important, when someone loses their sight, they almost entirely lose the ability to know what is happening around them.
People living with rare retinal conditions not only face challenges in their day-to-day life caused by sight loss, but experience the added challenge of living with a rare condition and the impact it has on them and their families. That includes delays and complexity in getting a diagnosis. I know the Minister is always happy to respond positively and I look forward to her comments on how we can hurry up, or make easier, the process of getting a diagnosis.
Living with a rare condition also presents challenges in accessing treatment and specialist care. There is also a lack of awareness of these conditions. Some 95% of rare diseases currently lack an approved treatment and the existing standard of care for rare retinal diseases is equally limited, meaning there is high unmet clinical need. I will go into the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s process at the end of my speech, since it relates to my major request. Others will add their contributions as well.
The dual-pronged burden on patients with rare retinal disease means supporting access to new innovations that can improve the diagnosis, treatment, and care for these conditions. That should be a priority for the Government and their relevant agencies. Sight is the most important sense among adults in the UK, with 88% of people ranking it as their most valuable sense in a recent study published in JAMA Ophthalmology.
According to a report by Deloitte, the estimated total cost of IRDs in the UK is £523.3 million, a massive total, showing the importance of the debate. The total includes wellbeing costs of £196.1 million and total economic costs of £327.2 million, of which productivity costs affecting those of working age are £114.1 million and informal carer costs are £84.5 million. Those statistics support the necessity of the debate and highlight the importance of having a ministerial response on the Government’s stance on the issue.
New innovations that represent a step change in the standard of care for people living with rare retinal diseases are on the horizon, which we have to be prepared for. At the centre of this is a shift toward personalised medicine made possible by recent advances in cell and gene therapies, a transformative class of medicines described by the Minister of State for Science, Research and Innovation, Lord Vallance, as a “new era of cures”. I hope this is where we are going. CGTs are highly specialised types of treatment that aim to treat the root cause of diseases and disorders by augmenting, repairing, replacing, or regenerating organs, tissues, cells, genes, and metabolic processes in the body. Often one-off treatments, they can deliver potential benefits over the course of a patient’s lifetime and therefore represent a step change in how we treat disease. The families, as well as the people who have the retinal disease, are in the middle of that process and experience all the angst that comes with it as well.
Access to new innovations and treatments for rare diseases, termed “orphan medicines”, is a challenge across all healthcare systems. Smaller patient populations along with complex and difficult diagnoses can mean the cost of developing new treatments is higher, compared with treatments for more common diseases, and there can be more uncertainty in the evidence base generated from clinical trials.
In a study on social attitudes to rare diseases, 82% of participants felt that NICE should evaluate the cost-effectiveness of treatments for rare diseases differently from more common diseases, taking into account the additional challenges in developing medicines for rare diseases and, of course, looking at rare diseases overall. It is therefore vital that the regulatory or assessment bodies factor in those considerations when making decisions on whether to approve new treatments or new innovations for rare retinal diseases.
I will now try to develop an argument on one of my other asks. In England, the assessment body for medicine, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, has two medicine appraisal pathways: the standard technology appraisal pathway and the highly specialised technology pathway. That is, perhaps, the central core issue of the debate. In Northern Ireland, the Department of Health considers and endorses technology appraisals undertaken by NICE, but, whatever the NICE approvals are here, the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Health Department follow its indications and directive—whatever happens here comes to us. We will be the beneficiaries of NICE recommendations in Northern Ireland, so the debate is really important for me both as the DUP’s health spokesperson and as a Member representing a constituency in Northern Ireland, where health is a devolved matter.
Treatments for very rare diseases have traditionally struggled to get approval from NICE when routed through this standard technology appraisal pathway, which is not designed to factor in the additional uncertainty associated with rare disease treatments; we have a big ask in relation to that, Minister. It is therefore vital that the higher specialised technology appraisal pathway can enable timely patient access to treatments for rare diseases.
NICE is conducting a review of its HST programme criteria for determining what treatments are assessed by the HST pathway. The aims of the review, which are welcome, are to ensure more consistent, predictable and transparent decisions, but there are definitely concerns that the refinements proposed by NICE in its consultation may in fact narrow the number of future treatments eligible for the HST pathway, and, ultimately, risk patient access to future treatments for rare retinal disease. I will have three or four asks at the end, but that will be one of the key ones and it will conflict with the ambitions set out in priority 4 of the Government’s rare diseases action plan 2024 for improved
“access to specialist care, treatment and drugs”.
Of particular concern for retinal disease today are the thresholds being proposed under criteria 1 and 3. Criterion 1 is that the disease is ultra-rare and debilitating, which is defined as having a prevalence above 1 in 50,000 in England. Criterion 2 is that
“no more than 300 people in England are eligible for the technology in its licensed indication”,
and that the technology is not an individualised medicine. Those changes, which tighten the criteria for HST routing, would force more new and innovative treatments for rare retinal disease, as well as other rare diseases, to be assessed via the STA pathway.
To be approved via the STA pathway, treatments are required to meet a significantly lower incremental cost-effectiveness ratio threshold, which is often not possible for many treatments for rare diseases. As a result, innovations might not be approved by NICE for routine use in the NHS, and that is the question I am posing to the Minister.
I am very pleased to see the Minister in her place; she usually has to answer my queries in debates and she always tries to do so. People living with retinal disease, as well as carers and clinicians, all highlight slowing down the progression or, if possible, reversing sight loss as a top priority for future treatments for IRDs. Delays in access to treatment may result in further disease progression and the deterioration of sight. We need solutions to improve diagnosis, treatment and care for people living with rare retinal diseases. To address the concerns on the proposed refinements to the NICE HST criteria, I would like to ask what discussions the Department of Health and Social Care and Ministers have had with NICE on the potential impact of the changes on people living with rare retinal diseases, and on opportunities for appropriate flexibility? Will Ministers, in the absence of any meaningful change to the HST criteria, commit to exploring a potential “third way”—it is always good to have a third way—for technologies that do not meet the criteria for HST and have a low likelihood of positive recommendations under the STA pathway?
On the support for people living with rare retinal diseases more broadly, the Government’s UK rare diseases framework and the corresponding annual action plans have been important in providing co-ordinated action across four areas: helping patients to get a final diagnosis faster; increasing awareness of rare diseases among healthcare professionals—perhaps those who are not skilled or do not have the necessary training; making the co-ordination of care better; and improving access to specialist care, treatment and drugs. There are four asks in relation to that.
The momentum of the framework and the action plans must continue to deliver improvements for people living with rare diseases, including rare retinal diseases, which this debate is all about. The current framework is due to come to an end in 2026; what happens afterwards? We hope there will be a clear action plan. I am pleased that the Government have taken the decision to spend £26 billion on the NHS—it shows their commitment to addressing a key issue, which is right, and we all welcome that commitment—but do they plan to publish a new rare diseases framework in 2026? Will they include access to rare disease medicines as a central pillar of the next framework, and keep the issues relating to NICE appraisal of rare disease treatments under ongoing review so that those suffering with the conditions can access effective treatments?
Retina UK, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary, has provided some background to the current situation. I put on the record my thanks to the charity for making that information available; it probably helped all of us who are taking part in the debate. Some 54% of respondents to Retina UK’s 2022 sight loss survey were aware of research into their condition, while 20% had participated in that research and 31% could name the gene causing their condition, which was a significant improvement from 15% in 2019. That is a positive step in the right direction, reflecting better genetic diagnosis and education. However, unmet demand for genetic testing and counselling persists, emphasising the need for increased funding and accessibility.
Something that struck me about rare retinal diseases is that 93% of respondents to the survey reported experiencing anxiety, stress or loss of confidence due to sight loss, but only 16% had accessed mental health support. Some level of anxiety, depression, angst or stress often comes with a very difficult disease, particularly retinal disease. Although resources such as Discover Wellbeing offer tailored psychological support and strategies to improve resilience and quality of life, it is clear that more support needs to be offered. For example, perhaps GP surgeries could be given more information to signpost our constituents—their clients—to greater support, which should be available as they navigate their life journey in a completely different way.
It must be noted that 56% of survey respondents prioritised funding research into treatments, compared with 23% who prioritised providing support services and 21% who prioritised raising societal awareness. Improved genetic testing services and counselling are crucial to enhancing patient care and enabling clinical trial participation. Some 39% of respondents had experienced sight loss-related accidents requiring medical attention, so policies to promote access to mobility aids and rehabilitation services are also urgently needed. [Interruption.] A bell is telling me that my time is coming to an end. I am thankful for that reminder—I am on the last page of my speech.
Continued investment in research, infrastructure and inclusive technology will drive significant improvements in the lives of individuals with IRDs, but that requires commitment from the Minister, the Government and this House to increase funding for research. First, we must support funding initiatives for genetic testing, clinical trials and treatment innovation for rare retinal diseases; secondly, we must promote accessibility and enhance the programmes that provide assistive technologies, mobility aids and accessible information to individuals with sight loss; thirdly, we must expand mental health services; and fourthly, we must advocate for early diagnosis and counselling.
I have made a number of requests, but they are positive requests. I hope that, in the response from the Minister and from my Government, we can find a way forward to help those with retinal diseases. We must seek to deliver in a more effective way, and this debate is the first step towards that.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
What a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhan. In my time in the House I have written speeches for Westminster Hall that are five, six or seven minutes long, but by time I get here the Chair always tells me that I have a minute, so I only wrote a minute-long speech.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
The hon. Gentleman can go on for as long as he likes.
Shockat Adam
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, “Do what I do and expand it.” This subject is extremely important, and I am so grateful for the hon. Gentleman for bringing it to this Chamber.
Imagine a mother-to-be sitting on a consulting room chair. Her excitement at becoming a mother has been overshadowed by the news that she has been diagnosed with Stargardt disease. It is literally a race against time: will the child be born or will the sight be lost? Imagine a young boy who has expressed his ambition to become a rugby player for England, only for a cursory investigation at the back of the eye to detect retinitis pigmentosa. Unfortunately for me, that was my reality as an optometrist. I faced such heartbreaking cases regularly in my profession.
Rare retinal diseases such as retinitis pigmentosa, Stargardt disease and Leber congenital amaurosis, among many others, are individually rare but collectively very significant. They devastate and destroy lives. The hon. Member for Strangford mentioned Chris, the victor of “Strictly Come Dancing”; he shows the potential of the majority of people with sight loss, but unfortunately that is not the reality for most—their lives are destroyed, their independence is taken and opportunities at work are limited.
The UK Government have committed to tackling rare diseases through initiatives such as the UK rare diseases framework, which aims to improve diagnosis, raise awareness and enhance the access to specialist care. Additionally, a new action plan is set to be released in 2025, showing promise for further progress. But commitments need to translate into tangible action.
Furthermore, we need regulatory bodies such as NICE to play a pivotal role. I fully appreciate NICE’s work to ensure that the quality and safety of treatments can never be compromised—those principles are non-negotiable —but to encourage innovation, NICE must proactively engage with pharmaceutical and medical companies to work collaboratively to establish best practices. Such dialogue will signal to companies that their commitment to researching rare diseases, which costs millions, will be met with the potential for reward. This will ensure that patients can benefit from cutting-edge advancements without delay. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, short-term investment in research and treatment for rare retinal diseases will deliver long-term financial benefits, to the tune of £600 million. It will also reduce lifelong healthcare costs and empower patients to live independent, productive lives.
The eyes are indeed the window of the soul, but they are also the window to our health. So many health conditions are detected in the eyes, and rare retinal conditions can lead to the early detection of other health conditions, such as Behçet’s disease and so many others. We are thankfully on the brink of transformative breakthroughs. Gene therapies such as Luxturna, which is a virus vector-based medication, along with AI-driven early detection and advancements in stem cell research, offer real hope. By supporting those innovations with funding and adaptable regulations, we can bring life-changing treatments to those who need them most.
This is about not just heath but equity and humanity. Without action, we will condemn families to live in the shadow of irreversible loss, because if a person has sight loss, it affects the whole family. With action, we can rewrite their stories and give them hope and vision. Let us act now for that mother, that young boy and the thousands like them. Sight is not a privilege: it is a right.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing the debate. He rightly highlighted how inspirational it was to see Chris McCausland winning “Strictly Come Dancing” a few weeks ago. Chris McCausland shared three words at the end of that journey: “opportunity, support and determination”. Those play out well in respect of the challenges we face, which the hon. Members for Strangford and for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) unpacked extremely well.
At an event last night hosted by the all-party parliamentary group on eye health and visual impairment, a gentleman with retinitis pigmentosa told us that when he was diagnosed at the age of eight, his mother was taken aside and told, “This child should be sterilised at a certain age. That is the best way of sorting out this condition.” That is absolutely horrific, and I am heartened that, a little under 50 years later, the world has moved on.
My visual impairment was diagnosed about 45 years ago. I suffer from Stargardt disease, which is one of the two significant areas in terms of inherited conditions. I was deeply upset as a young lad, mostly because I was not able to be a lorry driver; I idolised my father, and that was my aspiration.
Visual impairments have a significant impact on people’s ability to fulfil their aspirations, as colleagues have highlighted, but they also impact opportunities. Twenty-five thousand people across the United Kingdom are affected by such conditions, and 75% of people registered blind are sadly unemployed, so we are condemning people who have drawn from the lottery of life; they are very much more likely to be unemployed than other people in their communities.
I have discovered that the cost of such conditions is £500 million a year, in a number of different pots. That includes not just the cost of medical intervention, but the cost to society of supporting each individual. Some 95% of these hereditary conditions are untreatable, potentially until the not-too-distant future.
The hon. Member for Strangford laid out the challenges for NICE. We are in a perverse situation at the moment—almost an anti-Goldilocks situation—where one falls between two stools: it is a rare disease, but it is a relatively common rare disease, and therefore does not fit within the ultra-rare criteria, so one falls between two stools. I hope the Minister will give serious consideration to the two conditions—retinitis pigmentosa and Stargardt’s—where significant numbers of people will be impacted by falling between those two stools. I reflect again on the words of Chris McCausland: give us opportunity, support and determination.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain, and to do so debating a health matter, as we have spoken many times in the past about health issues. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who I call my friend, for bringing forward this debate.
I am equally grateful for the opportunity to serve opposite the Minister. She and I have served opposite one another on many occasions in the past—previously with me on the Government side and her on the Opposition side, but I am getting used to this side of the Chamber now. It is encouraging that she is responding because she engages with these debates and gives genuine answers. The debate will be the better for her being the Minister.
The hon. Member for Strangford has brought forward a hugely important debate, as he so often does. Many important issues rarely get brought before the House, yet we are the poorer for that. This debate might not otherwise have been tabled, but it is right that we debate the issue. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), who is not in the Chamber but has done a lot in the House to highlight the issue in her work with the APPG—it would be wrong not to recognise that in this debate. I also pay tribute to the Royal National Institute of Blind People for its work and to all those who have contributed to raising awareness.
Before I became a Minister in 2018, I was the vice-chairman of the APPG on eye health and visual impairment, so I took an interest in this important issue back then, and it crossed my radar on a number of occasions when I was Health Minister. As the hon. Member for Strangford and the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) set out, while individual rare conditions may be exactly that—they occur rarely, with few people getting them—collectively, rare conditions account for a significant number of the conditions that individuals in this country have.
The hon. Member for Leicester South brought his background and knowledge to bear on the subject, as he does when speaking about these matters. He highlighted the potentially devastating impact that optical and retinal diseases and illnesses can have on someone’s life. A few years ago I did something very trivial; somehow—heaven knows why—a tree branch went right across my eye and cut it. I recovered fully, but for the few weeks that I had the treatment and the cream, it had an impact on my daily life. It was trivial in the great scheme of things—although if untreated, it may not have been—and I can only begin to imagine the impact of some of those conditions, as the hon. Member elucidated.
Shockat Adam
The right hon. Member should not feel bad, as that is the most common reason for eye trauma—gardening is the most dangerous sport for eye health. I have met people who lost their sight from a branch scratching their cornea.
Edward Argar
In which case, I remain very grateful to the clinicians at the Leicester royal infirmary. The hon. Member will be pleased to know that my wife shares his view about the dangers of gardening, particularly when I am doing it.
As right hon. and hon. Members can see, I am increasingly reliant on my reading glasses and my regular eye tests at Specsavers—other opticians are available. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, that is a reminder of the importance of the issue. A regular eye test not only can detect optical and retinal illnesses earlier, but can potentially spot other more serious conditions that are not directly related to eye health, but of very great significance.
Jim Shannon
I had two constituents in Newtownards who came to me complaining of a really sore head and a terrible colour. I said, “Have you been to the doctor?” “Yes,” they said. “Go and see your optician,” I said. On both occasions, they had tumours—one of them was the size of a golf ball; the other was growing. When they got to the A&E at Ulster hospital, they were retained and had emergency operations. With a simple interview and appointment, an optician can diagnose that early on, which can save someone’s eyesight and their life as well.
Edward Argar
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He and I have known each other since we came to this House, and he has read my mind, because I was about to say that there are examples of life-threatening tumours being detected through a regular eye test and a referral onwards, which has saved people’s lives. As he set out, an estimated 25,000 or so people in the UK are affected by inherited retinal diseases. As the hon. Member for Leicester South said, the most common, which I will mispronounce, is retinitis—
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As a professional optometrist, I am sure his bill will be in the post. Inherited retinal diseases can lead to a gradual loss of vision and can have potentially devastating effects.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
My wife lives with retinitis pigmentosa. We have been together for 30 years, and over that time, I have seen how that degenerative eye disease can change the way that we live, adapt and care for each other as a family. Although there is a massive place, as we have talked about, for innovation and research and for access to investigation for treatment, once she got the white cane that she has now, that became a symbol for everybody else. People notice that she has a condition and they are much more attentive to her for that reason.
It is in the period before that where we could make an intervention around inclusion and education. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we could do something at that point to identify to others that somebody has a condition, which they might not be able to see, in order to help them?
Edward Argar
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. One of the key themes of this debate has been the importance of raising awareness and of societal understanding. Before I was a Minister, I co-chaired the APPG on dementia. I think we are making progress, but a large part of the challenge that we face as a society is raising the awareness and understanding of hidden conditions or things that might not be immediately apparent to people, particularly before there is a diagnosis or some sort of visual sign, such as a white cane, or other measures. This debate will play a small but important role in helping to raise awareness of those conditions.
The next challenge, as was alluded to, is diagnosis and what more can be done to deliver better and earlier diagnosis. Again, real progress is being made, but, as so often in these spaces, we can do more. It is a pleasure to be taking part in this debate, because although we often to and fro across the Dispatch Box or across the Chamber, I suspect that there is a fair degree of consensus today about where we are, what progress we have made and what more needs to be done, which is all to the good.
As has also already been alluded to, when there is a diagnosis, the next challenge is the treatment and what is possible in the way of treatment. In 2019, as has been said, NICE recommended the use of a new gene therapy called—again, I will use the abbreviation rather than the technical term—the Luxturna approach; I am sure that the hon. Member for Leicester South would be able to correct me, if necessary. It was recommended to treat inherited retinal dystrophies that are caused by a specific type of gene mutation. We are seeing real progress with that type of viral vector-based gene therapy. There are also potential new treatments that we have heard about, including further gene and stem cell therapies, artificial vision therapies, electrical stimulation therapies and indeed the use of growth factors and retinal transplants.
I have sat where the Minister is sitting now, so I know that there is always a challenge in this space. One of the great successes of our country is in innovation, including the rapid development of new therapies and new treatments. However, there must always be a process to make sure that they are safe and effective, and we must strike the appropriate balance in recognising that there is no infinite pot of money for any Government.
In August 2024, Retina Today, a respected journal, reported that there are currently over 30 gene therapies in development for the treatment of a range of retinal diseases, so we can look forward with a degree of cautious confidence to what is being done in that space. The challenge will always be, of course, how we translate such treatments into effective, deployable and—if I am being honest—affordable solutions for people who have such conditions. The situation is similar with artificial vision technologies, including the implanting of microchips. Therefore, there is reason for us be hopeful about treatment and research.
I now turn to the UK rare diseases framework, which hon. Members have spoken about today. It was first published in January 2021 and there have been a number of action plans since: there was one in February 2022, with 16 actions; one in February 2023; and one in May 2024. I was encouraged that in December 2024 the Minister’s colleague—the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne)—reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to the rare diseases framework. I am also encouraged that there is talk of a 2025 refresh. I hope that the Minister can give a little more information on how she sees that process playing out when she speaks.
Some progress was made with those action plans, but if we are being completely honest, it was perhaps not as much progress as we might have wished. There are a range of external reasons for that, but there is now an opportunity for the new Government to continue to take the process forward. From what I see and hear, they are committed to and willing to do that, which is deeply encouraging.
With regard to NICE, I have already alluded to the challenges that it always faces. It has a difficult role to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of medicines and treatment, which is challenging because if someone is in need of a treatment—indeed, if they are desperate for a treatment—they will obviously want that treatment to be trialled. We therefore need to recognise that NICE does a difficult job in striking the right balance.
NICE uses the HST—highly specialised technology—programme. As we heard, refinements to the routing criteria have been proposed, including that
“The disease is ultra-rare and debilitating…having a point prevalence of 1:50,000 or less in England…is lifelong after diagnosis with current treatment, and…has an exceptional negative impact and burden on people with the disease”;
that there is the
“aim to encourage innovation and research”,
which is a good thing that we can all support; that
“The technology should be limited to the population in its licensed indication… No more than 300 people in England are eligible for the technology for its licensed indication, and the technology is not an individualised medicine”;
and that there are “no effective treatment options”.
I understand that just before Christmas NICE launched a public consultation, ahead of updating the HST eligibility criteria. That consultation is due to report later this year, following the closure of the consultation on 30 January. As I look at the date on my watch, I can see that hon. Members and other individuals have about a week or so in which to make any representations or put any views to that consultation, should they wish to do so.
I hope that the Minister will be able to update right hon. and hon. Members on each of those aspects—where she sees us going with diagnosis, treatment and access to treatment, and where she sees that research going in the long term. I hope the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) will forgive for not mentioning him before, but I pay tribute to him for bringing to his role and to this subject—as he does to his other speeches in this Chamber and the main Chamber, and to other debates since he has arrived in this House, not limited to this subject—a measured, thoughtful and knowledgeable approach. The House is all the better for those contributions.
Once again, I am deeply grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford for bringing forward this hugely important debate. This House is at its best when Members debate not the to-ings and fro-ings that we all put in our election leaflets, but consensual matters where there are genuine points of interest and where we can make a real difference for people. That is one reason why I was very keen, despite being the shadow Secretary of State, to speak in this debate—but also, of course, because it is a pleasure to serve opposite the Minister again for old time’s sake. I very much look forward to what she has to say and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to speak.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhan. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate on such an important issue and other Members for their contributions.
Both the shadow Secretary of State and I are covering for other colleagues this afternoon, so hon. Members can imagine my joy when actual experts walked into the Chamber. The hon. Members for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) and for Torbay (Steve Darling), as has been said, bring great personal and professional expertise to this debate, so it was joyful to see them come in. It was good to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher); the experience he brings through his wife is really valuable. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) has been such a champion of this issue both in her personal experience and since she came to the House. I understand that it is her birthday today, so I hope she is having a good time. She has brought great expertise to this place.
I am going to do my best to answer the questions. I have been billed highly by the hon. Member for Strangford, and I am grateful for that. The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Gorton and Denton (Andrew Gwynne), will write to hon. Members about anything that is outstanding.
I would like to take time to acknowledge the experiences of those living with rare inherited retinal diseases and their families, who I know will be paying attention to this debate. I pay tribute to all those who work tirelessly to raise awareness of rare conditions and bring about change. Although rare diseases are rare individually, their impacts are far-reaching. One in 17 people will be affected by a rare condition over their lifetime; that is around 3.5 million people in the United Kingdom. As the hon. Member for Strangford said, rare inherited retinal diseases affect around 25,000 people in the UK and collectively represent a leading cause of sight loss in working-age adults. We recognise the impact that these conditions have on patients, families and wider society and the need for innovative approaches to tackle these changes.
The Government are committed to improving the lives of people with rare conditions. The hon. Member for Torbay used that quote about providing opportunity, support and determination for people. The UK rare diseases framework outlines four priorities to achieve this aim: helping patients get a final diagnosis faster; increasing awareness of rare diseases among healthcare professionals; better co-ordination of care; and improving access to specialist care treatment and drugs. In England, our annual rare diseases action plan sets out the steps we are taking to meet those priorities. We continue to make progress and are working to finalise our next England action plan for publication this year.
It is vital that NHS patients with rare diseases are able to access innovative new treatments as they become available. That includes those with progressive retinal diseases, where early intervention is crucial to preserve sight. Under England’s action plans, NICE, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and NHS England are working to understand and address the barriers to access for rare diseases treatment. The hon. Member for Strangford asked a number of questions about NICE’s approach that I hope I will cover. NICE does a difficult job well, in my view, and we think its approach is appropriate for the evaluation of treatments for rare diseases. NICE recommended 84% of medicines for rare diseases evaluated through its standard technology appraisal programme in 2023-24. That is comparable to its approval rate for medicines for more common conditions. Those treatments are now available for the treatment of NHS patients.
NICE also operates a separate, highly specialised technology programme for the evaluation of a handful of medicines for very rare diseases each year that recognises the challenges of bringing treatments for very rare diseases to market. NICE recommended the gene therapy Luxturna for a type of inherited retinal dystrophy through that route. One of the recipients of that groundbreaking therapy on the NHS has spoken of his gratitude for the positive effects of the treatment on not just his vision, but his confidence and independence.
NICE is also in the process of reviewing the criteria for routing topics to its highly specialised technologies programme, which the hon. Member for Strangford asked about. That review will ensure that future routing decisions are more transparent, consistent, efficient and predictable. As part of that process, NICE has launched a public consultation on its progress. I encourage the rare diseases community and hon. Members interested to continue to engage with that process.
Research offers a way to accelerate access to new and innovative treatments. Through the National Institute for Health and Care Research, the Government support rare diseases research. There are currently eight active research projects on rare retinal disease funded by the NIHR, with a combined value of over £6 million. The NIHR also invests in infrastructure to support and deliver research studies. The NIHR Moorfields Biomedical Research Centre, which is dedicated solely to vision research, has made significant strides in the field of rare retinal diseases. By harnessing genomic data, the BRC has developed effective treatments, including gene-replacement therapies for inherited retinal disorders. The NIHR is also working closely with commercial companies to bring new medicines and technology to patients.
To connect people living with rare diseases to innovative treatments and sources of support, we need to diagnose these conditions as early as possible. The UK is a world leader in genomic diagnosis. Patients in England have access to whole genome sequencing on the NHS. Advances in genomics mean that new causes of rare retinal diseases are being found every year. As part of Genomics England’s generation study, we are harnessing the power of genomic sequencing to screen for over 200 rare genetic conditions that can be treated in the NHS in early childhood to improve outcomes for babies and their families. That includes the rare retinal disease RPE65-associated Leber congenital amaurosis, which can be treated with Luxturna.
A central mission of this Government is to build a health and care system fit for the future. The 10-year health plan will ensure a better health service for everyone, regardless of condition or service area. The plan will focus on our three shifts for a modern NHS: moving from hospital to community, analogue to digital and sickness to prevention. All three offer opportunities to improve time to diagnosis and care for people living with rare retinal conditions. The shift from analogue to digital will enable innovative uses of data to improve diagnosis and measure treatment outcomes, while NHS ocular genetics services’ use of video consultations continues to widen patient access to specialist advice, in keeping with the shift from hospital to community. Although many rare diseases are not preventable, early diagnosis, as we have heard, can lead to timely interventions that improve health outcomes.
I will outline the treatment pathway for rare retinal diseases. I am thankful for the role played by high street optometrists, some of them here today, in helping to identify patients with sight-threatening conditions. There is good availability of NHS sight-testing services, with over 12 million free NHS sight tests provided to eligible groups annually, including children, individuals aged 60 and over, and those on income-related benefits. Optometrists are required to refer any patient showing signs of injury, disease or abnormality and integrated care boards have been asked to ensure that there are direct referral pathways in place between community optometry and secondary care. As the hon. Member for Leicester South said, the eyes are the gateway into other health conditions. Optometry has a very important role.
As one of the busiest outpatient specialties with one of the largest waiting lists, we know that ophthalmology is facing huge challenges and we are working hard on how we can help to build capacity. NHS England is looking at how digital connectivity could improve the triage of patients referred between primary and secondary care. That would allow for images to be shared, and specialist advice and guidance could help to keep patients in the community where possible.
We recognise the importance of access to emotional and practical support, especially where treatment may not be available. A diagnosis of sight loss will have a profound impact on any individual, who will be at increased risk of stress, anxiety and depression. NHS England’s patient support toolkit for eye care commissioners and providers aims to ensure that patients with ophthalmic conditions or sight loss are supported throughout their care journeys. The RNIB patient support pathway aims to strengthen that and ensure that support and guidance are available to patients from their first eye care appointment through to having a confirmed diagnosis, and then right the way through to living well with their condition. I know that the work of the all-party parliamentary group on eye health and visual impairment and of other hon. Members will help in giving those people a powerful voice.
As we work towards building a health care service fit for the future, it is vital that people living with rare diseases are not left behind. With the UK rare diseases framework coming to an end in 2026, we will look to build on the progress made over the past five years, which the shadow Secretary of State mentioned. We will work with colleagues in the devolved Administrations, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Strangford.
We have commissioned an evaluation of England’s rare diseases action plans through NIHR and will also be undertaking engagement this year to inform future policy decisions. The Government are deeply committed to working across the health and social care system and with the rare diseases community to improve the lives of those with rare conditions.
Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for raising this important matter. It is good to have high interest, expertise and experience in this place. We want to work with colleagues here and we thank the rare disease community for their valuable ongoing engagement with us to bring about meaningful change.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
Order. I will now put—[Interruption.]
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
Oh, I am sorry; I nearly denied the hon. Member for Strangford his right to sum up. I apologise. I would never wish to silence him.
Jim Shannon
I know we are all anxious to get away, Dame Siobhain. So am I, by the way—I have a plane to catch.
Can I say a big thank you to everyone who took part in the debate? The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) brought up the personal stories of the mum who was expecting and did not realise that she was going to end up with this disease and of the young boy who wanted to be a rugby star when unfortunately that was not going to happen. Those are reminders of what the disease does and I thank him for that. I note that he is an optometrist; I did not know that he did that before he came here, but now I do and I thank him for it. The Minister was right in saying that the talent and information brought to the Chamber has helped us to move forward. The hon. Member for Leicester South also discussed gene therapy and said that the eyes are the window to health. Again, I thank him for that significant contribution.
The hon. Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) brought us the personal story of his wife, and what they live with every day. Stories of family members are sometimes forgotten; they are doing something for someone and there is a personal story about how the rest of the family is affected.
The shadow Secretary of State was right that the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) brings many things to this Chamber outside of health issues. When he speaks there on the front row, we take knowledge; we are always reminded by that wee bell that rings that he is here. We all know. I thank him for that and for his knowledge, which is so important.
The shadow Secretary of State and I have been together in many debates over the years. This subject is important and interesting and he was right to thank the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova). I should have done so; apologies. He is right that she has been a leader and a champion when it comes to eye trauma. By the way, I did not know that the work place most dangerous for the eyes was the garden. That was news to me. I will not talk about my endeavours with a chainsaw; they were scary, although I have survived. The shadow Secretary of State also mentioned regular eye tests, early diagnosis, treatment, research, affordable solutions, the UK rare diseases network and the degree of concern.
I thank the Minister. It may come easy or not so easy, but the hon. Lady always endeavours to give a response on the issues, whether her direct responsibility or not. Today she has done that. She referred to this as a far reaching issue and said that the Government are committed to the rare diseases framework, to faster diagnosis and to the new treatment Luxturna. Right away, she was able to tell us that some people have got that and are feeling the benefit. Those are the pluses that come out of these debates. The Government are committed to research and development and the UK is a leader in genomics. She referred to the treatment pathway and also to ensuring that those with rare retinal disease not being left behind. That is a message we all appreciate. Today the debate has done that, and the Minister has done it well.
Dame Siobhain McDonagh (in the Chair)
I apologise again to the hon. Member for Strangford.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered innovation in the field of rare retinal disease.
Written Statements
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Assimilated Law Report
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
Today I have laid a report regarding the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 (REUL Act) before Parliament and published it on gov.uk. This report updates the House in line with the obligations under section 17 of the REUL Act, which requires a report to be published and laid before Parliament every six months detailing all revocations and reforms of assimilated law. This is the third report being laid before the House.
The report today summarises the data on the assimilated law dashboard, providing the public with information about the amount of assimilated law there is and where it sits across Departments. The dashboard reflects the position as of 23 December 2024, showing that a total of 6,901 instruments of REUL/assimilated law concentrated over approximately 400 unique policy areas are on the dashboard. Since the previous update to the dashboard 40 assimilated law instruments have either been revoked or reformed, meaning that 2,395 have now been revoked or reformed in total.
The report gives details of a further 11 statutory instruments using powers under the REUL Act and other domestic legislation, which the Government have laid since the previous report to deliver on their priorities. These include, for example, the Ionising Radiation (Medical Exposure) (Amendments) Regulations 2024, which contain legislative amendments that maximise the efficiencies provided by technological advancements and, in turn, allow for the faster diagnosis of cancers, personalised patient treatment, and a reduction in workforce pressures, all while safeguarding patient safety. These changes support the delivery of the Government’s health mission priorities.
This Government are determined to support economic growth, which is why we are working with industry and businesses to deliver our industrial strategy and small business plan to improve economic opportunities. Delivering these strategies requires the right regulatory frameworks to support innovation, economic growth, investment, and high-quality jobs. We will reform assimilated law, where desirable, to deliver that vision, and to deliver growth for UK businesses and citizens.
This Government will also consider the future reform of assimilated law within the wider context of their national missions, plans for change, and commitment to reset relations with devolved Governments and the EU.
[HCWS384]
Loan Charge: Independent Review
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
At the Budget, the Government announced that they would commission an independent review of the loan charge to help bring the matter to a close for those affected while ensuring fairness for all taxpayers. Today I can set out further details about the review.
The loan charge was intended to tackle historical use of contrived tax avoidance schemes that seek to avoid income tax and national insurance by disguising remuneration as a form of non-taxable payment (typically a loan). Disguised remuneration schemes have been considered by the courts. In the most notable case in 2017, the Supreme Court agreed with HMRC that schemes that redirect earnings and ultimately pay them in the form of loans do not succeed in avoiding tax. In a further decision in 2022, the Court of Appeal confirmed that even where other parties (such as employers or agencies) have obligations to operate PAYE, the liability for income tax is that of the employee.
The Government believe that it is right that those who did not pay the right amount of income tax and national insurance are required to resolve their affairs with HMRC. Accepting otherwise would be contrary to the decisions of the courts and would be unfair to the vast majority of taxpayers who have never used these schemes.
However, the Government recognise that concerns continue to be raised about the loan charge. In particular, there are concerns about the size of liabilities owed by some of those affected and their ability to pay the tax that they owe in a reasonable timeframe.
I have therefore asked Ray McCann, a former president of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, to conduct a review into the barriers that are preventing those subject to the loan charge from reaching resolution with HMRC and to recommend ways in which they can be encouraged to do so.
The objectives of this review are to help bring the matter to a close for those affected; ensure fairness for all taxpayers; and ensure that appropriate support is in place for those subject to the loan charge. The full terms of reference for the review have been published here: www.gov.uk/government/publications/independent-review-of-the-loan-charge.
The review will commence on 23 January 2025 and I have asked Mr McCann to present his final report to me by summer 2025. I will provide a further update to the House after I have received that report.
[HCWS386]
Infrastructure Planning and Judicial Review Reform
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
My noble Friend, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede), has today made the following statement:
My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook MP) and I are pleased to announce changes to the statutory judicial review process which will help to streamline and speed up infrastructure planning cases.
The delivery of major infrastructure projects is central to the Government’s mission to drive growth and unlock clean power. The largest and most complex of these projects currently require a development consent order (DCO) under the nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIPs) regime established by the Planning Act 2008.
The number of legal challenges against DCOs has spiked in recent years, with 58% of decisions being subject to legal challenge. Delays to these major projects have serious implications, including holding back the delivery of essential benefits to the country and imposing considerable additional costs on development.
Despite 30 challenges being brought against major infrastructure projects, only four decisions to approve a project have been overturned by the courts. It comes as research shows that, on average, each legal challenge takes 1.4 years to reach a conclusion and the courts have spent over 10,000 working days handling these cases. Such cases impact upon the use of public money, with major road projects paying up to £121 million per scheme due to delays in legal proceedings. While it is fundamental that the public can challenge the lawfulness of Government decisions, there is scope for rebalancing the judicial review process to improve efficiency and reduce delays to NSIPs.
In October, we published Lord Banner’s independent review into the delays to NSIPs caused by legal challenges, which recognised that concerns with the process were well founded and outlined policy options for the Government to consider. Alongside publishing Lord Banner’s report, we launched a call for evidence which sought views on Lord Banner’s ideas. This closed on 30 December. We thank Lord Banner for his work in delivering the review and all those who engaged with the call for evidence.
The Government today confirm that the current permission stage for NSIP judicial reviews will be overhauled. Instead of the current position where a claimant has “three bites of the cherry”—a paper permission stage, an option to renew to an oral permission hearing and, if unsuccessful, a right of appeal to the Court of Appeal—the new process will be streamlined. Hopeless legal challenges will have just one attempt rather than three to challenge a development consent decision.
The current first attempt—known as the paper permission stage—will be scrapped. All applications for permission will go straight to an oral hearing resulting in less cost to the parties. Primary legislation will be changed so that where a judge in an oral hearing at the High Court deems the case totally without merit, it will not be possible to ask the Court of Appeal to reconsider. To ensure ongoing access to justice, a request to appeal second attempt will be allowed for all other cases.
In addition, we will: introduce non-mandatory case management conferences to NSIP judicial reviews; formally designate NSIP judicial reviews as significant planning court claims; and work with the judiciary to introduce target timescales for NSIP judicial reviews in the Court of Appeal and in the Supreme Court.
Taken together, these changes will ensure that the right to challenge NSIP decisions is protected, but with more proportionate and effective processes that give developers and investors greater confidence to get building.
The Government response to the call for evidence on this matter will be published in due course. It will set out how the measures announced today will be taken forward and will provide the Government’s views on the other options which we have considered as part of the call for evidence.
These changes will avoid needless delay, cost and uncertainty for major infrastructure projects, ensuring we can deliver the infrastructure this country needs to drive growth, cut energy bills over time, cut commuting times, and put more money in hard working people’s pockets. These reforms will drive progress of our plan for change by leveraging more investment, supporting more businesses, and getting Britain building.
[HCWS385]
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Barber of Ainsdale
Introduction: Lord Rook
Prison Maintenance: Insourcing
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Woodley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential merits of insourcing all prison maintenance.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
The Government are committed to ensuring that there are professional facility management services across our prison estate. A 2023 assessment conducted in partnership with the Cabinet Office determined that an insourced solution was not the preferred option for future prison maintenance services. Financial analysis determined that an outsourced option would be more cost-effective and would deliver the best value for money. The Government have therefore initiated a programme of work that will put in place new contracts for the provision of maintenance services for prisons, which are being competitively tendered. However, I am keeping this approach under constant review to ensure we get the best value for taxpayers’ money.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his response, but it is undeniable that a decade of prison maintenance privatisation has been an absolute disaster. A disgraceful experiment has gone badly wrong and it blights the lives of everyone living and working in prisons. Does he agree that it is more than time to kick out the incompetent and greedy privateers and bring maintenance back in-house, which is far more cost-effective, and make much more use of works departments to give prisoners valuable extra skills through in-house maintenance and light repairs? I think this is called Q-Branch.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his question. The prison estate suffered historic underinvestment by the previous Government over the last five years, which has led to a growing backlog of maintenance tasks and shocks to the estate from dilapidations. This has made the prison capacity crisis even more acute. As future prison maintenance contracts approach expiry, we will conduct detailed assessments to inform decisions about whether to continue to outsource services, alongside our usual performance management process. Stopping the contract process we inherited last year would have meant incurring additional costs and delivering less value for money. I am glad that the noble Lord mentioned Q-Branch, which is an innovative model that has empowered prisoners to build new skills and play a part in keeping their prisons running smoothly by undertaking tasks such as basic cell restoration, painting and decorating. It is currently active in 25 establishments and I am exploring how we can expand it further, alongside a similar operation called CRED, which helps build skills within prisons that can be used on release to get a job and not reoffend.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, among the myriad problems that the Minister faces is the fact that probably half of the security cameras around the perimeters of our prison estate are not working. Is that because they are too old or did the original contracts not include appropriate maintenance so that these cameras can be made to work for our security and that of prisoners?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The noble Lord is correct that the security of our prisons is of utmost importance and that we need all our security apparatus working correctly. We have had years of underinvestment in our prison estate. I am pleased that the Government are spending £520 million from this year until the end of 2026 on lots of projects, including improving our security.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, the Minister touched on this in his earlier comments. Does he agree that all prisoners should have an opportunity to work and earn while they are imprisoned?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
As someone who has employed many people in prison over many years, I am a big fan of enabling people to gain skills and confidence so that when they are released, they are less likely to come back. But it is all about risk, and not everybody in prison is ready to work within prison. The first workshop I opened was in HMP Liverpool, where we taught people to repair shoes and watches—due to risk assessments, we were not allowed to teach people to cut keys.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply, but he must be aware, from reports in the press and his own extremely diligent visits to the prison estate, that something needs to be done about the poor quality of prisons. Will he therefore revisit the ideological decision by the previous Government not to allow the public sector to bid for maintenance contracts when the existing contracts run out at the end of this year?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. The key is to deliver value for money. If we had intervened in the process, it would have cost more. Ultimately, we are not opposed to considering a public sector option, and we will keep it under review. The question I keep asking myself and officials is whether we are getting value for money, and rehabilitative, safe and decent prisons?
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, Rule 31 of the Prison Rules 1999 provided that all convicted prisoners should be required to do useful work for up to 10 hours a day, and indeed it is a disciplinary offence for a prisoner to refuse to work. Yet we are constantly being told of prisoners spending 20 hours a day idle in their cells or cellblocks. Is this a failure of management or a failure of resources? Will the Government undertake to review such initiatives as the New Futures Network, which was established to allow businesses to set up workspaces within prisons?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
It is vital that, when people are in prison, they are in purposeful activity and not in their cells, so we are putting a lot of effort into getting more people out of their cells for longer. We have still got an awful lot more to do. We have too many prisons for the workshop and educational spaces that we have. The New Futures Network, with which I have been involved for many years, has been very successful in increasing the amount of people who get jobs on release from prison. Three years ago, 14% of people who left prison had a job after six months, and it is now over 30%.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on the work that he is doing. I hope he agrees with me that powerful voices, including the National Audit Office, the Public Accounts Committee and the Justice Committee in the other place, have highlighted how costs have soared while conditions have crumbled in prisons since privatisation. I hope that the Minister will take very seriously both the value for money question and the urgent need to consider insourcing—that is, having public maintenance of prisons.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
It is vital that the Government are led by the evidence and deliver value for money for the taxpayer. HMPPS has worked closely with the Cabinet Office to undertake a detailed assessment of prison maintenance requirements and how best to deliver them—I have even read all 175 pages of it. While they consider insourcing, the current evidence indicates that the private sector is best placed to provide a safe and decent estate, supported by effective maintenance that delivers value for money. I am continually monitoring performance and will keep my mind open to the best future options.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, last week, during a meeting with the National Preventive Mechanism, I was told that women in prison in Scotland with psychiatric conditions have to be transported 300 miles away. Can the Minister take an urgent look at that situation, but also tell us what is being done about self-harm and suicide in prisons?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I have a wide brief, but it does not include the prisons in Scotland. So far as female offenders are concerned, the issue is the same. This week, I was proud to chair the first Women’s Justice Board, and we will be tackling many of these issues. I have visited a number of women’s prisons over the years, and last week I visited Willowdene, which is a rehabilitative centre just outside Birmingham where women go as an alternative to custody. It is clear that many of those women are very ill and need help.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I have been in HM Prison Liverpool, in Walton—as a visitor—and seen first hand the work superb that the Minister refers to. His family deserve credit for all they have done. My experience of contracting, which is not as great as that of some in this House, is that the whole thing falls apart if the tender spec and terms of the contract are not clear. Any Government must be careful about picking the right price but the wrong provider—cheap is not always the best thing. Can the Minister give us an indication or a commitment that he will get the best person for the job, not the cheapest?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her kind comments; it is nice that we have known each other for many years and discussed this topic. I like to think that I bring to this job my skills as a business leader, where commercial decisions are not always about price but about service as well.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, this is another Tory shambles: the Tories were very good at locking up people but very bad at maintaining our prisons and the number of prison officers. We have got people locked up who should not be locked up. Will part of the Minister’s review look at whether alternative methods could be used where they are more suitable than prison?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for the question. He will be pleased to know that we are at 99.5% of the required level of prison officers. That does not mean that they are all in the right place or experienced, but that is one of my jobs to do. It is clear that there are a number of individuals in the criminal justice system whose chances of reoffending are higher by going to prison than others. That is why the Women’s Justice Board is looking specifically at this very important area.
Asylum Seekers: Legal Aid
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the availability and accessibility of legal aid for asylum seekers.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as a patron of the ASSIST charity in Sheffield.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for his Question. We are committed to improving the experience of all users and providers of civil legal aid. The Government are determined to improve and stabilise the civil legal aid sector, which was neglected for many years. Civil legal aid fees have not increased since 1996 and were cut by 10% by the previous Government. As an important first step towards this and having considered the evidence from the review of civil legal aid, we will consult on uplifting legal aid fees for immigration and asylum and for housing and debt this month, two sectors which we believe are particularly under pressure.
The Lord Bishop of Sheffield
I thank the Minister for that Answer. The Public Accounts Committee determined last year that there is a supply crisis in the immigration and asylum legal aid market. As a result, increasing numbers of asylum seekers are removed from the UK before being able to evidence their claim properly or mount a meaningful appeal. It cannot be right for justice to be sacrificed on the altar of cost saving. Given that in the year ending June 2024 48% of asylum appeals were successful, what support can the Government provide to those unable to lodge an appeal because they simply cannot find a legal aid representative to assist them?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, we are working within the sector to try to build up the support for people able to provide support for those making potential appeals. We are working with and funding the Law Society to enable it to fund the accreditation of suitably qualified people to enable this work to be undertaken. We are increasing the base of lawyers and others who can take on this work.
Lord Sahota (Lab)
My Lords, what provisions are in place when an asylum seeker is refused their initial asylum claim and NASS, the National Asylum Support Service, records only their refusal decision and not that the asylum seeker has submitted their appeal, with their accommodation and subsistence allowance therefore not reinstated?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for giving me notice of his question and I will write to him. I hear similar questions in my other private life, and I will ensure that a proper answer is provided to my noble friend’s question.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, most research suggests that about 60% of eligible asylum seekers cannot find a legal aid lawyer. The announced increase in legal aid rates should help but will not deal with the advice deserts across the country. Given the language difficulties and the complexity of these cases, online remote lawyers cannot cover the deficit. How will the Government encourage more solicitors to take on this work, and does the Minister agree that the review of civil legal aid has already demonstrated that urgently reducing the bureaucracy and complexity of legal aid contracting is at least part of the answer?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for the question; I certainly agree with the second part of it. Regarding the first part, the answer is very similar to the one I gave to the right reverend Prelate. The Government are funding the Law Society to help build up the base of lawyers and other legal professionals who can provide the advice to which the noble Lord has referred and to get rid of the “advice deserts”. I take his point about people not always giving their advice face to face; nevertheless, there has been a big change in remote advice for people seeking to make applications which we think has been beneficial. Nevertheless, there is the underlying issue of getting more people to work within the sector.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, we know that civil legal aid is now available in very limited circumstances and the disposable income threshold is little more than £3,000, so very few of our fellow citizens could ever qualify. An asylum seeker who has paid thousands of pounds to a people smuggler can reasonably argue upon his arrival at Dover that he has no disposable income and qualifies for legal aid, but the result is that we are now spending tens of millions of pounds on asylum cases from the Legal Aid Fund. Is there not a better and more efficient means of dealing with claims and the advice required by those seeking asylum in this country, including the suggestion of a government-supported and centralised legal representation unit for asylum cases, rather than this dispersed disposal of legal aid into what has been an advisory desert?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I was not aware of the suggestion of a centralised legal aid representation facility. If that is still being actively considered, I will write and confirm that to the noble and learned Lord. Nevertheless, he makes a reasonable point about building up the resources to be able to process these cases effectively, efficiently, fairly and humanely.
One other factor is that Duncan Lewis, the well-renowned law firm, has written that it believes that the new rates, which are very likely to be agreed, will help it to do more work in this area.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, anyone who reads the newspapers can see the huge gulf between the Rolls-Royce justice system available to those with bottomless pockets and what is available to those who have no legal aid and no money. Justice is not done if it is not affordable. I have in mind family law, which has a claim as great as asylum seekers, where people are left at the most stressful moments in their lives with no legal aid. Will the Government commit to some evening out of legal aid across all cases so that every citizen can get the legal aid and advice that they need?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I am very sympathetic to the question and the point that the noble Baroness raises in it. As she may know, my personal background was as a magistrate in the family law space, and I saw many hundreds of litigants in person when dealing with those cases. It is true that they very often were not adequately able to put their case forward. We are looking at various initiatives in that space, such as mediation vouchers and possibly early legal advice, and different approaches, but the fundamental point the noble Baroness makes is fair.
Children and Young People: Literacy
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the National Literacy Trust’s 2024 annual literacy survey showing that children and young people’s reading for enjoyment has fallen over the past year to an all-time low, and of the link between this and the fall in the number of secondary schools with a designated onsite library area.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, reading for pleasure is hugely important and has many benefits. The department has implemented a range of measures to support reading for enjoyment, including through the English hubs programme and the reading framework. Head teachers have the autonomy to decide how best to spend their core schools funding, including how best to provide a library service for their pupils. Given this autonomy, the department does not collect information on the number of secondary school libraries.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer but, notwithstanding it, reading levels among school age children have plummeted recently. That is not just because of the prominence of mobile phones, because comparable-aged children in comparable EU states have higher reading levels. I believe it is very much the case that the closure of school libraries has an important impact on that. While school leaders do indeed have the right to decide the best delivery of library services, as my noble friend said, for whatever reason it is not working. I suggest to my noble friend that, if figures are not collected on school librarians and libraries, they ought to be, and that school leaders need to be reminded of their role in encouraging reading for pleasure, to assist with children’s development and literacy and oracy skills.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I share my noble friend’s view about the importance and contribution of school libraries. Perhaps the additional core school funding being provided, or the quite particular advice that is now available in the reading framework—on things such as how to organise a school library, book corner or book stock to make reading accessible and attractive to readers—may well help to ensure that the opportunity is available for more children, as he rightly argues for.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, reading achievement for 10 year-olds in England is higher than the international average, and the last Government are to be congratulated on all their efforts towards achieving this. However, as we have heard, England ranks in the bottom third of countries for children enjoying reading. Does the Minister agree that, although the mechanics of reading are of course a vital foundation, it is the enjoyment of reading that gives transformative benefits across mental health, creativity, imagination and attainment across the curriculum? What will her department do to encourage partnerships with cultural organisations locally, which can help deliver projects and programmes that will bring reading to life and help deliver enjoyment to young people, rather than just the mechanics of reading?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that we have seen significant progress in the teaching of early reading, and I congratulate all those involved in that. I remember how in 2006 the then Secretary of State, Ruth Kelly, adopted the recommendations of the Rose review on the teaching of early reading, especially phonics. The noble Baroness makes an important point that, although the ability to read is a fundamental basis for all children, it is also important that we find a range of ways, including using other partners in the creative area and elsewhere, to engage a passion for reading. That also has to start before children even get to school, with the support of family hubs and some of the campaigns that are already available there.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, following on from the answer that my noble friend has just given, does she agree that the most important starting point for children to allow them to go on to enjoy reading in the way that the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, described, is if they are read to when they are very young? Nearly all of us probably had that experience and have probably gone on to deliver it to our children and grandchildren, if we have them. What efforts are the Government making to explain more clearly to people who might otherwise not understand the benefits of reading to children how important it is, and how important it is to start really early, long before children can speak?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. I still remember my mother’s excellent Winnie the Pooh voice, my children—I think—benefited from my reading to them, and I very much hope that at some point I will be able to read to some grandchildren. My noble friend is also absolutely right that we need to provide support as early as possible to parents who perhaps do not find it as easy to understand how to do that. That is why, alongside services in family hubs, the development of the campaign Little Moments Together, which is providing that sort of advice—including to those who perhaps have not received it from their own parents—is important in order to support children’s early development and that joy of reading, which is so important.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, following on from the general theme of the importance of very early reading, what emphasis is given in primary schools to ensuring that primary children enjoy reading?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, one of the important roles of the English hubs programme, which the Government are supporting with a further £23 million this year, has been to ensure that both access to high-quality reading and elements of reading for pleasure are provided for teachers across primary schools, and that includes the opportunity for continuous professional development, specifically in reading for pleasure, for teachers.
Lord Kamall (Con)
Why waste an opportunity?
Touching on the Answer from the Minister earlier on, she will be aware of the many reading charities that help adults and children to improve their reading skills, or actually learn to read in the first place. Can the Minister tell us a little more about the work that her department does with many of these civil society organisations and charities to increase literacy, not only for children but for adults?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very important point. Going back to the Little Moments Together campaign that I was talking about earlier, we have provided grant funding for early years voluntary and community sector partners, including the National Literacy Trust, to work with families on that campaign. As I said earlier to the noble Baroness, there are also ways in which we can look at the relationship with other organisations, particularly creative and arts organisations, to help to ensure that the joy of reading is available to all children, whatever their background.
Lord Hampton (CB)
And the noble Lord will be marking my homework later.
The National Literacy Trust says that one in seven primary schools in the UK does not have a library, and in London it is one in four. It has a ready-made Libraries for Primaries campaign set up with Penguin. Will the Government think about sorting this out now?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As a fellow teacher, although from quite a long time ago, I can say that the noble Lord makes a very good point. It builds on the earlier point about how we can work alongside the National Literacy Trust and others, along with the Government’s reading framework, to make sure that schools know and have the information and best practice available to them to develop libraries if they do not have them, and to make the most of them if they do.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, some of the findings from the National Literary Trust report are particularly striking in relation to reading. Only half as many boys as girls in secondary schools say they enjoy reading, but the trust also has interesting findings on the drop in the enjoyment of writing. We know from many experts in the field how important writing is for a child’s development. Can the Minister reassure the House that writing will retain at least the same importance in the curriculum and assessment review, and is she able to update the House on when we will see that interim report?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that there is a lot of important information in the National Literacy Trust’s annual literacy survey. She is also right about writing, which is why the terms of reference for the curriculum and assessment review are clear that it should seek to deliver an excellent foundation in the core subjects of reading, writing and maths, as well as the broader curriculum that readies young people for life and work. I believe that the interim report will be available in the early spring and I know that many people will be looking forward to it.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend the Minister would like to take this opportunity to thank Frank Cottrell-Boyce for the sterling work that he is doing to promote the fact, precisely as my noble friend said, that reading begins not at the door of the school but when parents and carers share books with children in a safe, warm and comfortable environment. It is that that inculcates the love of reading and the love of books.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right, and I praise the intervention of Frank Cottrell-Boyce and of course of other writers of excellent children’s literature who promote the joy of reading. She is also right, as I have previously said, that that needs to start almost as soon as children are born. We will do what we can through the development of family hubs and our plan for change to ensure that children are prepared when they get to school, to make sure that that includes a love of reading and the ability to experience it in all families.
Chagos Islands
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bellingham
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to engage with the new administration in the United States to discuss the future of the Chagos Islands.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, this deal protects UK and US national security interests by ensuring the long-term effective operations of the base. However, given the importance of the base to the US, it is right that the new Administration have the chance to consider the full agreement. We look forward to discussing the deal with them, which will include sharing the full detail of what has been agreed, including the detailed protections that we have secured for the base.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
I am grateful for that Answer. Is the Minister aware that, on independence, Mauritius was paid an extra grant to waive any future right to the Chagos Islands? Furthermore, is she aware that, because the UK did not contest the recent ICJ judgment, we are not bound by it, so it is purely advisory? Does she agree that it was a diplomatic error to push ahead with the treaty before the elections in Mauritius and the States? Has the time not now come to work with our American partners on a fresh treaty that protects the rights of the Chagossians while providing some sort of financial package for Mauritius? Above all, rather than a 99-year lease on Diego Garcia, which will only encourage the Chinese, should we not go for a sovereign base island in perpetuity?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Of course we are aware that the ICJ ruling is advisory—we have discussed it many times in this House—but just because that ruling was advisory does not mean that there would not be future rulings. We believe that we are in a stronger position to negotiate ahead of a binding ruling than we would be waiting for one. Interestingly, the previous Government shared that view, which is why they commenced two years and 11 or 12 rounds of negotiations themselves. We are working very closely with the new Administration in the United States, and we will talk to them in great detail about what this deal means.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
My Lords, one of the groups that feels so alienated from this entire process is the Chagossians who live here in the United Kingdom. Since the deal was announced by the Government, there has been little to no engagement with that group. I plead with the Minister to engage with those people, who live here in the United Kingdom and have a clear view as to the way they want to see things happen.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
It is absolutely right that the noble Baroness raises the views of the Chagossian community, which has been badly treated over very many years. What matters now is that we are straightforward and upfront with them about what has been agreed, so that they do not feel that we are hiding things from them. We would be happy to engage with the Chagossian community. I believe my honourable friend Stephen Doughty, the Minister responsible for this arrangement, has met them in the recent past, but I will certainly take on board her encouragement that we do some more of that engagement.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, has the Minister seen reports that these negotiations and discussions—which, incidentally, as she said, were started by Members opposite—have led to some people suggesting that there is some doubt about the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar? Does she agree that these comments from Members opposite are mischievous, and can she confirm that they are untrue?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
They are not just mischievous; they are opportunistic, wrong, misleading and undermine the confidence of the Falkland Islanders. Our commitment to the Falklands is non-negotiable, and our commitment to self-determination remains as strong as it has ever been.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
Will the Minister confirm that, whatever solution is adopted, there will be payments to the Government of Mauritius? If so, will the United States make a contribution? Will she confirm that the Ministry of Defence will not make a contribution?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble and gallant Lord invites me to go further than my briefing allows. We do not comment on the payments made for military bases—we never have done and I do not think we will do that any time soon.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
The previous Administration, on whose behalf the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, will be able to respond in a moment, opened sovereignty negotiations in 2022. The national security interests of the United States are legitimate. Our interests are also about upholding international law and ensuring that Chagossians do not receive any more mistreatment under international law. Will the Minister assure me that, although the American Administration have a right to discussions, decisions on UK national security should ultimately be in our hands, not in those of Donald Trump?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
As I know the noble Lord understands, this is an agreement between the UK Government and the Government of Mauritius, but practically, given that the base on Diego Garcia is a joint base between the UK and the US, we think, and the Mauritian Government agree, that it is right that a new Administration in the United States have the opportunity to look at this and give their view. We are very happy for that to happen.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, first, I refute the allegation that anyone on these Benches believes that any of our overseas territories should be given away. Security comes first, and I am sure that view is shared across your Lordships’ House—just to be clear. Secondly, on the issue of the British Indian Ocean Territory, yes, there were 11 rounds of negotiations. There was a reason why 11 rounds took place: because the issue of security could not be addressed. I was there when we worked with President Trump’s first Administration, who were very clear—as, indeed, is the spokesman for this new Administration—that security comes first. We could not agree, which is why there were so many rounds. What changed to allow the Government to sign that deal?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
If the noble Lord is concerned about comments by Members on the security and future of the Falklands, he ought to have a word with some of his colleagues about the comments that they have made.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am responding to the points raised by the noble Lord. There were 11 rounds, and it was very clear in the Statement made to this House and in the other place by the then Foreign Secretary, Mr Cleverly, that those negotiations took place in good faith in order to secure the future of the base on Diego Garcia. That is something that this Government have been able to negotiate. Why the noble Lord’s Government failed to get there is a matter for him.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, perhaps we failed to get there because it was not the right deal for the UK. Has the Minister had the chance to read last week’s excellent Policy Exchange report on this Chagos handover? She says that she has. The forward to that report say that
“our overseas military bases—so indispensable to British national security—are an invaluable currency. So too is the strength and depth of our relationship with the United States.
For reasons that are difficult to fathom, the Government risks jeopardising both of these assets as it apparently remains determined to cede sovereignty of the Chagos Islands—the home of our … Diego Garcia military base—to Mauritius”.
That foreword was written by the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, a former Labour Defence Minister. Does she agree with her noble friend?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I think noble Lords will be pleased to know that I have not had time to read the foreword to that Policy Exchange document. It is our view, which we maintain, that we needed to resolve this issue. We prioritised security and defence when we made our decisions. That is the UK Government’s position. We have secured an arrangement with the Mauritians that we believe guarantees the security of that base. We continue with the process towards the signing of that treaty.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, the mean height of the Chagos Islands is four feet above sea level. Is global warming going to take this political bickering out of all of our hands?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I hope not. I do not see it as political bickering, actually; it is a legitimate debate. These are important decisions and I am very happy to be held to account for the decisions that we are taking. The noble Lord is right, however, to alert us to the plight of many small islands across the world that are suffering from the impact of climate change. That is why this Government have a commitment to doing everything we can to reduce our carbon emissions.
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the net result of the negotiations has been to introduce instability? The word is out to the Mauritian Government that if they go back to the original deal and ask for more money, they will get more money. This insecurity will be very damaging. If we now abandon the foolish deal that the Government have reached under instruction from President Trump, will we not look rather foolish and rather abject?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
No. Like the previous Government, we think that this situation needed to be resolved in a way that gave security for the future. We have a deal that will last at least 99 years. It is far better to deal with that ahead of any binding ruling, where the UK was likely to lose support, than to wait for a binding ruling and negotiate from a position that would have been far weaker.
Armed Forces Commissioner Bill
Covid-19 Inquiry
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing to the House this Statement on the government response to the Covid-19 inquiry module 1 report. I thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, for her leadership and the work of her team. I pay tribute to those who lost their lives and to the families who continue to grieve. Their loss is not just a memory but a standing rebuke to complacency—a warning against the easy comfort of forgetting. If this inquiry is to mean anything, it must ensure that the failures of the past are never repeated.
The Government’s response recognises those failures, but recognition is not the same as resolution. The inquiry lays bare what went wrong. Lives were lost not because those in government or on the front line lacked effort or intention but because the system they relied on was too slow, too complex and too poorly maintained. The structures for emergency response were fatally flawed, with too many competing voices and unclear lines of authority. When the crisis hit, leaders lacked the information they needed to make informed decisions quickly. Vital data was unavailable, inconsistent or siloed. Worst of all, preparedness had been allowed to slip down the priority list. Without a recent crisis to focus the mind, plans had gathered dust. When they were finally needed, they were out of date or prepared for another type of pandemic.
We broadly welcome the steps that the Government have taken, especially to ensure that the Cabinet Office has a clearer and stronger role in crisis and resilience co-ordination. I appreciate that the Government have clearly signalled their intention to build on the work started by the last Government. The Resilience Directorate should provide clearer leadership. The resilience academy will help build expertise. A full-scale pandemic exercise is a necessary step in testing our ability to respond. These are real improvements, and we support them.
However, there is still much more to do. Preparedness must not be something that the Government remember only when disaster strikes. A culture of resilience should be embedded across the system, with clear accountability for ensuring that it does not fade from view. The Government’s response does not go far enough in simplifying the system. Complexity was a core failing in our pandemic response, yet we are in danger of replacing one tangle of bureaucracy with another. Data sharing remains a critical weakness, and without an efficient way to collect, share and use real-time information, we will make the same mistakes again.
That is why recommendation 10 is the wrong answer. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, calls for simplification, yet her recommendation to establish yet another arm’s-length body would add another layer of complexity. A new statutory body, given responsibility for strategic advice, assessment, local consultation and national capability planning, is simply too broad in scope. A body that is simultaneously an adviser, a regulator, a strategy setter and a watchdog will be a body that lacks focus. Instead of bringing clarity, it will muddy decision-making. Instead of streamlining the system, it will entangle it further. Instead of ensuring resilience, it will create yet another institution competing for influence within an already crowded space.
If independent oversight is needed, let it be exactly that—an assessment function that checks government preparedness against a clear framework set by Ministers, not a permanent fixture with an ever-growing remit. Otherwise, we risk creating a body that spends its time lobbying Ministers for its own recommendations, regardless of whether they are useful or practical. When disaster strikes, there must be no doubt about who is responsible, who is making the decisions and who is accountable to the public.
There are, of course, deeper questions that must be answered. How will we measure progress? Unless we have clear benchmarks, improvement is just an illusion. Without real accountability and framework clarity, the reviews, consultations and task forces risk being temporary solutions. Working out what to do is the easy part. The hard part is ensuring rigorous implementation backed up by data. Is there data to support the whole-system emergency strategy? In recommendation 7, the report asked for three-month publications to report back the findings of the nationwide investigations. Can the Minister speak to that?
Why is this inquiry taking so long? Lessons that could save lives should already be implemented. The Government speak of a duty of candour, but honesty is already required in the Civil Service Code. Yet as numerous inquiries such as Horizon, infected blood and Grenfell have demonstrated, it has not delivered transparency in the past, so how will this now be ensured? Above all, how do we ensure that this inquiry does not become just another exercise in bureaucratic introspection? We have seen too many reports whose conclusions are welcomed, debated, nodded at solemnly and quietly ignored. This cannot be one of them. The Government have not yet responded to last year’s House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee report on reforming the process by which public inquiries are conducted, and the committee has said it is unacceptable that so many recommendations have not been implemented. I call on the Government to consider last year’s report. Can the Minister provide an update on the timely implementation of the recommendations? So far, only one recommendation has been implemented.
Resilience is not built through process. It is not achieved by handing responsibly to another statutory body. It is built through strong leadership, clear accountability and a system that is ready to act when the moment demands. The Government’s response is a step in the right direction, but we must go further and move faster because the next crisis will not wait. When it comes, the true test will not be whether we have created another agency, or published another report, but whether we are finally and fully prepared to respond.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I echo the comments in the Statement and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and extend our sympathies from these Benches to all those who lost loved ones in the Covid pandemic, those who are still losing loved ones to Covid—even though the numbers are much reduced—and those who are still living with the consequences, either with long Covid or with Covid having changed their health in other ways.
I also thank and remember everyone who stepped up to do extraordinary things during the pandemic, including the NHS, social care, our local government and directors of public health leading our local resilience forums. We must also not forget those who kept important infrastructure work going—railways and bus services, supermarkets, farmers and all those who helped to bring in the homeless in those early days of lockdown. The speed of response and care shown were inspirational. From these Benches we also thank everyone who took on volunteer roles. They show the strength of our British civil society, especially in a serious crisis.
The Covid inquiry report on preparedness makes it plain that the last Government did not get it right, but I suspect that had it happened after the election, the same would have happened. This is not just about politicians. It is also about how our Civil Service and others had always pushed it as a non-urgent item, meaning that funding and reviews did not happen. That is probably one of the reasons why it took the UK much longer to get ready when the pandemic came to our shores. I always try to contrast the work of Taiwan. Resilience is there every single day, not for pandemics but for an invasion by China. Taiwan’s relationship with people, with civil society and with different government departments is entirely different from ours. As a result, it was able to move much more swiftly.
So my first question to the Minister is: as pandemic preparedness is not just about those who have direct responsibilities and roles, what are the Government doing to change the cultural way that our society thinks? For example, some people say that masks are absolutely unnecessary and fight having to wear them, when we know that there is a large spread of infectious diseases going on at the moment, particularly in hospital.
I was interested in the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, that the report’s proposal for an arm’s-length body is wrong. I believe that she is wrong, because setting up lots of small units is not helpful. Part of my Front-Bench brief is to follow all the current inquiry and compensation schemes, and common to all of them is a Civil Service attitude that retains departmental priority rather than looking at the crisis. I am not trying to traduce civil servants, many of whom do step up, but there is a culture, as noble Lords know, that, as you have to work to your annual budget, you work to the priorities that you are set, and I am afraid that it is clear from the Covid inquiry report that the pandemic did not feature on the radar.
I think a UK resilience academy is a good idea, but its funding must be protected. Attendance on courses must be compulsory for certain key individuals, and it is important that this covers other emergencies, too: flooding, bombings and any other major unexpected event must have people who will run towards the crisis while everyone else is told to move away.
However, funding for the academy is not enough. We must have ring-fenced and guaranteed funding for local resilience forums. I did not start, and I should have done, by declaring my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. It is appalling that local government’s public health role funding was not just decreased but often announced late over the last 10 years, meaning that there was little capacity for LRFs to focus on anything other than the most urgent demands, so they could not plan ahead for other events.
The previous Government often talked about reducing waste in public services and cutting pandemic planning. Worse, they did not even learn from the events that did happen. The inquiry report says that that must not happen again and these Benches agree. While it is good that there will be a full national pandemic exercise this year, I ask the Minister how often these will be held in the future.
I will very briefly mention vulnerable groups, which are referred to in the Statement. We seem to have moved back to a world where vulnerable groups are people who may be elderly or disabled, but we forget the clinically vulnerable, who are still with us. Particularly on health issues, will the Government make sure that, whenever vulnerable groups are discussed, clinically vulnerable people will be checked as well? There are recommendations in today’s second inquiry report, which has been published, to increase the base of vaccination to ensure that many more clinically vulnerable people are regularly given access to vaccinations.
The new national risk register is impressive, and pages 7 and 8 demonstrate how much the new Government—I give the previous Government some credit for starting work on this—have taken on board from the Covid inquiry report and other reports on key emergencies in recent times.
I end with a warning. In the excellent social and medical history of the Spanish flu pandemic, author Laura Spinney had a number of chapters at the end on life across the world post the pandemic. Virtually all the lessons that they said they would learn in the immediate aftermath of that pandemic were forgotten, including preparing for future emergencies—so much so that, in the mid-1930s, when large numbers of young people were dying of strokes and heart attacks, nobody could work out why. These days, we would understand why.
The Covid inquiry’s clear recommendation to centre all preparedness in the Cabinet Office is rejected by the Government. I wonder whether the Government will review that. I recognise that they are talking about devolving, but the Cabinet Office must hold control of everything.
Finally, by all means have some departmental staff with expertise involved, but we need a neutral body that can see the whole emergency and is able to challenge the preconception better. For example, local resilience forums, and in particular the directors of public health, were ignored by NHS England and the Department of Health for far too long. Will the Government undertake to look at this issue?
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Finn and Lady Brinton, for their comments. A number of important issues have been raised, which I will address. If there is not time for me to go through all the points, I will pick them up with the noble Baronesses afterwards. Because LRFs were noted, I should inform the House that I was chair of the London LRF during the pandemic.
In July last year, as your Lordships’ House will be aware, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, published her report from the first module of the Covid inquiry. It concluded that the UK was not as prepared as it should have been and that more could and should have been done, and this Government agree. Before I turn to our response, I join others in expressing my thanks to the noble and learned Baroness and her team for the work that they have done so far in the inquiry.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, made clear, our thoughts should also be with those who lost loved ones during the pandemic, so I also pay tribute to the bereaved families and friends. We have a visual reminder of that opposite Parliament in the form of the Covid memorial wall. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made clear, a huge number of people helped both with the response and by keeping the country going through what was a very difficult time.
The Government accept the inquiry’s findings and agree that the UK was not prepared for a pandemic, as it should have been. We agree with what the inquiry is seeking to achieve through its recommendations but, in one or two instances, we may be using different means to achieve the same objectives. The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, highlighted some of the issues that led to the UK not being as prepared for the Covid pandemic as it should have been. There have already been significant improvements since, and I acknowledge the changes made by the previous Administration. However, clearly there is further to go.
My view is that our country’s resilience should not be politicised. I am grateful for the tone of the debate so far, which has reflected this in the thoughtful comments of the noble Baronesses. Since the election, the Government have already taken steps to strengthen the UK’s resilience. In July, we announced a review of national resilience and work on this is proceeding. Parliament will be updated on its conclusion in the spring. The Prime Minister has established a single Cabinet committee for resilience, chaired by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, which meets regularly to ensure clear and rigorous ministerial oversight. We have also adopted the 2023 UK Biological Security Strategy to protect the UK and our interests from significant biological risks.
There are also three new commitments in the Government’s response that I will highlight. As noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, we will be undertaking a pandemic exercise. We agree with the inquiry’s recommendation on this and will be undertaking a full national pandemic response exercise later this year. It will be the first of its kind in nearly a decade and will test the UK’s capabilities, plans, protocols and procedures in the event of another major pandemic.
Secondly, the inquiry found that the pandemic had a disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups and continues to affect many people in these communities, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. A new risk vulnerability tool, created by the Cabinet Office with the Office for National Statistics, will geographically map the population numbers of those who may be vulnerable in a crisis. It will do this by sharing data, including on age, disability, ethnicity or whether someone is receiving care. This should improve the Government’s understanding of the scale and location of disproportionately impacted populations ahead of and during crises, and enable targeted local support where required.
Finally, the Government have published an updated national risk register.
On the specific points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, on recommendation 10 for an independent statutory body, the Government agree with the principle of independent scrutiny but, given the importance of ensuring that this complements existing governance, it is right that we take the time to consider the best mechanism to deliver this. The Government also want to work with relevant stakeholders, including the devolved Governments, to ensure that any solution has broad support across the four nations. Since the pandemic, the Government have brought in more external advice and challenge across the resilience system.
On the noble Baroness’s point about the length of time taken by the Covid inquiry, I note that the terms of reference were set by the previous Government. The inquiry chair is very mindful of the need to make improvements as we go along, which is why a module-by-module approach has been adopted.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about masks. NHS organisations determine any decisions on mandating or enhancing the use of face masks to reduce transmission in their settings based on the local prevalence and risk assessments. UKHSA continues to recommend that organisations use effective mitigations, including hand hygiene, ventilation and face masks. Some NHS settings, including hospitals, have adopted this during the current winter.
On LRFs and vulnerable people, we will publish revised guidance in February to help LRFs identify and support people who are vulnerable in an emergency. Vulnerability is, and has to be, a key focus of the Cabinet Office-led review of our approach to resilience. We are engaging with charitable, faith and other relevant representative organisations to understand how the reduction and prevention of disproportionate impacts to at-risk groups and persons can be better considered in resilience planning and policy.
We will monitor the implementation of the commitments made in response to module 1. The noble Baroness, Lady Finn, asked about the House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee. I have read the report and found it very interesting. The Government are grateful to the committee for the report and its thoughtful consideration of the issues surrounding inquiries. We are carefully considering its recommendations and will publish our response soon.
The impact of the Covid-19 pandemic was unprecedented in modern memory. It ultimately caused the loss of far too many lives, and our thoughts are with those who lost loved ones. The Government also remain committed to engaging fully with the inquiry and await the recommendations of subsequent module reports as the noble and learned Baroness continues her important work.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my chairing of the National Preparedness Commission. I welcome the Government’s response to the module 1 report. The nation is on a journey, which was started by the previous Government; I am pleased that it has been continued by the present Government. In particular, I welcome the recognition that resilience and preparedness are an essential underpinning of the Government’s missions for change and everything else, and that those missions themselves feed back into preparedness and resilience. I specifically welcome the fact that the emergency alerts scheme—which, as noble Lords know, I have been championing for some time—is to be tested on a regular basis in addition to when it is used, if you like, in anger.
I was interested in the slight differences in emphasis on recommendation 10, but surely the important point is that, when the Government bring forward their review of resilience, they recognise that there needs to be a legal underpinning. In the same way that the Climate Change Act requires Government Ministers and government departments to work towards delivering net zero, there should be a similar sort of obligation requiring them to work towards resilience. Is that under active consideration? There is also the question of whether something like the Climate Change Committee—which, if you like, marks the Government’s homework—which would have a validity under those circumstances. The prime responsibility is to make sure that everybody recognises that they all have to contribute to this.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My noble friend makes a really important point about this being something that everybody has to contribute to. On his point about potential need for changes to the legislative framework, the current basis of legislation is the Civil Contingencies Act, and the next formal statutory review should be completed by 2027. However, in light of the recent inquiries around Covid and Grenfell, it is right that we look at the legislative framework and ensure that it meets the need of the evolving risk landscape and the growing expectations on the local tier in particular. We are considering the legislative framework as part of the resilience review, which, as noble Lords will be aware, will conclude in spring 2025.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, one of the most notable successes during the whole Covid pandemic was that of the Vaccine Taskforce, which achieved extraordinary things. Yet, in October 2022, it was effectively abandoned and its work absorbed into two different agencies. Does the Minister think that the Government would consider reinstituting it, as the need for vaccines appears to be still very pressing?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The Vaccine Taskforce clearly contributed a huge amount, and we should be really proud of the innovation within the UK on this, including the development of some of the first vaccines. This is one of the points for future modules; the hearings on vaccines and therapeutics are currently taking place, so I do not want to stray too much into that. There is a point at which things need to shift from being emergency response to business as usual, but I note the noble Baroness’s concerns and will feed them back to relevant Ministers as part of their consideration.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
Does the Minister think that the inquiry will look closely at the question of collateral damage from the way that the whole Covid epidemic was dealt with? Let us face it: the economy was absolutely ruined by the flood of money that was put into it; the education of young children was gratuitously ignored, and the damages are still being felt today; and many people in the health system who were suffering from other complaints such as cancer, strokes and heart attacks have suffered dreadfully as a result of it. Are they going to deal with the collateral damage of the Covid epidemic? I think that this was much worse than dealing with the disease itself.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a point on collateral damage and the impact of the pandemic. I think a lot of us will recognise that, particularly the impact on children and young people, from those we have in our families and social context. The length of the inquiry was noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, and one of the reasons for its length is that it will go into quite a lot of detail to look at the impact on particular aspects of society beyond the initial response, the preparedness and the impact on individuals from the disease itself. The hearings on the impact on children and young people are due to take place in September later this year. Then, the hearings on module 9, which is the module after that one, are due to take place in November 2025. The wider impact on society is in module 10, towards the end of the consideration of the impact of Covid by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, and those hearings are currently expected to take place early next year.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement to the House and, in so doing, I remind noble Lords of my own interests as chairman of the Office for Strategic Coordination of Health Research and as chairman of UK Biobank.
I would like to reflect a little bit further on recommendation 5, which deals with the question of research and data. The recovery trial conducted during Covid was essential in rapidly bringing forward treatments that were proven and could be applied quickly to the benefit of those hospitalised with Covid who were requiring treatment and intervention, and it had a major impact on saving lives. It was possible only because the Secretary of State had to issue a COPI notice to ensure that there was access to confidential patient data, which was essential in being able to undertake such research studies as the recovery study.
Is the Minister content that sufficient progress has been made in curating the totality of NHS data available and ensuring it is research ready, so that it could be applied effectively at scale and pace in any future pandemic? Can she confirm that the funding to support the capacity in infrastructure to undertake clinical research provided through the National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Medical Research Council will be protected in the forthcoming spending round to ensure that this vital research capacity is available at short notice if we have a future pandemic?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My noble friend Lord Livermore is here, so I am sure he heard the noble Lord’s point about the spending review. I will feed the noble Lord’s comments in.
In relation to data and future research, the Government agree with the inquiry that data and research are crucial to preparing for and responding to future pandemics. Clearly, it is a matter of when, not if. We have made significant progress on identifying the data across government. The National Situation Centre was established in 2021 and provides situational awareness for crisis response. As a resilience geek, I think that is a fascinating development that has contributed quite a lot. I note the noble Baroness’s previous role in it.
The UKHSA continues to develop and optimise data surveillance capabilities to keep ahead of the next threats across all population groups, society and public services, locally and globally. That is something on which we agree with the inquiry’s recommendation, and we hope the noble Lord will recognise that delivery has already started. I am happy to pick up any additional points with him directly.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, pointedly raised the issue of mental health and the response to it in this report. The report emphasises the need for more research and better data collection, as well as development. I wonder whether the noble Baroness is aware that perhaps the most important cognitive science going on in this country is in the medical research units, which are few in number, with several hundred specialised scientists—among the best in the world, including Nobel Prize winners—who currently are concerned that their budget is being not increased but reduced. There is a serious risk that we will lose those staff, who are the best in the world. If we are to improve mental health, it is important to understand the phenotype as well as the basic causes of these conditions. They are too important to be ignored any longer.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My noble friend makes an important point. This Government are taking the Mental Health Bill through your Lordships’ House at the moment. I will come back to him with a specific response on the points he raises.
Going back to my previous answer on future modules, I think that some of the issues around mental health and its importance in how we approach any future pandemic, and measures we might take, will continue to emerge through the inquiry’s hearings.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her kind words and I am very glad that the Government are building on the work we did on resilience. I am particularly delighted by the plans for an emergency dummy run and for the extra testing of alerts. Those practical measures are really important.
The noble Baroness also mentioned data sharing. We discussed that yesterday at the Statistics Assembly, which was recommended by Professor Denise Lievesley, as she may know. It comes through strongly that we still have a lot more to do on data sharing.
Can the noble Baroness tell us how much the inquiry has cost? Obviously, there are two parts to that. There is the large cost of the team of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, and all her lawyers. There is also the cost of the civil servants engaged, and of the supporting witnesses. I am very interested to know what we have spent so far and the estimate of the cost for the future, at this difficult time when we are trying to bear down on expenditure everywhere. I see the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, in his seat.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
The inquiry regularly publishes details of the money that has been spent. The figures I have relate to the inquiry costs. The noble Baroness is correct that the organisations involved, particularly those with core participant status, are also likely to be putting in additional resources. I will try to establish whether we have an estimate of that.
From its establishment up to September 2024, the inquiry spent £124.2 million. As I noted in my initial response to these questions, the inquiry chair is delivering on the terms of reference agreed with the previous Government. She is under a statutory obligation to avoid unnecessary costs in the inquiry’s work and has been clear that she intends to complete her work as quickly and efficiently as possible. The Government also regularly publish their costs in relation to the inquiry response, and I will write to the noble Baroness on that.
Today’s debate has shown how it is hard to constrain costs when you have demands for the inquiry to look at every single aspect. This was a whole-society crisis—a whole-society emergency. It touched every aspect of society. That is not to downplay the cost of the inquiry. I note that the House of Lords report that was referenced earlier highlighted costs as one of its concerns.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, does the Minister share my disappointment that the eloquent contribution from the Front Bench opposite by the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, for whom I have the greatest respect, did not include any apologies, not so much for Ministers partying while others suffered but for the fact that some people made millions—well, billions—supplying materials and equipment that subsequently turned out to be unusable? Will the Minister give me an absolute assurance that she and all her colleagues will co-operate fully with the Covid corruption commissioner to make sure that all those who wrongly profited from the Covid pandemic are brought to book?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am sure that all those who are asked will co-operate fully with the Covid corruption commissioner. I do not entirely share my noble friend’s view. I felt that the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, did acknowledge that there had been issues that led to some of the problems the UK faced during the Covid pandemic. My view is that all political parties have a role to work together to ensure that our resilience is as strong as it can be for the future. I hope that we continue to work on a cross-party basis to improve this country’s resilience, and that all noble Lords feed into the wider review on the UK’s resilience, which the Government are undertaking at the moment.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I hope the noble Baroness will forgive me if I did not hear properly, but I did not hear the answer to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, about research. We have the best people doing research—some of them Nobel Prize winners—and their budget has been cut, and if this is not addressed pretty quickly they may leave and do it somewhere else. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, is here and that he deals with budgets. What are we going to do about the possibility of some of our best researchers deciding to go somewhere else where there is money that will allow them to do their research?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
Clearly, we want to keep the best researchers in the country here. With the best will in the world, and with the great forbearance of the team that has been preparing my brief, I have gone back on an almost minute-by-minute basis over the last two days to get points added to it. I committed to my noble friend that I would write to him about the specific points he raised in his question. I will be honest: I do not have the answer to that specific question here today.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I return to the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about the situation today of clinically vulnerable and otherwise vulnerable groups of people. I note that the Statement says that
“the inquiry found that the pandemic had a disproportionate impact on vulnerable groups and continues to affect many people in those communities”.
Given that, as the WHO says, the Covid pandemic is continuing and we have the threat of multiple other respiratory viruses—I note that H5N1 is an area of great concern—how would the Minister assess the Government’s current approach to clinically vulnerable and more broadly vulnerable groups? I am thinking particularly of their access to commercial and community spaces, and to schools that have clean air through either ventilation or filtration. Dame Kate Bingham from the Vaccine Taskforce told the inquiry this week that there is concern about the availability of prophylactic antibodies for people who cannot benefit in the same way as others from vaccines. Where are we now in making sure that treatment is available for those people?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
One of the things that the pandemic threw up as an issue that all responders had to deal with was the redefinition of who was vulnerable. It is something that LRF responders were very aware of at the time. The Government are committed to engaging widely with vulnerable communities and civil society to ensure that the factors that affect vulnerability, including health inequalities and socioeconomic inequalities, are much better understood as we review our approach to resilience. We are going to come back on the response that was in the review later in the spring. We recognise that vulnerability should be a key focus, and it is a key focus of the Cabinet Office-led review of our approach to resilience. In order to get the response on this right, we are engaging with charitable, faith and other representative organisations to understand how the reduction and prevention of disproportionate impact on at-risk groups and persons can be better considered in our planning and policy.
Economic Growth
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Farmer
That this House takes note of the conditions required for economic growth.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have made time to prepare for and contribute to this important debate on taking note of the conditions required for economic growth. I pray that it will be helpful, constructive and stimulating, as we hold the Government to account for their major election pledge to bring about growth, presently at which they are struggling. I will focus today on mood, spirit, culture and the social underpinnings of market economies, often neglected subjects in growth discussions.
On 29 July, the Chancellor first said the new Government had
“inherited a projected overspend of £22 billion”,—[Official Report, Commons, 29/7/24; col. 1033.]
or a black hole, and so began the gloomfest, with warnings of a very difficult Budget and, probably unintentionally, the destructive talkdown of the economy. The cloud of employment rights soon appeared on the horizon, with much employer scratching of heads as to how these 28 reforms were going to deliver growth, given concerns, for example, that day-one rights could mean that they were stuck with an unsuitable hire.
Last quarter’s rise in unemployment is being blamed on the Budget’s further disincentives to hire with higher employer national insurance contributions and minimum wage levels producing an accelerator effect of pessimism. Business confidence is now at a very low ebb. One entrepreneurial farmer I was talking to recently, who has businessmen friends who were full of plans for new enterprises and the expansion of existing ones, said they had all cancelled these plans since the Budget and are hunkering down to survive.
Lifting the gloom is essential for growth. There needs to be reward for risk-taking and succour for the entrepreneurial spirit being deadened by an emphasis on rights. Responsibilities need to come back into fashion. We need a JFK moment: ask not what your company can do for you—ask what you can do for your company. Many employers shoulder significant risk. Their decisions make the difference between someone’s job being there or not, and they live daily with existential threats facing firms they have built up with their own money and effort.
Employment rights are obviously important, but employees also have responsibilities towards their employers, which should be pursued out of self-interest, if for no other reason. Securing rights, for example, to work from home or in a hybrid pattern should not be in the teeth of good business reasons for office-based staff to be working together in the office. In 1789, Pierre Victor Malouet warned France’s Estates-General:
“Take care when you tell man his rights. For you will transport him to the summit of a high mountain—from where you will show him an empire without limits”.
Rights are voracious.
JFK also said:
“One person can make a difference, and everyone should try”.
Call me nostalgic, but people used to work hard because of the need and inner drive to support their families. Arguably, they are now encouraged to vote for the party, no matter where on the political spectrum, that will do the best job of looking after their family for them. Of course the state has a role, but it should not smother or quench that provider instinct.
I welcome this Government’s efforts to stoke, not stifle, the spirit of adventure by shaking up environmental regulators and the Competition and Markets Authority. Many potential wealth-creators are snarled up in the sticky web of regulation for no reward and often at much cost. Even trying to open a bank account takes far too long. Regulation can sabotage the good intentions of policy. Of course we need a rules-based system, but when it becomes sclerotic and pathologised, it simply breeds despair.
My first City boss was always questioning whether one had the spirit of adventure. He was not counselling recklessness: risk needs to be analysed, and the risk-reward ratio needs to be calculated. The British Volksgeist, or national spirit, currently pervaded by gloom, needs to be freed from stultifying processes and reborn as a spirit of adventure. Alongside that, the world of ideas needs to be freed from the dictatorship of orthodoxy. A high percentage of the British elite inhabit a unipolar world where only one sort of ideas is considered—for example, on the issue of equality, diversity and inclusion.
Many in the British public are desperate for change. They are flirting with the idea of Farage and intrigued by the dominance of the disruptors in the United States, yet most mainstream news outlets recycle disdain for Trump and Musk and ignore the energy their ideas are pumping into the American Volksgeist. Americans have rediscovered that the buoyant animal spirits that need unleashing flourish in freedom.
Stimulating wealth creation requires encouraging people to take risks and act on out-of-the-box ideas. In this country, the hero is not the risk-taker but the reasonable man. George Bernard Shaw said:
“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man”.
We will not see progress in this country when blandness is the ideal. Trailering the second Conservative debate later today, we are seeing it in the withdrawal of education options, by making the national curriculum compulsory across academies and forcing independent schools to close.
However, the liberation of market forces does not necessarily produce unending economic growth. A sustainably flourishing economy requires a stable social base. Towards the end of her time in office, Margaret Thatcher recognised that she needed to turn to social renewal after a decade-long focus on unleashing the markets and economic reform. The destruction of old industries had a devastating effect on the social fabric of the country, and family breakdown picked up speed on its already upward trend. The noble Lord, Lord King of Lothbury, the former Governor of the Bank of England, is adamant that stable families are the building blocks of a productive society, and ignoring that truth sowed seeds of destruction for future growth. Indeed, Tony Blair said in 1996 that a strong society
“cannot be morally neutral about the family”,
but now almost half of all children do not grow up with both parents.
Hyper-liberal individualism runs alongside purist free-market philosophy; hence many who espouse the latter are libertarian in their outlook. Yet, when social liberalism partners with economic liberalism, the inherent contradiction eventually brings the engine of growth to a shuddering halt. The social underpinnings of markets have been gnawed away. A real-world example is that coping with relationship breakdown made my employees less productive at work.
I once suggested to the Treasury that it should investigate the correlation between our low position on OECD league tables for both productivity and family stability and try to cost the loss of productivity that family breakdown brings. The Treasury spad that I spoke to was horrified at the prospect because, in his words, the cost would be far too high. In other words, the link with stable family life, with all its benefits to individuals and society, is well known but ignored by politicians running from an unpopular message.
Yet family instability undermines us economically in myriad ways. Adults who experience family breakdown as children are significantly more likely to have debt problems or to be on benefits. They are almost twice as likely to underachieve at school, experience mental issues such as alcoholism, be in trouble with the police or spend time in prison. One-quarter of prisoners have spent time in local authority care, and three-quarters of men in prison had an absent father. Future prosperity is sacrificed to liberal individualism.
Moreover, economic liberals’ demands for lower taxes and a smaller state will be forever thwarted when the demands on the public purse are so great, and that has much to do with the degradation of social and, particularly, family bonds. Family hubs are vital to remedying that. There are now around 950 family hubs in over 130 English local authorities, working closely with hundreds of children’s centres, building on the work of previous Labour and Conservative Governments. I declare my interest as a guarantor of FHN Holding, the not-for-profit owner of Family Hubs Network Ltd, in asking the Minister whether his Government will keep investing in family hubs in the spending review.
More broadly, David Halpern and Andy Haldane’s Social Capital 2025 says that strengthening wider networks and trust dramatically improves countries’ economic fortunes. In their words:
“The social bonds that tie us are the hidden wealth of nations”.
Strong social trust allows doing a deal on a handshake instead of through lawyers, sharply lowering transaction costs. A 10% increase in social trust increases relative economic productivity by 1.3% to 1.5%.
Social trust requires greater trust in our politics and requires politicians to tell the truth and be straight with the electorate. The leader of the Conservative Party recently admitted the futility of virtue-signalling announcements such as, “We will get to net zero by 2050”, without a credible plan. Labour has form here too. Building 1.5 million homes was hard enough when we did not have the manpower and other resources, and then the minimum wage and national insurance went up. When the Chancellor said her Budget did not increase tax on working people that was true only in a casuistic sense, and voters are sick of casuistry. Politicians should not underestimate the value of honesty. Facing up to things engenders respect. The public see through the deceit of talking down the economy when it was on the way up and misrepresenting Conservative spending plans. They simply say, “A plague on both your houses”.
Having been involved in markets for half a century, I have found money to be particularly honest. It is either there or it is not; you are either broke or you are not. In contrast, an ideology that says that net zero requires closing North Sea oilfields down will simply not work in the timeframes being driven through, not to mention that the solar panels we will rely on being made with Chinese slave labour.
Wealth creation is vital to support and lift those who need Churchill’s safety net of the welfare state, but many become entangled in that net if they are mentally or physically unwell. So, just as in the wider welfare population prior to universal credit, we need to cut welfare but, more than that, we also need to de-risk coming off welfare, especially where people are languishing on sickness benefits.
We also need to reduce the state by reducing the Civil Service. Productivity has gone up in the private sector but not the public sector, where the existential threat that many private sector companies face daily is non-existent.
To sum up my main points, poor growth has cultural as well as economic drivers. Will the Minister inform the House how the Government will banish gloom and blandness and encourage that spirit of adventure? How is he going to pep us all up? How will the Government emphasise responsibilities, not just rights, and rebuild a stable social fabric based on families and communities, where people provide, care for and trust each other? Will they admit that there is a pressing need for big ideas and people who think outside of the box? However uncomfortable they make us feel, we need disruptors who can discredit and destroy the dictatorship of orthodoxy. I beg to move.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, in principle, the growth problem is straightforward: invest in the quality of labour via education and training, and in the quality of capital via research and development and innovation. On the one hand, the state is the main investor in education and skills and plays a crucial role in providing efficient infrastructure and much of the budget for fundamental research. The funding of research is particularly important because the state is able to invest in areas that only yield an uncertain return in the long term. Consider, for example, the fact that all relevant innovations embodied in the iPhone were developed in public sector institutions. It was the genius, then, of Steve Jobs to put them all together.
On the other hand, business investment requires incentives and means. The incentive is clear: the expectation that the investment will be profitable. That depends on the prospective demand for the goods and services that the investment is designed to produce. It does not matter if interest rates and taxes are low or even zero; if you cannot sell the product due to a lack of demand then investment is a waste of money, so the maintenance of a high level of effective demand is the vital precondition for the stimulation of competitive investment. Even if demand is there, though, the means are required—namely, the finance. Much investment is financed by retained profits, but truly innovative investment—the investment that changes the world—requires the medium-term to long-term support of financial institutions.
That is where Britain fails. Our major financial institutions define the concept of investment peculiarly: they claim they are investing billions in Britain, but what they mean is that they spend billions in the purchase of financial assets in secondary markets. They do not finance the creation of new, real, productive investment—investment in national accounting terms. It used to be argued that liquid secondary markets were a necessary complement to primary investment, but the relationship is declining, with an increasing proportion of investment being funded through private vehicles.
There are exceptions to the non-real investment and non-growth stance of UK finance. Some of the larger institutions have small real investment divisions. However, investment is usually confined to fintech. There are some specialist small and medium-sized banks that spread their investment outside fintech into other growth areas, often with a real estate content. Some private equity firms promote organic growth in their target companies, and venture capital trusts are a valuable source of SME funding. Unfortunately, however, it is clear from the overall lack of second-stage SME funding in the UK that these exceptions do not add up to the scale required to transform the growth prospects of the economy.
For example, the entire assets of the venture capital trust sector amount to around £6.2 billion. This compares to the £1.5 trillion size of Barclays’ balance sheet alone; that is 250 times greater than the entire venture capital sector. This suggests that we cannot simply look to the financial services industry as it is currently structured to do more. More of the same will simply not be good enough.
The structure of financial services must be changed. The new National Wealth Fund will contribute to that change, but for scale we need the private sector, so carrots and sticks are required. On the carrot side, there are already significant tax advantages associated with innovative investment, but these do not achieve what is necessary. The reform of pension funds will be very important. The US pension reform in 1978, which enabled investment in alternatives, gave rise to the professional venture capital industry in that country. It is striking how many successful UK SMEs raise their secondary funding in the United States—another indicator of the failure of UK financial services.
How about the stick? Well, how about requiring appropriate financial institutions of over a certain balance sheet size to devote a given proportion of their assets to real investment, either directly or indirectly via funding organisations such as venture capital funds? We must also find a way of weaning the banks off algorithm-driven lending and get back to old-fashioned relationship banking. For how that is done, see Handelsbanken: the point being that real investors need a close advisory relationship with their funders, where advice flows in both directions.
It is a remarkable paradox that our wonderfully successful financial services industry is one of the main reasons for our growth failure. But until fundamental reform, by carrot and stick, induces greater flows of finance into real investment, that sad paradox will remain.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for instigating this important debate. I want to offer some practical solutions, with three different hats on.
The first hat that I wear is as an adviser to the digital centre of government. This week, we announced some big changes in how public services will be delivered in the next wave of what GOV.UK will look like. I mention it because one enormously important plank of this work is the opportunity to change the procurement processes in government—particularly in relation to the digital sector, but this applies across the whole of government. I believe deeply that if the Government were to take a more creative, innovative and urgent view of the procurement process, we could achieve an extremely interesting level of growth, particularly for our own industries that sometimes lose out to bigger US commercial sectors. Can the Minister please reflect on the procurement issues as he sees them? I know that Minister Gould has been working on these issues effectively as well.
My second hat is that of the president of the British Chambers of Commerce. Noble Lords will be aware that the chambers of commerce do quarterly reviews and that at the minute, those are pretty bleak, but in a spirit of collaboration with the Government, I note that the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, has met my colleagues at the British Chambers of Commerce. We have a long list of infrastructure projects that just need urgent decision-making today. They range from Sizewell C, which has not yet been given the official go-ahead—although I hear that that announcement might come very soon—through to the electrification of various railway lines and planning for offshore wind. It is not acceptable that projects that will enormously increase wealth, jobs and opportunities in local communities and economies are sitting for so long in planning decision inboxes. Has the Minister had time to reflect on that British Chambers of Commerce infrastructure list and might he be able to keep kicking the relevant departments? This is such an easy win for the country right now.
I will finish by talking about my final hat, which is perhaps the more unusual of the hats I wear. It is as co-founder of Lucky Voice, my karaoke chain of businesses, which I am sure many noble Lords have indulged in. It is a small and medium-sized business. We have venues around the UK and a couple overseas. It came from my idea that the Japanese have too much fun singing in private rooms by themselves and that we should be able to do it here in the UK. It is a hospitality business and not very big. It is run by a young colleague, who was elevated from where he joined to now running the business. I own it—full disclosure—but it is having a super tough time; no surprises there. I have been reflecting a lot on how I can best help that business. It is definitely not by trying to help at an operational level; that is normally when I cause total mayhem.
The thing that I come back to continually with the CEO is the intensity of the media headlines around our economy right now, which the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, reflected on in some of his comments. I do not want to get into a political debate about the justification for those headlines, but I think all of us would probably accept that we are in a dark place in terms of reporting on what is happening and the plans that are coming up over the next few months. Can the Government reflect on how, in the absence as yet of the industrial strategy, they will fill that void, because it really matters?
Every single day matters right now. I have seen that from the British Chambers of Commerce and our member businesses. I also see it every day at Lucky Voice. Consumer confidence is not there and when we ask our customers whether they have a difference in their finances, very often they do not. They are just scared about what this year might bring and do not want to go out and spend cash. I know that engaging in a media war is probably not top of the Minister’s agenda, but I urge him to think carefully about how we can fill the void, particularly in the absence of the forthcoming industrial strategy. Can I also, as a not very successful entrepreneur, urge on him that urgency really matters? Being seen to be urgent across the different spheres that I have tried to highlight would really make a difference.
Baroness Moyo (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for bringing this debate to the Chamber. I believe that this debate is fundamentally about determining the correct policy sequence to achieve economic growth. Do we wait for stability in government finances, even if that means raising taxes and deterring investment today, with the view that investors will return once the economy is stabilised, or should the Government prioritise protecting investors in the belief that their investment capital propels growth and in turn increases government tax-take to fund public goods? There is always a risk that a concept such as economic growth gets used so much that it becomes detached from its core elements and the inputs that drive it. As a reminder, it is worth looking at the United Kingdom’s prospects through the prism of the three classical inputs for economic growth: capital, labour, and productivity.
First, in terms of capital—in essence, how much money you have—Britain’s debt and deficits are well known to be distressed on a historic basis. Britain’s public debt-to-GDP ratio is forecast to breach 100% this year. Together with a constrained fiscus, these will be headwinds for growth. The second is labour, which pertains to the quantity and quality of the workforce. On quantity, we know that 9.3 million people between the ages of 16 and 64 were economically inactive as of the end of 2024. On quality, the latest OECD PISA assessment in 2022 shows that the United Kingdom’s scores for reading, mathematics and science all fell from those in 2018. Worse still, science scores have fallen in three consecutive PISA reports. The third is productivity, which explains roughly 60% of why one country grows and another does not. In the third quarter of 2024, UK productivity was estimated to have fallen by 1.8% versus the prior year, and the story of UK productivity is that it has grown by only 1.3% since pre-pandemic levels.
It is my sense that we are tilted too much towards stability today, taking a risky gamble that could lead to too little investment tomorrow. The Office for Budget Responsibility raised cautions of a disturbing future that awaits the United Kingdom by 2050. In its baseline projections, public spending will rise from 45% to over 60% of GDP, while revenues remain at around 40% of GDP. Debt will rise to 270% of GDP. All the while, the Government remain vulnerable to shocks, including: an ageing population with rising healthcare and retirement needs; a falling birth rate; climate change, with threats from more extreme weather, and ever rising geopolitical tensions which will demand greater defence spending.
Without investors and their investment, the picture I paint here will be materially worse. On a more granular level, it is good news that the Government included a £3.5 billion investment in the technology sector in their Budget, with £1 billion dedicated to advancing supercomputing and AI technologies. A bigger and stronger venture capital environment, from which the realised dividends would be considerable, is crucial for this long-term growth story.
Take the United States as an example. According to a Goldman Sachs report, the big six technology firms, all with roots in venture capital, added roughly $5.3 trillion of market value in 2024. This amount is larger than the current nominal GDP of every single country in the world, except the United States and China. Venture capital has significantly influenced the US economy, with some estimates saying that 43% of all public companies since 1979 were venture backed, accounting for 57% of total market value and 38% of employees.
We can drive this sort of dynamism and success here in the UK too by forging, nurturing and creating a culture of risk capital, where, beyond the traditional banking system, entrepreneurs can raise millions in seed capital to do something that has only a low chance of working but where investors bet that the expected value of the investment is still positive. I see no reason why the Government should not, through serious regulatory subsidies and tax incentives, spark the British risk appetite in the same way that the US Government help to ignite Silicon Valley.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak in this debate, and I thank my noble friend Lord Farmer for securing it. I refer to my interests in the register.
Today, we have a Government who wish to spend other people’s money to advance social justice and deal with a range of issues that they believe are important. Indeed, many of them are, but, unfortunately, with a tax rate at a 70-year high, we have now run out of other people’s money. Looking at borrowing, we are at a 64-year high relative to GDP. We are now paying more on our 10-year gilts than most other developed countries, so there is no more money there either.
That leaves growth: the magical elixir the Government hope will provide all the answers. They are completely right to focus on this, as our wealth per capita has been declining since 2010. It has been masked by surging population growth, largely through immigration, but the brutal truth is that the slices of economic pie available to individual British citizens are shrinking.
In December, the Office for National Statistics confirmed that living standards in the UK are falling, as measured by the all-important metric of GDP per capita. Its verdict was that:
“Real GDP per head is estimated to have fallen by 0.2% in Quarter 3—
that is July to September last year—
“compared with the same quarter a year ago”.
Even if that GDP figure is flatlining, as long as the population is increasing, which it has been at 0.75% per year, that means GDP per capita will continue to fall. The increase in GDP needs to be outstripping the growth of the population for living standards to be rising again. So far, we have seen very little evidence of a growth plan, other than warm words. Even Professor Ben Ansell, a significant economist, last week described the Government’s growth policy as contradictory and “empty-minded”.
It is easy in opposition to throw rocks and complain; I would like to offer one small route that is largely in the Government’s gift and would cost very little money. One of my registered interests is as chairman of the Trade Facilitation Commission. It arises from my time as the Brexit border readiness Minister. I have met some extraordinarily talented people who know the business of trade inside out. Many are now on the commission. By a long chalk, I am the least qualified. It is non-political and seeks to advance prosperity. We published a report in October last year, which is available at www.facilitation.trade, showing the path to economic growth through trade facilitation.
It is important to stress that this is not a dogma driven call for things that a Government cannot deliver; it is about the plumbing that facilitates trade flows. To many this is extremely boring and to many more it is simply incomprehensible. But this document, written for the benefit of this Government, shows a path. It needs only some will and co-ordination to achieve it. The potential is huge. It has been estimated—and not by us—that, if improvements in trade flows were implemented, it would increase GDP per family in the UK by £3,500. If the UK improves its trade facilitation process to the level of the best global performer, we could be adding as much as £40 billion into the UK economy. Here are four things the government can and should do.
First, they should appoint a Minister for Trade instead of the current illogical idea of a Cabinet Office Minister for EU trade and mishmash of Foreign Office, Department for Business and Trade and Home Office Ministers, who are all not co-ordinated.
Secondly, instead of talking about dynamic alignment to a fundamentally anti-competitive EU regulatory system, they should embrace unilateral recognition of EU standards. We have already done this for medicines, where we recognise EU, US and Japan for drug approvals. Dynamic alignment is sophistry; all it means is subjugation to rules that we have no control over. However, it is even worse than that because it will almost certainly put us into conflict with any US trade deal and our newly signed trade deal with the CPTPP. Both of these trade blocs are growing far faster than the EU.
Thirdly, we should encourage and expand trusted trader schemes. These preapprovals provide reduced border delays and cost friction. They enhance security and compliance, and they enhance access to mutual trade recognition agreements.
Finally, they should look at the use of digital trade corridors. These reduce the cost, duplication and harmonise data requirements. They enhance data security and improve visibility and connectivity. But in the last few weeks the Government have abandoned their plan for a single trade window. Why has that happened and what are the plans instead?
I would urge the Minister and his colleagues to review this report and meet some of the authors. That is not a pitch for myself to be included; all are better qualified than me. If you care about economic growth in this country, please listen to them.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, before looking at what we have to do to get growth back, perhaps we should consider where we are and why we are here—not just in this country but across the West. We are in a very difficult position. As has already been noted by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, GDP is falling. GDP per head, which is the only thing that matters, has begun to fall again. It is at the same level that it was in 2019. It is no wonder that people in this country do not feel better off; they are not better off.
This is not just in this country; it is common across the West. If you compare the pre-financial crash growth figures to the post-financial crash figures, only America and Australia have maintained even half their growth rates. Most of the Europeans are down 20% or 25% on their previous levels. Famously, Tolstoy wrote in the beginning of Anna Karenina:
“All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way”.
The same is true of most western economies; we all face different sets of problems. The specifics are different, but I do think we are all facing a variant of the same very deep-seated set of problems that we have to be honest about and grapple with.
First, the end of the Cold War—I think we have to go back that far—removed the pressure to remain productive and constantly demonstrate superiority of the western free-market model, and we got complacent. Secondly, what happened is what always happens when there is no counter pressure: collectivism. Intellectually bad ideas started to set in and go down the path of least resistance.
Thirdly, we saw economic policy follow that intellectual trend, with an expansion of government, more regulation and more state intervention. All that inevitably led to worse economic outcomes, more social conflict and a political environment that got worse. In the end, political choice accommodated itself to this environment. Most western electors faced the choice between two different versions of international progressivism and social liberalism—one supposedly on the right, involving international economic institutions, trade liberalisation and international business, and one conventionally on the left, involving redistribution and a lot of “woke” politics. Neither aspired to change the fundamentals; both involved high levels of migration, weakening social bonds and the nation state still further.
This system now has its own internal dynamism, and it looks very difficult to break out of it. The result is what we are seeing—the collapse in growth and zero-sum conditions. The economy is ceasing to grow, we cannot afford things that we have got used to having, social conflict is growing and crisis is near. Doing more of the same is not going to help—it will just make things worse. We have to face this reality and we need to do two very difficult things. First, we must make a huge attempt, much bigger than anything that is being contemplated at the moment, to reverse the trend of economic collectivisation and regulation from the past 30 years. There needs to be a determined attempt to end deficit financing; shrink state and taxation; recreate incentives; reverse the net-zero policy and produce cheap and more abundant energy; remove the vast corpuses of legislative regulation that dominate economic activity; intensify competition in the economy; sort out public services; conduct painful reductions in welfare transfer programmes; and look at investment in infrastructure, housing and so on, in many places.
However, it is not only this. As my noble friend Lord Farmer has set out, we need to look at the social environment too. We need to make a major effort to repair the sinews of social fragmentation, to reconnect and rebuild politics by consent. If we cannot do this, we will never get the consent for the economic changes that are necessary. Here we are going with the flow of electorates; there is a greater emphasis on culture, the nation and social conservatism. We need to go with that, which means cutting migration, controlling borders, getting an effective Government, getting out of the web of binding international agreements, killing off wokeness, getting serious about defence and thinking of investing in the family much more.
We need to do both those things, which requires making a series of correct choices, many of which are going to be unpopular—but it still has to be done. I finish by quoting the great man Sir John Hoskyns, who was behind the Stepping Stones report in the late 1970s. He said:
“It is not enough to settle for policies which cannot save us, on the grounds that they are the only ones which are politically possible or administratively convenient”.
We have to do better than that. The British people want better than that—they know something is going wrong—and it is for us, the politicians, to provide it.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I shall not speak about the economy, because I am not an economist, but I have always believed that the economy should be the servant of society. The trick is to allocate scarce resources to opportunities, with the objective of maximising social benefit. Even I recognise that excess demand for finite resources will just create inflation.
What are the opportunities that I am talking about? They are immense, starting with net zero. Then there is housing, with the target of 1.5 million houses; housing problems are at the centre of many of our social problems. There is domestic energy, heat pumps, insulation, transport, roads, rail, airports and health infrastructure to counter the crumbling infrastructure in the health service and other services, including water.
To achieve things, you need material, machinery and workers. Who are the workers that we need? They fall into two groups. The first group are roughly called “graduates”, who in general create intellectual property. The other group of workers, much more numerous, are the skilled manual workers who actually create the property. I believe from what I read that there is a crisis in the creation of a cohort of skilled manual workers. Where does it come from and what can be done about it?
We start with schools. For decades, we have said that success at school means that you go to university and get a degree. We do not recognise the value of the skilled manual worker; we have to change the culture so that they are held in similar regard to the workers in intellectual property. Further education has been chronically underfunded over several decades; it needs to be properly funded and integrated into the whole issue of creating this new cohort of skilled manual workers.
On industrial training, clearly the vehicle here is apprentices, but apprenticeships need to be much more finely tuned to what the real needs are and encouraged in any way we can way we can to improve the general training of workers. We are not just talking about initial training: we are talking about whole-life training, which is so powerful in a changing environment and for the dignity of workers.
Finally, the role of Her Majesty’s Government—sorry, that was old speak, I mean His Majesty’s Government—is to make things happen. Does the Minister agree with this analysis? Who in government owns the problem? All too often, problems are created by the structure of government. Who owns the problem of creating this skilled manual workforce and what are His Majesty’s Government going to do about it?
Baroness Swinburne (Con)
My Lords, financial and professional services contribute 12% of total UK economic output and employ more than 2.4 million people, two-thirds of whom are outside London. The sector pays more tax than any other sector and is the UK’s biggest net exporting industry, and therefore a significant contributor to economic growth. I therefore welcome the fact that both financial and professional services are included in the Government’s industrial strategy—and I also welcome my former CityUK colleague Emma Reynolds MP to her new role as Economic Secretary to the Treasury. I trust that her experience at TheCityUK will be invaluable in moving forward some of these ideas to implementation.
The City, especially in the wholesale financial markets, has always been an early adopter of technology. In its quest for improved productivity and increased competitiveness, it has always invested in technology and striven for growth. It is in its DNA. I am therefore immensely proud of the work that the UK-based financial sector has done of late to try to help successive Governments to identify barriers to economic growth, whether that has been in the work of the IRSG, which I used to chair, or its parent entities, the City of London Corporation or TheCityUK, or indeed the many trade bodies, such as UK Finance, ABI, the IA or GDF—there are too many to mention today. They are all working tirelessly to help HMT and the financial regulators, via numerous task forces and working groups, to identify the best way forwards to unlock growth.
The financial regulators, the FCA, the PRA, the Bank of England and others, have been actively involved in this stakeholder endeavour for the past four to five years, including via various sector reviews, such as the Hill, Austin and Kalifa reviews, and indeed a lot of task forces. I commend that collaboration. I will highlight a few of those initiatives that could yield results if we implement quickly. The work of the Capital Markets Industry Taskforce, led by Dame Julia Hoggett, and numerous other groups, contributes to ongoing UK pension reform. However, waiting until all our pension funds consolidate will take years. Although necessary, we need to find ways now to incentivise domestic capital to invest in UK equity and opportunities, including via pension tax credits, where firms are perhaps rewarded for participating in UK risk assets, whether they are listed, quoted, private or critical infrastructure, and then we taper the pension tax credit, for example, if they are not.
That could also extend to initiatives for the retail market, where we need to incentivise some of those savers to become investors. Reducing the cash ISA allowance in favour of an investment ISA could be a valuable tool to incentivise this shift. According to the Centre for Policy Studies, the UK has around £1.8 trillion sitting in idle savings accounts. The UK needs scale-up capital. Small businesses represent 99% of our UK business population. The Government therefore need to continue to support—if not better support—investors in start-up capital. We need to put that saving capital to work as investment.
Allowing retail investors to participate in IPOs is another way in which we might be able to facilitate some of these initiatives. Investors, including retail, need easy access to investment in growth companies. Some disruptor firms, such as Aquis Exchange, are making headway, but as its chief executive, Alasdair Haynes, has said, there needs to be an acceleration of progress. Why is UK equity investment still subject to stamp duty? It makes it more expensive for our pension funds and retail investors to invest in the UK rather than in global markets. Surely this could be a quick win.
I turn to the digitisation of capital markets and draw noble Lords’ attention to a phenomenal report that was published just this morning by TheCityUK and Hogan Lovells. It gives a blueprint and timeline for actions which, if taken up by His Majesty’s Government, could ensure that the UK’s position as a global financial centre remains and expands in the digitised world of future capital markets. This is about not just growing our economy but preserving our dominant position in global trading and financial markets. Any inaction or further delay will weaken our economy.
The reality is that speed, rather than perfection, is now of the essence. We need our framework for crypto assets, and digital assets generally, to be published immediately and implemented quickly. We really do need to assist our regulators in accelerating things, especially given the change of Administration in the US. Calibrated risk-taking can yield sustainable economic growth from this sector.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this debate and add my voice to those thanking my noble friend Lord Farmer for securing it. Much has been said about the historical reasons why growth in the United Kingdom remains subdued and why, under the current Government, the future is looking increasingly bleak. The modest predictions for economic growth in 2025 should not be confused as an indicator that all is well.
Following the Autumn Budget, there has been nothing but stress and gloom for British business. The Government have created an environment in which ambition will be punished and innovation stifled. Come April, the increased national insurance contributions will hit SMEs the hardest and will have a devastating effect on the many small businesses which the Government should never forget are the backbone of the economy. This devastating policy, combined with the decision to increase the national living wage and to cut business rate relief, has delivered nothing more than the stagnation of our economy and an immense decline in business confidence—a decline that has been very much talked up by the Government.
These are hardly the conditions for sustainable, let alone progressive, economic growth. It has been widely reported this week that, since this Government came to power, one millionaire quits the UK every 45 minutes. That is an increase of nearly 160% in just six months. According to the Times this morning, it appears that the Government have realised the self-harm that has been done to non-dom status and will be looking at an amendment to the Finance Bill. I fully accept that my party has also been instrumental in the damaging of the non-dom regime that has taken place. However, I fear that the combination has already had a devastating effect. Unless the Government change course to stem the mass exodus of wealth and reset the confidence of business, we will continue to see a decline in the UK’s prospect for growth. At this point, I must make the very obvious point that capital, innovation and people are all very portable. People will move around the world as the need arises and will go where they get the best breaks and see the best opportunities. At the moment, we are not holding out the prospect of being a good opportunity for them.
I fear that, following the Budget, the Government are not hearing the concerns raised by SMEs, which warn that they about to be crushed under the weight of taxation and compliance demands, which, let us not forget, are also increasing. Prior to the Budget, the Growth Commission made various recommendations to the Chancellor, one of which was to reduce restrictions and costs on employers. Given the major concerns that have been raised by the Government doing the exact opposite of this, I would be keen to hear from the Financial Secretary to the Treasury how he thinks any of the policy announcements in the Budget, particularly the increase to national insurance contributions, will contribute to the growth of anything beyond the Treasury’s coffers.
The UK’s capacity to enhance infrastructure development and foster innovation has been hindered by persistently low levels of both public and private investment. These low levels have caused an investment deficit that restrains the economy’s potential for growth and competitiveness. Urgent action is needed to address this decline. It further concerns me that the UK continues to rank lower than many other OECD countries in terms of R&D spending as a percentage of GDP. I would welcome an update from the Minister on what the Government plan to do to drive R&D as a catalyst for growth over the next few years.
I turn very briefly to the topic of devolution, as I see the potential opportunity to unlock growth here. If the Government are able to move forward with English devolution, as per December’s White Paper, there is huge opportunity to unlock future growth. We have seen how, through his tenure as the Mayor of the West Midlands, Sir Andy Street was able to attract growth and encourage investment into the region. I also think back to my time at City Hall, where the ability of London to attract substantial foreign direct investment led to the success of high-profile regeneration and development projects—we have only to look across the river to Battersea Power Station. I therefore urge the Government to rapidly move forward and take on the opportunities that exist in local government.
I end by quickly saying that our ability to really improve and grow lies in our hands. As President Regan said, Governments don’t create economic growth—people do.
Lord Desai (CB)
My Lords, we have not had any economic growth in the UK for about 15 years. The last time that we had growth was during the years of new Labour, between 1997 and 2008. Then there was the financial crash in 2008 and, between then and 2024, our growth rate—so called—has been around 1%, maybe 1.5%. As a statistician of some age, I do not think that a growth rate of 1% is significantly different from 0%, so we more or less have not had any growth for 15 years.
That was the time when the Conservative Party was in power. I do not blame them, but we basically had no growth. They tried personal income tax cuts, investment incentives and so on, but we had no growth. One question to ask ourselves, therefore, is whether growth is actually demanded by the citizens. The Conservatives obviously got re-elected without any growth. There was a lot of immigration and everybody was complaining about it, but nobody was complaining about the lack of growth.
We have a paradox here in that a stagnant economy for 15 years can sustain a single party rule—with five Prime Ministers, but that does not matter. The key is in what the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, chairman of your Lordships’ Economic Affairs Committee, recently pointed out: our labour force is reluctant to work. People either want to work from home, to work four days a week or to say that they are mentally incapable of working and they would rather have benefits. I do not criticise that. As an economist I believe in individual choice, and individuals have a choice to work or not work, or to work as much as they want to. If there are benefits for not working, why should you work? I was lucky in that I had a job I actually liked, but most jobs are not very likeable.
The paradox is that we do not actually have a keen labour force willing to get out there and work. People, especially after Covid, have decided that they have got to a level of income at which they are not unhappy and can basically manage. If they need a little bit of welfare benefits, what is wrong with that? It is a paradox we have to face about the nature of the British economy. Economics is ultimately all about consumer satisfaction. If the consumer is satisfied with their current level of income and does not really want to get out there and work harder, why should we make him work harder? Why should we torture him to make him work harder? It is all right for us leadership class: we are the leaders, and we care about capital markets. We worked very hard for Brexit because Brexit was going to be the great key to our eternal growth, but that did not work.
The question to ask is: does anybody want growth in this country? My argument is that that is in doubt, and the doubt comes from something called the happiness index. This was adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, when he was Prime Minister, as one of the numbers he wanted to look at. There is very little fluctuation in the happiness index. It goes from 0 to 10 and people are more or less happy: the happiness index has been between 6.8 and 7.5. People are moderately happy and I think we should let them be happy, forget about growth and get back to our work, which is to talk about everything in the world.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, on that note, I do not want to do anything this afternoon to dent the happiness index. I start by referring to my entry in the register of interests and by joining in the thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for instigating this debate and for what I thought was an exceptional speech with a lot of meat in it.
I recently read an article by that eminent Oxford political scientist, Professor Ben Ansell, who asked what this Government’s theory of growth was and came up with the conclusion, rather disappointingly, that there was no consistent theory or ideology. I do not know whether that is true, but I do know that there are a lot of mixed messages coming out of the Government at the moment.
I have been following closely the utterances of the Chancellor in Davos. She is saying some very interesting and, to my way of thinking, very positive things. One thing she said is that growth is to triumph over all else. However, at the same time as she is saying that, other members of her Government, including Ed Miliband, are still rushing to net zero. At the same time, we are told, we are looking at the prospect of an energy deficit, and there can surely be no greater impediment to growth than rationing power, which is something we might be looking at. These inherent contradictions unfortunately permeate through all parts of government thinking on growth. We are closing down the North Sea at the same time that President Trump’s mantra is to drill, drill, drill. Someone is right, and I do not think it is us.
This afternoon I want to talk about a couple of things. One is education. I simply do not understand where the Government are coming from in tinkering with our academies. I no longer know whether the Prime Minister thinks that academies are good or bad: there seems to be no consistency. The Government have driven 20,000 fee-paying students into the state school sector—which is struggling to accommodate them, and I have no doubt that there will be more to follow—and are changing the national curriculum. I ask the Minister: are they doing all these things out of a narrow ideology, or do they genuinely think it is going to better equip our young workforce for the workforce challenges ahead, particularly in the competitive world of things such as AI and quantum computing?
We know that unemployment is up and that NICs are going to attack all, not least the lowest paid—we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, about hospitality, which is going to be adversely hit—and those on the bottom rung of the employment ladder.
We know that we have a problem with productivity. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Desai; we are now signing off many more people for all kinds of mental health reasons. I read a very good article by the noble Lord, Lord Rose of Monewden, who said that working from home is a disaster and that in his opinion the country has gone back 20 years in the past four. The Government can show a real commitment to productivity and growth by insisting that civil servants return to their desks. In the United States, President Trump is about to sack great rafts of employees who refuse to do that.
The Government are now talking about tinkering with the visa regime to fill knowledge gaps in AI and the life sciences. Is that a tacit admission that we are unable to provide people of that quality in our own country at a time when we have a record population of 67 million, up from 50 million in 1950?
I want to think about our image abroad. What are we trying to sell to the international investment community? Are we to be a low-regulated, highly taxed digital economy or something different? We should look again at how we attract inward investment. I welcome the fact that we will look again at the non-dom policy. Millions of pounds have left this country; these people are highly mobile and, once they go, it is astonishingly difficult to attract them back.
Those are all the negatives. The positive is that the UK is still the second most popular place to invest. We have huge convening power, unequalled soft power and links through all the great international bodies, from NATO to AUKUS and the Security Council. And yes, we have the Commonwealth, which I go on about regularly—56 willing countries that would trade with us much more if only we were prepared to show that we took them seriously and wanted to trade with them.
Lord Horam (Con)
I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Swire finished on an optimistic note. I share his optimism—this is a great country in which it is very good to do business. I know this because I started an economic consultancy many years ago, which still flourishes.
One of the great advantages of this country, which my noble friend did not mention, is the ubiquity of the English language. Bismarck said that the most important fact of the 19th century was that America elected to speak English rather than German. Heaven knows what would have happened if they elected to speak German; it was a narrow call, but they speak English. We should not underestimate our natural advantages.
None the less, we are struggling, and have been for some time, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said. The responsibility of a Government in these circumstances, particularly a new one with a large majority, is to bring forward a coherent plan for economic growth and to push it with all the strength, effectiveness and vigour that Trump is showing at the moment. Nothing less will do if we are to overcome the problems we have.
In that respect, I will point out a couple of things that the Government are doing wrong. First, they said in their campaign that they would concentrate on housebuilding as a force for economic growth. We need more housebuilding, as we all know, for good social reasons, but to make it a main factor in economic growth is not a good idea. It is very difficult to ramp up the building industry just like that, and it is only 8% of our GDP. Surely we should concentrate on the 80% of our GDP that is the service sector, which is huge.
It is about not only our normal professional services in finance, law, insurance and so forth but the creative industries. For example, in Shepperton and Pinewood we now have studios equivalent in size to the whole of Hollywood. We are that sort of creative force in the world. I welcome the Government’s response to the recent report on AI. Trump says that he will put £500 billion behind AI and supercomputers. We certainly cannot match that, but we ought not to be cancelling the Edinburgh supercomputer, as we did recently. We should be putting more money into supercomputing, as something of the future.
Secondly, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, that skills are essential. We must give more status to those who are skilled. We have a wonderful pathway for people to go to university, but, over 30 years, and through numerous different Governments, we have not developed a similar pathway for people who are not academic. We need to do that. We are now seeing examples of how we are desperately short of people of that calibre to make the economy grow.
In a speech the other day on the national insurance increases, the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, made the point that we have low productivity. That is almost exclusively in the public sector. Private sector productivity has been growing by an average of 2.9% a year for the last 20-odd years. In the public sector it has been going down by 0.3% for the last 20 years. Those are ONS figures—the ONS is subject to some criticism at the moment, but I am relying on its figures. The Government recognise this problem, and I think the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has said that they intend to improve productivity in the public sector by about 5%, if they can. That will not work. They need to bring into the public sector some private expertise of the McKinsey kind. You will not get the public sector to reduce its workforce without some input and experience from the private sector. The Government ought to add that to their agenda. I repeat that we need a coherent, clear plan for economic growth. We have not yet got it.
Viscount Chandos (Lab)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Horam, even though it is nearly 40 years since I could describe him in parliamentary terms as a friend. I am very pleased to be able to speak in the important debate which the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, secured and introduced, making many interesting points. Early in his introduction, he said that gloom must be dispelled. I agree, but not at the expense of honesty and transparency. This Government inherited 22—no, I will not steal my noble friend the Minister’s best lines—at least 22 acute challenges, from the fiscal position to the state of the NHS to crumbling infrastructure, which cannot be papered over with the boosterish rhetoric so beloved by Prime Minister Johnson.
There has been near unanimity in the debate so far on the importance of achieving economic growth, but before I address the “how”, it is worth asking: growth at what price and with what constraints? President Obama recently named Growth: A Reckoning by Dr Daniel Susskind as one of his best books of 2024. I strongly recommend it, although I am afraid that will have less effect on its sales than the advocacy of the former President. Dr Susskind, a research professor in economics at King’s College London, surveys the history of growth—only material in the last two centuries and only an explicit primary objective of Governments for less than half of that—and looks at the challenge for maintaining the path of the past 200 years. Drawing on Equality and Efficiency: The Big Tradeoff, written by Arthur Okun in 1975, Dr Susskind creates a framework for considering a wider range of trade-offs than equality alone, with the environment first among those. The costs of trade-offs can be managed and mitigated—the falling cost of renewable energy is a prime example—but, in some cases, decisions have to be made to accept a reduction in realistic growth targets, in recognition of these trade-offs.
I suggest that the willingness to acknowledge, manage and mitigate those trade-offs lies at the heart of the differences between some of today’s speakers and the views of these Benches—and even further, looking across the Atlantic, with the Trump Administration’s, “Drill, baby, drill” on the one hand, and the UK and most other European governments on the other.
I will pick up on two points. Economic growth crucially requires stability, both economic and social, as the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, argued. That social stability cannot be achieved without the investment in public services to which this Government are committed, and which the Governments of the previous 14 years wilfully neglected.
Despite all the efforts of the Opposition to allege financial crisis—interest rates are higher than in the recent past, but in line with global trends—international confidence in the UK is at an all-time high. PwC’s annual survey of global business leaders, published this week, shows the UK as second only to the US as a preferred destination for investment, up three places since this Government took office.
Finally, I turn to the financing of innovation and start-ups, where I find myself unusually in less than complete agreement with my noble friend Lord Eatwell. In 2023, venture capital investment in the UK represented an identical percentage of GDP to that of the US—nearly twice that of France and nearly three times that of Germany. In the words of David Clark, the chief investment officer of investment advisers VenCap,
“In the UK, there is no shortage of capital for world-class founders. There is a shortage of world-class founders”.
Much of that investment may come from overseas, although that would require knowledge of each US venture capital fund’s limited-partnership investor base, given that UK pension funds, insurance companies and endowments are significant investors in them. For me, the proposed pension fund reforms and restructuring, which I fully support, are about improving the return of those funds for the benefit of their pensioners, rather than filling a capital gap which does not really exist.
Baroness Lea of Lymm (Con)
I welcome this opportunity to participate in this most important debate today. It is, of course, a very wide-ranging debate and, rather than try and cover all the points—although a lot of them have been covered excellently already—I shall make some general observations which I trust are relevant.
On the recent economic performance and the main factors which seem to be influencing it, in the first half of 2024 GDP was growing quite strongly, inflation was falling to the 2% target and unemployment was easing to just over 4%. But the economic situation seemed to deteriorate in the second half of the year. Specifically, GDP was flat in the third quarter of 2024 and in the three months to November, which are the latest figures.
One reason for this apparent deterioration, I suggest, relates to the Government’s pessimistic talking down of the economy, with references to the
“worst set of economic circumstances since the Second World War”,
which is clearly not true, and repeated, ominous references to the £22 billion black hole in the public finances. On the latter, it is pertinent to note that the OBR’s chair, Richard Hughes, referring to the OBR’s review of departmental expenditure limits, concluded:
“Nothing in our review was a legitimisation of that 22 billion pounds”.
But such pessimism dampens animal spirits and undermines both business and consumer confidence, which are so necessary for driving growth.
The second reason relates to the October Budget, which was characterised by major increases in spending, taxation—not least of all on business—and borrowing. The numbers are worth repeating. Spending is planned to increase by almost £70 billion a year over the next five years, and the spending to GDP ratio will be around 44% to 45%, compared with about 40% before the pandemic. Of course, this spending is in a public sector where productivity was around 8.5% lower in the second quarter of 2024 than pre-pandemic. Higher taxes will fund about half this increase in spending. They will raise around £36 billion a year, of which well over £20 billion comes from employers’ national insurance contributions, and they will push the tax to GDP ratio to a historic high of about 38% by the financial year 2029. Increasing the public sector’s share of GDP at the expense of business and the private sector is, I suggest, a drag on growth.
The rest of spending will be funded by an average £32 billion a year increase in borrowing, which has to be financed irrespective of any tweaks to the fiscal targets. The debt to GDP ratio will remain at about 100% over the next five years. Talking of fiscal targets, they were met with very modest margins in the October Budget. Given the increased costs of financing debt and weaker than expected economic growth, this has raised many concerns that they will be missed, unless of course there are changes in policy. I await the spring forecast on 26 March with great interest—it is in my diary.
Turning to business—that vital engine for growth—we have already noted that businesses will face a sizeable increase in national insurance contributions. They will also face a sizeable hike in the minimum wage from April. They will also face the costs resulting from the implementation of the Employment Rights Bill, which could be up to £5 billion a year. This is a triple whammy, which damages business confidence and undermines growth. In addition, they face the highest industrial electricity costs of any industrial economy, partly reflecting the additional costs of intermittent renewables. These costs are especially damaging for energy intensive manufacturing, including of chemicals, as noted by INEOS chairman Sir Jim Ratcliffe recently.
Finally, to make a very brief comment on Brexit, the OBR’s hypothesis assumes that Brexit will hit trade intensity, defined as exports plus imports as a share of GDP, by hitting EU trade, not so much non-EU trade. This would lower potential productivity. But EU and non-EU trade have grown at very similar rates since Brexit, suggesting little Brexit impact, if any.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, there is a group of Melanesian islands where supplies were dropped during the Second World War. When the war ended and the soldiers departed, a cult grew up on these islands. People thought that if they mimicked the behaviour of the soldiers who had been stationed there before 1945, the gods would start raining goods from the sky again, so they would light brands to show where the runways were and try and act like American soldiers, but, of course, the goodies did not come. That is what we literally mean by the phrase “cargo cult”.
A number of people, on all sides in politics and the media, seem to think that, if you keep going around saying “growth” and “investment”, and you wear pinstripe suits and spend time in City boardrooms, somehow growth will magically follow. But, of course, that is not how the world operates. Stimulating economic growth requires taking some difficult decisions. It is simple. It is not easy, but it is simple. The same formula works every time: you need free trade, light regulation and low spending.
But delivering those things is not so simple. Free trade should have been the easiest of the lot. When we reassumed control of our trade policy almost exactly five years ago to the day, we had the opportunity to raise our eyes to more distant horizons and rediscover our vocation as a global trading country. But, as became clear, not least in debates in this House, there was a terrific resistance even to doing trade deals with countries as friendly, as aligned to us and as similar to us in GDP as Australia and New Zealand. Although all sides use “trade”, like those Melanesian islanders, actually getting there when it means opening up our markets is altogether more challenging. Although I wish them every success, the Government will find that they have that same dynamic as they approach doing a trade deal with the United States. On paper it is easily done: USMCA standards are very similar to our CPTPP ones. In practice, doing a deal with Trump may be politically more challenging.
It is the same with deregulation. Everyone is in favour of deregulation; everyone talks about it. The Government have written to all the regulators and said, “What are you going to do?” Of course, the one answer that the regulators are not going to volunteer is, “We intend to do less”, “We intend to wind ourselves back”, or “We intend to dissolve ourselves altogether”. Warren Buffett used to say, “Don’t ask the barber whether you need a haircut”—I am not entirely sure what barbers and haircuts are, but I hear people talking about them. By the same token, it seems a strange thing to ask the regulators how to stimulate growth. What stimulates growth is having fewer regulators and less regulation. Again, that is easy to say, hard to deliver.
The toughest one, of course, is cuts in spending. My noble friend Lord Moynihan just last week published volume 2 of his book on how to achieve growth, where he shows with clear and pitiless statistical analysis that the key to growth is to get a larger private sector and a smaller state sector, and that the magic figure is around about a third. If you can get state-controlled spending to less than 33% of GDP, you are in a strong and growing economy. Of course, everyone will nod along again with that and, like the cargo cultists, they will say, “Yes, you know, we need a smaller, more efficient state, doing less but doing it better”. In practice, it is very difficult to get any meaningful cuts.
Both sides play games on this. On the right, people pretend that all manner of money can be got from foreign aid—which is this tiny sum in reality that is overspent again and again—and on the left there is something similar with wealth taxes. Both sides talk about waste and “cracking down on waste”, as though no one has ever thought of it or ever tried it before. The reality is that the vast increases in public spending have come in healthcare and in social security. Unless we are prepared to talk about restraining those budgets, we do not really mean it when we talk about cutting spending. In particular, if you drill down and ask, “Which bit of social security?”, it is pensions. I saw that even Vladimir Putin was not able to raise the pension age—it was the closest he ever came to falling from power—so I sympathise with any democratic Government trying to do it.
I will finish with a cheerful thought. Before we give up in horror and say, “It just can’t be done in a democracy”, or at least, “It can’t be done without a terrible 1976-style crisis”, almost all our problems in terms of the size of the state would be solved if we returned to the levels of state spending that we had in the early Blair years. I think there were a few Members opposite who were part of the Government then, and they will remember that it was perfectly comfortable—we were not living in some kind of Dickensian workshop. So, if we could just return to Blair spending levels, how difficult could that be?
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for initiating this debate, which has been interesting although not always enlightening. I was tempted to talk about pensions, as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Swinburne, but we will have other opportunities to debate that. I will simply say that it is a lot more complicated than that.
I speak as an unreconstructed Keynesian with a side order of Joan Robinson—I will come back to that in a minute—but, first, it is preposterous for those on the other side to lecture us on the UK’s poor economic performance. They were in power for the last 14 years. As explained by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, who is not in his place, they cannot shift the blame to anyone else. Perhaps the Liberal Democrats could take a little share of the blame, but they may be reformed sinners. They also try to claim that the ups and downs of short-term statistics over the last few weeks is in some form the fault of this Government. Well, to use the tired analogy, it is like the supertanker heading for the rocks. They steered it towards the rocks, we are steering it away and the move is starting.
I mentioned Joan Robinson because I want to quote from a book by the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, about the women who made modern economics. She states:
“Keynesian economics as developed by Robinson is still relevant for policymakers today, and I would argue that the poor performance of the UK economy since 2010 owes a lot to the failure to heed the lessons of Keynesian economics. When David Cameron and George Osborne became prime minister and chancellor respectively in 2010, they embarked on a programme of austerity that went against everything that Keynes (and Robinson) would have advised”.
Subsequently, she says:
“Welfare spending was cut, public sector wages frozen, departmental budgets for everything except the NHS cut”.
She concludes by pointing out:
“The economic recovery which was picking up steam at the end of 2009 and into 2010 was stopped in its tracks. Economic growth stalled and productivity tumbled”.
That is the record of 14 years of Conservative Government. They come here today and lecture us on the failure of the present Government. Let us see. I hope my noble friend will be able to assure us that we will not be adopting the policies of 2010 from the coalition and that the policies we introduce will achieve the economic growth that we require.
I conclude with a final comment on the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Agnew—not the substance; I look forward to his joining us on the Economic Affairs Committee and some interesting debates. He said, in effect, that 10,000 millionaires were leaving the UK each year. Well, I have to admit that I am a millionaire. I live in central London. I have a house that is worth more than £1 million. Using the tired old trope of millionaires is meaningless. A vast number of millionaires have been created. I suspect that we are going back to the time of our childhood, when £1 million was a lot of money. It is not any more.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as on the register, and I also declare a particularly awkward conflict, which is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, referred to, recently I published two books on this very subject, economic growth. Every time that the Government announce another problematic economic policy, sales of my book go up, so I could, in this speech, be accused of standing here to promote my books. I apologise for that embarrassing conflict, which I can do little about, as long as the Government continue to have such dysfunctional policies.
Both sides of the House want GDP per capita growth. The Government want it to provide services and benefits to citizens, and Conservatives want the same, although they also want to put more money every year in people’s pockets, believing that that is a better way to promote individual happiness than through government expenditure.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, referred to how in the early 2000s our GDP per capita was near parity with the US. The economy was growing steadily under Blair, state expenditure was about a third of the economy, taxes were about a third of the economy, and regulation was reasonably moderate. The UK was generally acknowledged to have the best economy in Europe, provided by the Thatcher and Major Governments, which Blair and Brown gratefully inherited. Since 2007 GDP per capita has not gone up significantly, either here or, as several noble Lords have mentioned, in the social democrat countries of the EU.
GDP per capita has steadily increased in other countries. The US is now 40% higher than us, with much more cash in the pocket of the average worker in the United States as a result. Just go over there and see the difference. Policies pursued by both major parties in the UK since around 2005 are responsible for this—bigger and bigger government, higher taxes, metastasising regulation. Our new Conservative leader, Kemi Badenoch, has acknowledged in the other place that since 2007 we have mostly been no better than Gordon Brown was in the Labour Party. Realising our errors, we have changed, while in contrast the Labour Government have doubled down on a growth-destroying approach.
When your GDP per capita is low, you cannot afford to offer to your people all the things that you would like to. The more you spend, the more your economy stalls. The problem worsens year after year and we end up where we are: a large, intrusive state with too-high taxes, far too much regulation, no money and no growth. There is a new regulator each week, unpardonably targeting successful sectors whose growth will now fall away under the assault of fines, subventions, DEI, ESG and on and on. Employment this week is down. Of course—what did the Government expect? Yet the OBR and the IMF still mainly predict positive albeit anaemic growth. Regrettably, they still prioritise growth in overall GDP rather than in GDP per capita.
Anybody who is in touch with the economy, which sadly this Government seem not to be, knows that to assert that the economy is growing is nonsense. Right now the economy is either flat or shrinking, and—as my noble friends Lord Agnew and Lord Frost pointed out—with our population growing by some 0.75% per year, GDP per capita is therefore definitely shrinking. This means that in this country we have in our midst millions of personal recessions, with all the human unhappiness that this entails. The Chancellor has finally realised what a disaster the non-dom policy has been and, importantly, has said that growth will trump net zero. Will the Government now get rid of the centrally imposed heat pump diktat? Will they now reduce the growth-destroying green subsidies? Will they now allow further growth-promoting drilling in the North Sea?
How bad will it have to get before the Government realise that they are on precisely the wrong track? How bad will our economy be by the time a reversal in policy is forced—which it will be—on the Government?
Lord Petitgas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Farmer for initiating this debate. It is a timely discussion given the challenges we face.
Broadly speaking, economic history offers us two models: a bottom-up, liberal approach that prioritises risk taking, innovation and wealth creation, and a top-down, state-driven model that typically comes with higher taxes and welfare spending. Today the UK is operating under model 2. That model has delivered growth in the past, but it seems very unlikely to do so now. As my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Moyo, said, we do not lack the three canonical ingredients for growth—talent, innovation and capital. Indeed, we punch above our weight in financial services, life sciences, technology and the creative industries. We can certainly be proud of how we attract a lot of investor interest from around the world.
What we lack is confidence in our economic policies, both here and abroad. Since the Autumn Budget, pessimism has deepened. With near-zero GDP growth, long-term gilts over 5%, debt levels at 100% of GDP and wage growth outpacing productivity gains, we find ourselves in a bind. Whether that is because of a legacy or not, these are the facts. It does not matter who is responsible; that is what we are living with. The classic growth levers are therefore gripped: taxes have hit a ceiling, budget cuts are hard and borrowing costs are too high. Alarmingly, some experts warn of a potential debt trap, with both borrowing costs and public spending well exceeding economic growth and interest payments covered mainly through further borrowing. In fact, 85% of our annual borrowing covers our interest on existing debt. It is an untenable situation.
Allow me to outline five topics that might help reset investor sentiment. I had six with the non-doms, but I took the view that that had been dealt with at Davos today. First, we must address the size and cost of the public sector. When businesses face financial strain, they cut costs and innovate; the Government must also do so. The DOGE initiative in the US should not be underestimated: for better or worse, it will make the political weather in this policy area. By streamlining public services and improving efficiency, we can lower expenditure while keeping quality.
Secondly, our energy costs are too high—in fact, they are the second-highest in the G7, double those of the US. This burdens businesses and households alike, and will hamper our AI development. Our commitment to net zero remains important, but we must adopt a pragmatic approach balancing environmental goals with economic realities. The UK already leads the G7 in decarbonisation; now is the time to focus on affordability without compromising progress entirely.
Thirdly, we must strengthen and invest in our special relationship with the US. This is the largest economy in the world and the only one that seems to be working. As we move further into an American and AI-driven century, leveraging our unique ties with the US will be critical for trade, investment and innovation for this country. Few nations enjoy such a privileged connection; many would give their right arm for it. We must capitalise on it fully to secure our economic future.
Fourthly, on the supply side we must roll back regulation and planning restrictions. We can be the nation of common-sense regulation again—distinct from the EU’s regulatory complexity and the US’s unique model. We will attract investment and encourage innovation. Recent changes at the CMA are a welcome signal that the Government are more attentive to global business concerns, which I welcome.
Fifthly and finally, we need to rebuild trust with the private sector. The recent Budget trifecta of NIC increases, changes to workers’ rights and higher business rates has caused widespread concern and consternation among many business leaders. We should listen to their feedback and consider adjustments, such as maintaining our flexible labour market and lowering capital gains tax for entrepreneurs. We need a pro-growth tax measure to ensure that the UK remains competitive. There is no time to lose: in April the NIC increases kick in and business confidence, particularly that of SMEs, will suffer a further blow.
In my view, these ideas and many others discussed today represent more than just policy adjustments. They are part of a broader effort to shift perceptions of the UK economy from one characterised by high costs and low growth to one defined by innovation, connectivity and competitiveness on a global scale.
We face what I believe is nothing short of a national emergency—a situation that demands bold action and decisive leadership. Only by fostering confidence among businesses and investors can we create an environment conducive to sustained growth and, ultimately, prosperity for all.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for securing this debate. It is the first time I have had the pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Petitgas; I enjoyed his speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, made clear that growth has been an issue for many Parliaments. I find the Conservative Party’s conscious collective amnesia, demonstrated by a number of speakers today, to be extremely cynical. They had their chance and, as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, ably demonstrated, the wreckage they left behind has had to be picked up by His Majesty’s Government now.
As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, parties of all colours—except green—seek to grow our economy. The differences appear when it comes to deciding how to distribute the spoils of any growth; sadly, that is not our problem today. Most people agree that the best strategy for us is to offer a beneficial, stable economy that supports existing business and attracts new ones. Of course, that is open to definition.
The current Government say that they are no different, and we hear a relatively familiar menu of mechanisms they say they will adopt to try to achieve growth: fiscal stability, investment, infrastructure, skills, devolution and planning reform, research and development, and net zero. But what will, and can, the Government actually do with this smorgasbord? Since the election, they have largely published analysis and launched consultations. What legislation we have seen to date has been skeletal, short on detail and long on granting powers for subsequent detailed laws. The Great British Energy Bill and the product regulation Bill are cases in point.
On 9 January, in answer to a question about growth from me, the Minister set out how he sees the Government’s record so far. He presented a shorter list: a modern industrial strategy, planning reform, pension reform and skills reform. I thought I would try to put this debate to some use and probe those four issues with the Minister.
The new council to steer the industrial strategy was launched just before the Christmas break. Under a chair from Microsoft, the 15 other members come from a cross-section that is hard to recognise as what we would call traditionally industrial. There is someone from Rolls-Royce, but there is no one from the chemicals, automotive or life sciences sectors, and no representatives from the smaller companies that make up the vital industrial supply chains. Although several trade unions have seats, which I agree with, I note that none of the major industrial trade associations do. Can the Minister explain how our largest industries and top exporters can be expected to be represented on this council when they are not there, and how the producers of half the UK’s GDP, which comes from SMEs, will be represented when they have no voice on that council?
To date, it is clear that the Government envision eight horizontal sectors encompassing a whole range of activities, some of which do not conform with the traditional definition of industrial. I assume automotive and aerospace—my old stomping grounds—are in the advanced manufacturing box, but where is our huge chemicals sector? Perhaps the Minister can flesh out this organogram today or in writing. When will we see what the plans are for these sectors, other than rolling over existing sector deals?
Planning reform invokes a rather simpler set of questions. When will the changes that the Government plan come into effect? For example, when will the first house be built on grey-belt land, and when will we see new local plans that include the grey belt? Until approvals start to happen, the effect of any planning changes on growth will be zero—perhaps less than zero, as investors sit back and wait to see what happens.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Davies, I am going to talk about pension reform. A cornerstone of the Government’s plans for growth clearly requires a significant change in behaviour by UK pension funds to invest far more heavily in UK assets—especially in illiquid and high-risk assets, notably upscaling small businesses and large infrastructure projects. How will the Government achieve this, given increasing warnings from the industry that it could reduce payouts to pensioners? Will they pressurise funds by applying a minimum threshold of investment in such assets? Will they mandate the consolidation of smaller funds and the pooling of local government pension schemes? If so, what is their assessment of the legal and administrative challenges and the implications of a reduced voice for pension holders? Finally, pensioners with small pots are least able to bear the risk. Will the Government put in place protection for such pensioners? Surely the most effective way to get more investment in UK assets is to increase the pipeline of attractive projects and tackle the problems of upscaling small businesses, in which the lack of lending, more often than the lack of capital investment, appears to be the major financial gap.
In truth, access to talent appears to be one of the biggest barriers for many businesses, so the Minister was absolutely right to list skills as a priority for action. The challenge of lifting the skills of some 31 million workers is huge and is not an overnight venture. It comes from accumulated effort and investment in schools, universities, colleges and institutes, not forgetting the role of the businesses themselves. But the Government’s challenge is this: if the construction of a new electricity transmission system gains planning permission, finds the necessary funding and lines up the necessary components, which have lead times measured in years, who will do the work? Who will build that transmission system, the new houses, and the infrastructure we need for growth?
Considering the complexity and the vital necessity of tackling skills, you would think it would be a good idea to set off on the journey straightaway. The vehicle the Government are trusting with this new task is a whole new organisation, Skills England, which
“will bring together central and local government, businesses, training providers and unions to meet the skills needs of the next decade across all regions”,
as the Government say. But once again I ask the question: when? Skills England plans to publish the findings from its first engagement sometime this year—soon, I hope. Will the work start then, or will there be further consultations before the work starts? There is huge inertia in the skills supply chain, so can the Minister give your Lordships’ House some sort of timeline—perhaps an idea when the first person who benefits from these government skills changes will hit the UK workforce?
To close, I will add one further issue that the Minister did not choose to mention. It picks up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, about access to markets. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Lea, I believe there is no doubt that British manufacturing has suffered due to Brexit. If you talk to British manufacturing, that is what it tells you. It is welcome that the Government recognise the need to reset our relationship with the EU, but once again we are in the territory of what and when: what will that reset be, and when will we see it?
Noble Lords will have noted that, in a helpful contribution, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Sir Ed Davey, called for the Government to negotiate a new deal with the EU, with the goal of forming a customs union by 2030 at the latest. There was a reciprocal intervention from the EU, which the Government slapped down at a moment’s notice. This is important and it would help: it would slash red tape and boost our trade with Europe by reducing the number of checks on goods, as businesses are finding in Northern Ireland, which, I remind noble Lords, is in a customs union with the European Union.
People are already struggling with the cost of living and are now worried about what a Trump presidency will mean for our economy. Forming a customs union with the EU would put us in a much stronger position to resist Trump’s bullying. It would be a win-win for our country. I look forward to the Minister’s detailed response.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, creating the right conditions to promote growth is a critical challenge that we must address. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Farmer for initiating this debate so thoughtfully, and for bringing in social and cultural factors that are important to growth as well.
Thanks to the last Conservative Government, this Government inherited the fastest-growing economy in the G7. They pledged that their first priority would be to increase economic growth. However, growth has since evaporated, and that follows the recorded 0.7% growth in the summer. During the UK investment summit, the Prime Minister said:
“You have to grow your business”.
Then two weeks later, in the Budget, the Chancellor increased national insurance contributions by a whopping £23.7 billion, including a regressive lowering of the threshold at which employer national insurance is paid.
This was widely seen as an attack on business—business is an easy target—and a jobs tax, so not conducive to growth. This week, it was announced that the early estimate of the number of payrolled employees for December 2024 decreased by 47,000 on the month. Then today, Sainsbury’s has sadly announced 3,000 job losses. These may be the harbinger of worse as businesses and social enterprises reduce hiring and increase prices. The debt figure for December was a shock too, especially as every pound of interest paid on debt comes off public services or investment.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Udny-Lister that this has been devastating, because doom and gloom have become the order of the day, and that is a mistake because it dampens the animal spirits that are needed for enterprise and growth. Economic success is heavily influenced by morale. Yet, for six months, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor barely said a positive word about the economy or the fine prospects we believe we have in our country—the optimism that my noble friend Lord Horam called for. Instead, during the second half of the year, we saw the impact on consumer confidence, and the CBI indicated that manufacturers expected their output to fall during the beginning of 2025.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I like to look forward. Like him, I will try to tackle four areas but with fewer questions, which I hope the Minister will feel able to answer either today or in writing. First, on education and skills, the intrinsic link between improved education and skills and economic growth is widely accepted. Of course, this is a long-term endeavour. The Conservative Government devoted great effort to improving education, and this was reflected in amazing improvements in our PISA scores. However, the new Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will undermine academies and free schools, which have been at the heart of this revolution in standards. The proposed restrictions on academies’ pay, the exclusion of veterans and others bringing their strengths to teaching from other careers and the imposition of a Labour curriculum risk reversing those very improvements. Can the Minister explain how academies will continue to attract the best teachers? The IFS has warned that they may struggle. Is consideration being given to the impact of the new policies on school standards?
Investment in skills, apprenticeships and education is key to promoting both productivity and economic growth, and I am particularly glad that the Government have stated their intention of doing much better on vocational education. My time at Tesco convinced me of this and that there is a snobbery about universities that has held us back in this sector.
Secondly, on productivity, in the long term, the overall rate of growth in productivity is reflected in the rate of growth in the economy. The important metric is GDP per capita, as my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea explained. Concerningly, in the third quarter of 2024, productivity was estimated to be 1.8% lower than in the previous year—the noble Baroness, Lady Moyo, told us that. The problem is partly cultural, and I believe that working from home and poor management in the public sector have contributed to this. In our Budget debate, I called for an internal productivity and growth assessment, modelled on the equality assessment, of every proposal for a new policy, an SI or a Bill. The Minister agreed to look at this and I wonder what conclusion he has reached. It feels as if its time has come and that it could be useful to the Treasury in prioritising the pro-growth policies that we need.
Thirdly, on regulation, possibly the most powerful contribution to productivity growth is by regulatory reform rather than just by trying to flex taxes. My noble friend Lord Agnew of Oulton made a number of excellent suggestions on trade facilitation, involving things such as trusted trader schemes and getting the single trade window, which I was sorry to hear had got lost, back on track. My noble friend Lord Frost talked about the intellectual case for regulatory reform.
At the UK investment summit, the Prime Minister said he was
“determined to do everything in my power to galvanise growth”,
so I found it particularly baffling that the election manifesto promised to ramp up so many regulations, such as in football and in employment. Then, after figures indicated that the economy had flatlined, the Prime Minister wrote to regulators asking them to go for growth. That is obviously an indication that he fears that the regulators are hampering growth, and I think he is right. Unfortunately, that is a bit like putting the fox in charge of the hen coop. Those bodies need external challenge to tackle what my noble friend Lord Farmer called the “sticky web of regulation” and its negative effect on wealth creation. It is hard to deliver, as my noble friend Lord Hannan of Kingsclere said.
As the chair of the CBI, Rupert Soames, explained, government policies, particularly new employment regulations, will bruise businesses. The Government’s own impact assessment on its workers’ rights package estimated that it will cost companies £5 billion a year, and of course that comes on top of the NICs increases, the minimum wage rises and so on, which we have discussed at length—my noble friend Lord Petitgas is right that they were very disappointed by that. There is a real need to restore trust in business so that it can play its part in growth. What assessment have the Government made of the impact on economic growth of all the increased regulations that are coming forward? Does the Minister agree that keeping a tracker as part of his work on growth could be valuable and help us to prioritise the right areas?
My fourth and final area is infrastructure. A number of comments have been made on how we can improve investment, venture capital and so on, but I am going to focus on delivering major national infrastructure projects, because they are essential to the Government’s mission to kick-start growth. Unfortunately, the cost of building delays to projects exceeds those of our international peers. The FT has described modern UK infrastructure projects as containing a bewildering number of contractors, with multiple layers passing down cash and responsibilities protected by complicated legal agreements, and then you add environmental regulations. Spending £100 million on a bat tunnel along the edge of HS2 was ridiculous.
Analysis from BCG of four major projects—Crossrail, the Arundel A27 bypass, Hinkley Point and Royal Liverpool Hospital—has identified several themes that are driving costs and delays. The Government have announced that they are looking at judicial review, and I was glad to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, about the BCC list of things that are ready to go. Poorly defined objectives overcomplicate projects, and the UK fails to look at key projects within a wider portfolio setting, identifying the most efficient path.
The Government have also failed to prioritise investment in critical energy infrastructure despite the fact that British companies pay the highest electricity prices in the developed world. The punitive taxes on the North Sea oil and gas industry, in an effort to achieve an ideological target of a decarbonised grid by 2030, will cut tax revenue and jobs and drive up business bills further, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Swire.
Can the Minister confirm how the Government will support nuclear energy projects? Currently the timeframe for grid connections for a new energy project can be as long as 10 years, so will he commit to national grid development? The Government must address infrastructure development delays and costs if they are to achieve their number one mission of growth.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for securing this debate, and I congratulate him on his interesting and wide-ranging opening speech. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today. It is of course a pleasure to respond to this debate, and a particular pleasure to hear from noble Lords in the party opposite about how to grow the economy. It is perhaps a pity that they did not take any of their own advice over the past 14 years.
We have heard in this debate from members of the previous Government about how to grow the economy, despite economic growth being one of their greatest failures. We have heard from some of the most prominent supporters of Brexit about how to grow the economy, despite their own disastrous Brexit deal permanently reducing GDP by 4%. We have also heard from some of the most enthusiastic acolytes of Liz Truss about how to grow the economy, despite the Liz Truss mini-Budget crashing it. What we did not hear during the debate, I am afraid, was a single word of humility. We did not even hear the slightest hint of self-awareness and we still have not heard the long-overdue apology to the British people for the previous Government’s record on the economy over the past 14 years.
The reality of the past 14 years is stark. First, there was austerity, which, as my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton said, took demand out of the economy at exactly the wrong moment. Then a disastrous and tragically misjudged Brexit deal imposed new trade barriers, equivalent to a 13% increase in tariffs for manufacturing and a 20% increase in tariffs for services, reducing total trade intensity by 15%. Finally, as I have said, the Liz Truss mini-Budget crashed the economy and sent the typical mortgage soaring by £300 a month. The combined effect was devastating. Had the economy grown by the average of other OECD countries over the past 14 years, it would be more than £150 billion larger today.
The previous Parliament was the worst on record for living standards. Inflation hit 11.1% and was above target for 33 months in a row. The UK was the only G7 economy with private investment levels below 20% of GDP. Productivity had entirely stalled, with output per worker growing more slowly than in every other G7 country bar Italy. We were the only G7 country to have a lower employment rate and a higher inactivity rate compared to before the pandemic. Little wonder then that the previous Government, at the last election, suffered the worst defeat of any governing party in history. I say to noble Lords opposite that they were not rejected so comprehensively because the British people thought they had done a really good job of managing the economy.
It now falls to this Government to clear up the mess that we inherited and to grow the economy once again. The reality is, as my noble friend Lord Chandos said, that we inherited three distinct crises: a crisis in the public finances, a crisis in our public services and a crisis in the cost of living. As noble Lords including the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lea of Lymm, have reminded us today, in the public finances we inherited a £22 billion black hole—a series of commitments made by the previous Government which they did not fund and did not disclose. The previous Government made no provision for costs that they knew would materialise, including £11.8 billion to compensate victims of the infected blood scandal and £1.8 billion to compensate victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal. Those sums have to be funded.
It was not just broken public finances but broken public services, with NHS waiting lists at record levels, children in portakabins as school roofs crumbled, and rivers filled with polluted waste. Added to this was a cost of living crisis that had hit working people hard, with inflation at 11% but coupled with a decision by the previous Government to freeze income tax thresholds, costing working people some £30 billion.
This Government have made different choices. At the Budget, we took action to wipe the slate clean, repair the public finances, rebuild our public services after years of neglect and protect working people. This meant taking some very difficult decisions. These were not decisions we wanted to take but they were necessary. I recognise that that has involved asking some businesses to contribute more, but not acting was simply not an option. As a result of the decisions we have taken, we have created a foundation on which we are now able to take forward our agenda of growth and reform.
The noble Lord, Lord Agnew, spoke about living standards as a result of the Budget. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that real household disposable income per capita will increase over the course of this Parliament. That compares to the previous Parliament, which was the worst on record for living standards.
The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea, spoke about employment. It is welcome that the number of people in employment is forecast to rise by 1.2 million over the course of this Parliament, but clearly there is more to do. Because of the inaction of the previous Government, the UK is the only major economy where economic inactivity has not returned to pre-pandemic levels. That is why the Government has announced a £240 million package to get Britain working and to tackle the root causes of inactivity, and why we will bring forward a Green Paper this year to reform the welfare system.
At the time of the Budget, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility revised up its growth forecast for the next two years. After the Budget, the Bank of England did the same. The OECD also revised up its forecasts, which now show the UK economy growing faster than the economies of Germany, France, Italy and Japan over the next three years. Last week, the IMF forecast that the UK will be the fastest-growing major European economy over the next two years. The UK was the only G7 economy, apart from the US, to have its growth forecast upgraded for this year. This week, in PwC’s annual survey of global CEOs, the UK has become the second most attractive country in the world for investment, below the US, for the first time. I am sure all these points will be welcomed by all noble Lords and will be the start of the optimistic narrative across this House that has been spoken about in today’s debate.
While the latest ONS figures for November show modest growth, I am under no illusion about the challenge facing us. That is why we need to go further and faster to achieve higher and more sustainable growth. It is why we need to continue to put forward the big ideas that the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, spoke about. It is why the Chancellor will continue to do just that in her forthcoming speech on growth, continuing our growth strategy, built on the three pillars of stability, investment and reform.
As my noble friend Lord Chandos said, stability is at the core of our approach. Here, I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Moyo. We cannot deliver growth without first stabilising the public finances and giving businesses the confidence that they need to invest. This Government have a stable majority, which creates political stability, and we respect the UK’s economic institutions, including the independent Bank of England and Office for Budget Responsibility, which instil confidence in our economy but were consistently undermined by the previous Government.
In the Budget we introduced tough new fiscal rules to ensure that day-to-day spending is balanced with tax receipts, while getting debt down as a share of GDP. As the Chancellor has made clear, meeting those fiscal rules is non-negotiable. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lea of Lymm, said, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility will produce an economic and fiscal forecast on 26 March. This will provide a clear assessment of the performance against those fiscal rules.
To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Horam, we have set a 2% productivity, efficiency and savings target for all departments. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about productivity assessments. I continue to look at that idea carefully.
The second pillar of our strategy is investment, which is the lifeblood of a growing economy. It is not acceptable that, under the previous Government, the UK was the only G7 economy where private investment stood below 20% of GDP. Neither is it acceptable that the previous Government consistently cut public investment to patch up holes in day-to-day spending. We are taking a different approach.
The Government’s international investment summit last year generated £64 billion of private investment, creating nearly 40,000 jobs across the UK. In the Budget, as my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe said, we committed £100 billion of new public investment in roads, rail, hospitals and other significant growth projects—including investment in the energy transition, to answer the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea—to crowd in private investment, and create more jobs and opportunities in every corner of the UK. Our approach is supported by the IMF, which has said that it welcomed the Budget’s
“focus on boosting growth through a needed increase in public investment while addressing urgent pressures on public services”.
The noble Lord, Lord Swire, spoke about the importance of inward investment, which I agree with him on very much. Our investment approach will be guided by our modern industrial strategy and the new National Wealth Fund, which will catalyse £70 billion of private investment in high-value sectors. It has already created 8,600 jobs across the UK and secured almost £1.6 billion of private investment. It is why we must invest in innovation and R&D, which we have protected at record levels. We have the highest R&D tax relief in the G7, the importance of which was set out so well by my noble friend Lord Eatwell. As my noble friend said, access to finance is vital, which was an issue also mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Moyo and Lady Swinburne.
The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, asked about investment in family hubs. The Government have increased investment in England in early years and family services to £8 billion in 2025-26; this includes £69 million on family hubs in phase one of the spending review.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox of Soho, spoke about the urgency of the industrial strategy, and I agree with her absolutely. We have announced the members of the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council, which is chaired by Clare Barclay, CEO of Microsoft UK, and includes serial entrepreneurs and those with extensive SME experience. As the noble Lord, Lord Udny-Lister, rightly said, they are the backbone of our economy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Swinburne, rightly said that financial and professional services are a key part of the industrial strategy. She set out the huge contribution that they make to our economy and to growth—and I shall pass on her very kind comments to my honourable friend the Economic Secretary.
The industrial strategy also includes the creative industries, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Horam. At the International Investment Summit, we published a Green Paper to inform the development of the industrial strategy. That consultation has closed and we are actively considering the responses. To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the industrial strategy will absolutely be developed in close co-ordination with all the industries in the sectors that he mentioned in his speech. We will then bring forward the full industrial strategy, including individual sector plans, which will provide all the detail that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked for and will be aligned with the multiyear spending review.
The final pillar of our strategy is reform to tackle barriers to investment and unlock the full growth potential of the UK economy, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Horam, and the entrepreneurialism spoken about by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer. That is why we are unlocking £80 billion of investment through landmark reforms to create new pension mega-funds, as set out by my noble friend Lord Eatwell. I look forward to my honourable friend Torsten Bell, the new Pensions Minister, setting the answers to all the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. It is why we will shortly set out a programme of welfare reform, as discussed by the noble Lord, Lord Desai.
My noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe, highlighted skills, and I agreed very much with what he said. We have established Skills England to bring together the fractured skills landscape and ensure that businesses have the right employees they need to grow. Again to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Fox, its work has absolutely begun—in particular, in part of the industrial strategy. It is itself represented on the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council, which he spoke about.
On planning reform, we are overhauling the system with the most significant programme of reform for a generation to speed up exactly the decisions that the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, spoke about. I assure her that the infrastructure projects that she mentioned are exactly why we want to speed up the system. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about timescales here; the most pressing next step is to get the legislation through this Parliament and this House. Given what the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said on that topic, I hope that we can now count on her support for that.
We are also working closely with regulators to ensure that we are doing everything possible to reduce the regulatory barriers to growth. As the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, mentioned—and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, also touched on—the Government are determined to deliver a regulatory environment that champions innovation, attracts investment and drives economic growth. Before Christmas, the Prime Minister, Chancellor and Secretary of State for Business and Trade issued a joint letter to regulators, as several noble Lords have mentioned today, to generate bold pro-growth reforms that can be implemented in the coming year. Of course, that is not the full or sole extent of ensuring that reform is pro-growth, and we will bring forward further reforms in due course.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox of Soho, asked about procurement. As she will know, the Procurement Act will go live in February, and ahead of that the Government will publish a new national procurement policy statement, setting out the policy objectives to which the Government expect public procure-ment to contribute. The Government are working closely with stakeholders on the design of this new statement.
The noble Lords, Lord Swire and Lord Horam, spoke about AI and the opportunities that it presents, and I agree with the sentiments that they expressed. The AI Opportunities Action Plan announced by the Prime Minister last week will help us to seize the benefits of this important technology. It takes forward all 50 recommendations set out by Matt Clifford to help transform the lives of working people and drive growth.
To reassure the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, we do of course have a Minister for Trade, and I discussed trade facilitation with him just yesterday. However, reform is needed in our relationship with the EU, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said. Following their meeting in Brussels on 2 October, the Prime Minister and President of the European Commission agreed to strengthen the relationship between the EU and UK, putting it on a more solid, stable footing. We will now work with the EU to identify areas where we can strengthen co-operation for mutual benefit, such as the economy, energy, security and resilience.
As the Prime Minister has made clear, we want to work with our European neighbours to reset relationships, rediscover our common interests and renew bonds of trust and friendship. That is why, last month, at a meeting of the Eurogroup meeting of EU Finance Ministers—the first to be attended by a UK Chancellor since Brexit—the Chancellor set out the need for a closer UK-EU economic relationship based on trust, mutual respect and pragmatism. That involves breaking down barriers to trade, creating opportunities to invest and helping our businesses to sell in each other’s markets. We recognise that delivering new agreements will take time, but we are ambitious, have clear priorities and want to move forward at pace.
The noble Lord, Lord Petitgas, spoke about the importance of trade with the US. The UK is of course an open trading economy, and we have over £300 billion in trade with the US. This trading relationship is important to both the UK and US economies, supporting millions of jobs. We will of course continue to make the case for free and open trade.
We have heard much from those in the party opposite about how to grow the economy, but so much of our agenda of stability, investment and reform they unfortunately oppose. They have shown no humility for the economic damage that they inflicted on this country over 14 years, they have come up with no alternative plan and they have provided no apology. It falls to this Government to clean up the mess that we inherited. We are doing that by restoring growth to our economy, rebuilding our public services and making working people better off.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed today. It was a robust debate and it was full of good ideas, stimulating and constructive. I thank the Minister for addressing many of the questions and giving details. I am saddened by the political point-scoring, because we have problem of growth and we need a coherent plan, as my noble friend Lord Horam, said, for growth. I intended—and as I said at the beginning, I prayed—that this debate would produce some ideas that would be a help to the Government. I hope that the Government will take this debate, study it and take the ideas from it, and that it may help them in producing a coherent plan for growth.
I thank everybody for their work and preparation. This has been an important debate. We have a growth problem and we need a growth plan. I beg to move.
Climate Change: Support for Farmers
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
To ask His Majesty’s Government, following reports that the United Kingdom faces shortages of broccoli and cauliflower this spring, what steps they are taking to support farmers and growers to adapt to climate change.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I declare my interest as president of the Rural Coalition. I thank those Members of your Lordships’ House who have signed up to engage today on what I believe is an important and topical issue. Our debate is about the shortage of great British broccoli and cauliflowers—and, of course, many other vegetables as well—which have been part of our staple diet for years, and the difficulties caused, at least in part, by climate degradation. It is fitting that we have this debate just prior to the start of agri-science week in this Parliament.
Farming is an extremely tough profession at the best of times, and the range of setbacks and difficulties our farmers face is huge. I have to say I am deeply troubled by the low morale and depression that I hear at the moment from farms across my diocese, in all corners of the agricultural world. I want to take a moment here to pay tribute to all farmers and those involved in associated industries for their hard work, their dedication, their resilience and the critical services they provide to us all as they produce food. We must not take them for granted.
There is no doubt that climate change is creating many challenges for farming. No community or country has been immune from the effects of our changing planet, from failed harvests and changing rainfall patterns. As climate security threats escalate, they pose profound challenges to our national security. However, I also want to emphasise the vast field of opportunity that the agricultural industry represents as a major contributor of economic growth, representing an opportunity to put the UK at the front and centre of innovative, sustainable and future-thinking policy solutions. Farmers are uniquely placed to solve some of the most pressing challenges we face when it comes to climate change.
The increase in frequency of extreme weather events and the changing climate cannot go unnoticed. My noble colleagues may recall that I led a debate in the House last October on the impacts of flooding on farming. I see that the Met Office has again instigated yellow warnings for the next few days. In the age of climate change, extreme weather does not just mean more rainfall but could also mean more heatwaves, droughts, storms and even unusually cold weather. Heavy rainfall this past autumn and winter has damaged crops, particularly cauliflower and broccoli, while the mild winter has resulted in some crops arriving earlier than expected. Much of our broccoli would normally be imported from Spain, but the crops there have been devastated by heavy rainfall and flooding, particularly in Valencia and the areas around it, so it is difficult to supplement our supplies with imports from Europe.
September 2024 saw farmers face collective losses of around £600 million following what emerged as one of the worst harvests on record, after staggering levels of rainfall. Climate change threatens the sustainability and profitability of farming businesses, as well as our food security. His Majesty’s Government initiated a strategic defence review and are undertaking a review of national resilience. However, a report published in October 2024 by the University of Exeter, Chatham House and the IPPR highlighted climate change as a glaring blind spot in the UK’s national security strategy, with risks to the food supply chain as a critical concern. These threats have been significantly and consistently underestimated and now feature as major security threats.
Defra’s Food Security report, published last year, highlights the significance of rising food insecurity, precipitated by climate change, among other factors. UK self-sufficiency when it comes to food production has declined since the 1980s and is far lower when it comes to fresh fruit and vegetables—somewhere in the region of 53%, much lower than for other crops such as cereals. In addition, food waste represents a significant economic and environmental loss in the UK food system. The report also highlights the degradation of the UK’s natural capital as a key factor threatening our capacity to produce food into the future. Environmental restoration and sustainable, high-quality food production have to go hand in hand.
That brings me to the opportunity that these climate-based challenges pose. The agricultural sector is ripe for innovation and investment. Huge amounts of excellent work are already taking place. This is a vital opportunity that must not be missed. For example, in my diocese in Hertfordshire an organisation called Groundswell, with which some noble Lords will be familiar, is doing brilliant work, providing a forum for stakeholders to learn about regenerative agriculture, including no-till, cover crops and various other methods of improving soil health and thereby reducing the impacts of erosion, pollution and flooding. Some of this farming is at the forefront of world technology; we are making great progress that we should be hugely proud of and celebrate. Resilient agriculture is sustainable agriculture. This is one of the core beliefs of Groundswell, with the evidence showing that nature-friendly farming does not need to oppose profitability with environmental concern. They can be symbiotic.
The APPG on Science and Technology in Agriculture published a report earlier this week highlighting eight key areas for farming innovation that would help towards improving our national food security and meeting the Government’s net-zero targets. I will pick out just one: the use of novel protein sources for animal feed. The development of insect protein as animal feed alone is set to become an $8 to $12 billion global market by 2030. That is an immense economic growth opportunity for the UK to harness and represents a window for us to become a world leader in the science of insect farming. Insect proteins are a very low-carbon alternative to other protein feed sources, thereby contributing to the Government’s net-zero targets and combating some of the negative impacts that farming has at the moment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.
If we can overcome regulatory and policy obstacles, ensure that the barriers to innovation and adoption of new technologies do not get in our way and roll out, share, develop and implement best practice across the entire industry, we could be a world leader in sustainable, green agriculture while increasing our food production and improving our self-sufficiency. I do not have time to go into detail on the rest of the policy recommendations in the APPG’s excellent report, but I hope the Minister and relevant officials will read it in detail.
I very much look forward to hearing other noble Lords’ contributions to today’s debate and to hearing from the Minister what the Government’s plan is to ensure that the UK is proactive and innovative in its approach to farming, climate change and food security. We need to work with our farmers, who play such a valuable role, and protect our supplies of cauliflower and broccoli for future generations.
Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on again bringing a very timely issue to this House. Food insecurity is a serious matter and is increasing across the world, partly because of global conflict, the pandemic and of course climate change. Our severe weather events in the UK—the result of climate change—have included the wettest period on record, as he mentioned, between September 2022 and February 2024. This obviously affected livestock and the drilling of cereals. The first estimate of the 2024 cereals and oilseed harvest in England shows a 22% reduction in wheat compared with 2023.
Inevitably, domestic food security will be increasingly threatened by these severe weather events, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out. The measures which can be taken—improved drainage, drought-resistant crop varieties and sustainable soil management, as he mentioned—require investment and government support.
Our farmers produce about 60% of our food. Despite the global shocks of Covid and global energy price rises, our national food security has shown some resilience, but the horticulture sector faces particular challenges, such as labour supply problems and high regulatory requirements. Like all employers, growers face increases in national insurance contributions and the national living wage, and the cumulative effect means that there will inevitably be less investment, with some growers leaving the industry altogether.
Obviously, a real problem for farmers and growers—who are the guardians of our food security—is the effect of the recent Budget. I am sorry to grind on about this again, but it is in the forefront of my mind and those of all farmers and growers. The IHT changes are the most serious because they will reduce stability, confidence and therefore investment in the whole sector. Horticulture is arguably the most vulnerable to severe weather events, so it is likely to be the worst affected. Given the outraged reaction across rural communities against the Budget, I would like to believe that the Government will respond positively and helpfully. So far, that is not the case. We are talking about food security; it is a serious matter, and it is most certainly not the time to plunge rural communities into deep apprehension about the whole future of agriculture and horticulture.
I assume the Government must be getting feedback from their own MPs, newly elected to rural constituencies. They must know that the furious reactions from rural communities to their Budget, which included farmers’ demonstrations—unprecedented, in my experience—are not going to diminish, and rightly so. Our food security is at stake; it is one of the most serious issues facing the Government and they need to take it seriously.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, this may be a Question for Short Debate, but the right reverend Prelate has attracted a fine speakers’ list which includes many of my noble friends, and I am delighted to follow my noble friend Lady Shephard.
Noble Lords will know of my interest through my family’s business, and I am delighted that the right reverend Prelate has given us the opportunity to discuss one of the many issues creating worry and anxiety among farmers and growers. What he perhaps does not know is that Taylors grow both overwintered cauliflower and broccoli, double-cropping it with summer planting under a Lincolnshire cropping agreement—so, unlike some occasions when I speak here, I know of what I speak today.
The right reverend Prelate has read of the shortages expected this spring. That flies in the face of the company that plants, harvests and markets the crop on our farm, which agrees with me that it is a long time since the crop looked so good. However, the point that this Question raises is valid, for the labour to harvest those crops in early spring is hard to find, and the acreage may well be correspondingly reduced.
We are right to talk in this debate about climate change or unpredictable weather, for undoubtedly this has been a very difficult time for farmers and growers as they face the consequences of flooding. Defra issued a very useful press release addressing the issue on 7 January, following a meeting with the Environment Agency’s chief executive, Philip Duffy. But causes and consequences were perhaps better illustrated by the Lincolnshire Free Press of 14 January, which told of a farmer I know who has been waiting 12 months for the Environment Agency to repair a bank that topped in the Storm Henk overflow due to badger damage.
The Black Sluice pumping station was decommissioned some years ago on the grounds that it provided no benefit for people and their houses. Now, the Black Sluice Internal Drainage Board has noted that had the pumps been working, they would have got rid of half a million cubic metres from the swollen South Forty Foot Drain and saved my friend’s farm in the Bourne Fen area and properties in Boston from flooding.
The lesson is clear: the Environment Agency must get its priorities right, and the Government, if they want plentiful supplies of wholesome British produce, must ensure that the agency has the funds to do so.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, agriculture is possibly unique in its relationship to climate change. At the same time it is a major cause, victim and source of solutions. I have often spoken about the need for farming to reduce its environmental footprint, but I stress that this can and must happen at the same time as an increase in farm productivity. The world needs to increase food production and availability by up to 70% over the next 25 years to keep pace with the needs of a rapidly expanding global population. As the right reverend Prelate said—and I thank him for introducing this debate—our agricultural productivity growth is negligible.
To help farmers cope with the changing climate, there must be a long-term strategic plan for managing water scarcity and flooding events, and the infrastructure to capture, store and move water in times of plenty, taking a whole-catchment approach. Managing the wider landscape by improving soil management to increase the rate at which water permeates the ground, reducing surface run-off, is an additional approach to managing flood risk.
Although a simple beetle bank of coarse grasses planted on a slope, as invented by the Game & Wildlife Conservation Trust, can increase water infiltration rates by up to nine times, Rothamsted Research argues that the winter rain is now so great that multiple lines of defence are needed. Within SFI there are some useful options to help farmers, but will the Government consider incentivising farmers to employ and install treatment drains, given the huge environmental benefits to be gained? That would be an easy and cheap win.
We cannot afford to overlook the contribution of science and innovation, not only in improving the productivity and efficiency of farming but in directly reducing GHG emissions. Gene editing is one such opportunity, and I wholeheartedly welcome the recent confirmation from Defra that the secondary legislation needed to implement the precision breeding Act will be introduced to Parliament by the end of March this year.
Alongside gene editing, from methane-inhibiting feed additives and green fertilisers to novel proteins and precision farming, there are enormous opportunities for scientific innovation to help farmers both adapt to and mitigate the impacts of climate change. Many are discussed in the new report from the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Science and Technology in Agriculture, of which I am a member, entitled Farming Innovations to Deliver Net Zero, which I commend to the House. It has been produced in advance of Agri-Science Week in Parliament, which the all-party group is hosting in the Upper Waiting Hall next week. Has the Minister read the report, and will he encourage all Defra and Treasury Ministers to visit the exhibition next week?
Lord Framlingham (Con)
My Lords, when I spoke in a recent debate on agriculture, I took as my text “Barley, Not Bulrushes”. I still think that is an excellent slogan: it sums up in three words the utter nonsense of current policies coming from Defra, the department responsible for feeding our nation, which no longer has either “farming” or “agriculture” in its title.
I long for the good old days of MAFF—the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. It understood farmers and farming and is sorely missed. I feel very much that with this change in title has come a change in purpose and priorities. Feeding the people and maintaining a healthy, balanced countryside is crucial to our nation’s well-being. We lose sight of this at our peril, and we are rapidly doing just that.
Our worldwide striving to increase food production is as old as time itself. Broccoli and cauliflower are excellent examples of growers’ ability to experiment and improve. Along with Brussels sprouts, they all belong to the cabbage family and derive originally from broccoli, which was enjoyed by the Romans in the sixth century BC. In fact, Pliny the Elder wrote in the first century AD that broccoli was a standard favourite in Rome. By careful selection and breeding over the centuries, we now have many different and improved vegetables to enjoy.
Improvement is the watchword. Farmers and landowners in the 17th and 18th centuries bred better livestock and improved all farming practices. They were known as the improvers, and so it has continued until the present day, with massive improvements in yields, both arable and livestock, and the use of computers to plant and to harvest. Some crops can even now be grown without soil—a technique known as hydroponics. All seemed set fair to continue improving, but the Government had other ideas.
In the name of a crackpot scheme called “net zero”, fertile, well-drained, carefully cultivated and productive farmland is to be flooded to grow bulrushes. Just when we need it most, growing food is no longer a farmer’s top priority. Is it any wonder that farmers are asking the nation what is expected of them? The farmers and their sons and daughters, whose families have nurtured their land for generations, are to be deliberately—I stress “deliberately”—taxed out of existence. It must be stopped.
The Motion asks what steps the Government
“are taking to support farmers … to adapt to climate change”.
The answer is: they do not need help for this purpose. Any climate change that takes place will be gradual, and farmers are famously imaginative and resourceful. They will produce our food if only we let them get on with it.
There is an old saying: “If you can’t help, don’t hinder”. If we really want to help both our farmers and food production, we should do two things: drop the destructive inheritance tax proposals and abandon plans to flood farmland or smother it in solar panels. We should remain faithful to our agricultural traditions and improve, not destroy. The slogan should be—must be—“Barley, Not Bulrushes”.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Framlingham has reminded us of the many different members of the brassica family, which include tenderstem and sprouting varieties of broccoli, mustard, oilseed rape, Brussels sprouts, cauliflower and Calabrese—even the purple sprouting broccoli, which matches the colour of the right reverend Prelate’s episcopal garb.
Broccoli is good in iron and high in fibre, and sprouts can be strong in taste. This is particularly important, because we are not getting enough vegetables in our diet at the moment. We know that curly kale is packed with antioxidants that reduce inflammation, and the Telegraph tells us of how green smoothies can slow brain ageing—which is important in this place. John Innes has bred a fast-growing broccoli that can be harvested twice a year in the field and five times in the greenhouse. I suppose I should declare my interest in the agricultural and farming industries in Norfolk, because I know that our local farmers grow strong English mustard, and the more of their products that are left on the side of the plate, the more prosperous they will become, and deservedly so.
So, let us celebrate this humble family of vegetables, which we are being told is in the middle of a cauliflower crisis—and which, we are told, is being caused by climate change. I just do not buy it. I am sorry to bring a sour note to proceedings. I am not bitter, like undercooked sprouts can sometimes be. But let us examine the real reasons for the right reverend Prelate’s fears.
This year, slugs are a particularly bad problem for broccoli and caulis. Unfortunately, owing to the slow performance in the chemicals regulation division of the Health and Safety Executive, a new and more benign slug control pellet is not coming to the market fast enough, because the new slug pellet that was released for assessment in 2020 is still not approved. As a result, the crops are harder to grow.
A lack of skilled staff under the seasonal agricultural workers scheme has made the crop harder to harvest, and progress on robotics to replace this labour is slower, so it is harder to grow. Not allowing UK producers to treat homegrown seeds for cabbage stem flea beetle, but permitting the use of pretreated seed from Canada or Ukraine, has given overseas growers competitive advantage. We know that brassicas need sulphur to grow strongly, and cleaning up the power stations has made the crop harder to grow as well.
Our larger supermarkets share the concerns raised by my noble friends about the new inheritance taxes that will stifle innovation and investment and put our farming industry on the back foot. New packaging taxes make it harder to profitably present our products on the shelf. The conversion of land to solar production on grade 1 farmland in Lincolnshire, the county of my noble friend, makes it harder to grow too.
Taken together, it is a miracle we have any broccoli at all, especially when the British Growers Association tells us that British growers have scaled back production since 2017 as a result of poor profitability and reducing yields, not climate change. I do not want to trivialise the difficulties caused by bad weather—hot or cold, dry or wet. I know how many parts of Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire have been under water for months, but let us be honest with ourselves: this is nothing to do with climate change, which was debated seven days ago in your Lordships’ House. Shroud-waving on climate change when it has absolutely nothing to do with the broccoli breakdown is obscuring scrutiny of the real underlying causes that the right reverend Prelate raises. Look: it is time to change the record and to prioritise the practical actions that will get Britain farming immediately, rather than falsely concluding, “Well, there is no point, because the Chinese are opening a new coal-fired power station every other week”.
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)
My Lords, there is a lamentable tendency in the debates of the nation—and even in the discourses of your Lordships’ House—to elide from food security to self-sufficiency. We heard it a little just now. It was hinted at by the right reverend Prelate in introducing the Motion. He did not exactly make the link, but he spoke about the decline in self-sufficiency since the 1980s, and it was made explicit by some of my noble friends on this side, but it is fallacious, it is specious and a moment’s thought reveals why. Food security depends on being able to source your supplies from the widest possible diversity of suppliers, so that you are not vulnerable to a localised shock or disruption, which might as easily happen on your own territory as anywhere else.
When we come specifically to the broccoli and cauliflowers being debated this afternoon, I think we have a pretty robust and diverse system in place. Yes, we grow a lot of these brassica in Lincolnshire—I think that is the most concentrated place—some of it from my noble friend Lord Taylor, but all of it, I am sure, excellent. We then buy from the EU—mainly Spain, a little bit from France—and then we buy from beyond, from Morocco, from Kenya and, I, think a little bit from Mexico.
The difference is that, when we move beyond the EU, at a time when we are complaining about these shortages, we are still, incredibly, applying tariffs. We are saying that we do not have enough of the stuff and we do not have food security, and yet we have, if I understood the figures from the department this morning correctly, an 8% tariff for most of the year on brassica—or at least on chilled and non-chilled fresh cauliflower and headed broccoli from countries that either are not in the EU or with which we do not have a special trade deal. How on earth can that be sensible?
I at least understand that we produce some of our own brassica in this country. When we look at some of the other food tariffs, it becomes utterly unsustainable. I have gone on and on endlessly in your Lordships’ Chamber about the tariffs we continue to impose on Moroccan tomatoes, even though we produce barely any tomatoes. I know we produce some tomatoes—I used to be a Member of the European Parliament and I had the Isle of Wight in my constituency—but even at the height of our very short tomato-growing season, we are still importing about 80% of our tomatoes. Whom do we think we are protecting?
If we think it is silly when we get to tomatoes, let us consider the real spike in prices which is happening this year in our supermarkets, which is of olive oil, as a result of some of the same climatic changes that were being discussed earlier. We do not grow any olives in this country, to my knowledge. There is always some story in the Telegraph about someone in Cornwall having managed to grow tea or something, so maybe we do—no offence if any Cornish olive growers or would-be olive growers are watching on television, but let me say that we are not a major producer of olives, yet we are still imposing tariffs on olives and olive oil imported from Turkey, Tunisia or wherever it is.
In other words, we inherited tariff schedules from the EU that were designed to protect growers, particularly in Spain but also in Italy, Portugal and France, and five years almost to the day since Brexit, we have still not repealed them. This country led the way as a free trader, especially in foodstuffs. For the century that led up to the 1930s, it made us the richest place in the world. The parties that were in the forefront of arguing for what was, in a phrase of the Labour Chancellor, Philip Snowden, the “free breakfast table”, were the Lib Dems of the day and, after its foundation, the Labour Party. They understood that agricultural protectionism is a racket whereby the poor are forced to pay the rich. Now that we have these freedoms and are once again in charge of our own trade policy, please can the party opposite look to its own heritage and recover that global vision which once made us the wealthiest and most prosperous country on earth?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate on securing this debate and welcome the Minister to his place.
I will share with my noble friend Lord Hannan the figures that I have received from the Library. Our exports to the EU of fruit and vegetables combined, in the 12 months to November 2024, were £378 million in value. Our imports from the EU were £5,086 million. There seems to be a bit of a mismatch there, so his plea to remove tariffs does not seem to be working. We are importing millions of pounds-worth more in fruit and vegetables from the EU that we are exporting to it.
Today, we are looking at potential shortages of broccoli and cauliflower, and regrettably also of other greens, such as kale, brassicas such as collard greens, and turnips. This is very disappointing for someone who loves their greens, as I do. The Minister is in a good position to help vegetable growers with how climate change is impacting them. What steps is he taking to protect farmland from loss of crops and vegetables through floodwater, and through coastal erosion? What steps, such as adaptation measures, is Defra looking at to protect farmland? I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities and join my noble friend Lord Taylor in paying tribute to the work that it does.
Will farmers be reimbursed for storing floodwater on farmland? Can the Minister confirm that this will not breach the current de minimis rules under the relevant reservoir Act? Currently, farmers are not funded to store water on their farmland, nor are they reimbursed for managed retreat encroaching through coastal erosion. Will Defra and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government ensure that internal drainage boards are properly funded and resourced to do the excellent work of draining and dredging that they do? Their work is entirely complementary to the work of the Environment Agency but performs a function that no one else is reimbursed for or paid for on minor watercourses throughout low-lying areas of England.
On the wider issue of self-sufficiency, given the figures I referred to earlier and the increased threat to food security from the Russian invasion of Ukraine and other global conflicts, what steps will Defra and the Department for Business and Trade take to boost self-sufficiency at home in fruit and vegetables, and boost opportunities to increase our exports abroad? These trade issues have been debated on many occasions in this House, not least during the passage of the agriculture, environment and trade Acts, and more recently in discussions around individual trade agreements. We must take measures to boost production of fruit and vegetables at home and opportunities to export. Some 62% of the food that we need is produced at home, but only 53% of fresh vegetables and, woefully, 16% of fruit. I hope the Minister takes heed of and looks at this. Will he address it through the land use framework, which we look forward to, and respond to the NFU’s plea to Defra to ensure that all ELM schemes are available and properly resourced?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans has, as always, set out his case with clarity and knowledge. The likely shortage of broccoli and cauliflower is due to the very wet and mild weather in the late autumn and run-up to Christmas, which caused early ripening, coupled with the twin blight of pigeons and slugs. Many growers are concerned about how they will fill the “hunger gap”, which occurs when winter crops have finished and the late spring/early summer ones are not ready. This shortage has yet to reach the No. 1 Millbank House Restaurant, where today the soup was broccoli and the vegetarian option cauliflower steak—demonstrating how popular these vegetables are.
Climate change is affecting not only the UK but our neighbours in Europe, including Spain, who are finding the weather changeable and problematic for their growing seasons. Yesterday, I went to the evidence session in the Jubilee Room and heard about muddy flooding, which attempts to engage farmers in using their land slightly differently in order to prevent flooding and soil erosion and produce more crops at the same time. Both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Climate Change Committee have flagged public funding, along with political commitment, as essential to taking this matter forward.
ELMS have taken over from the BPS, but the rollout has been slow and often complicated. Some schemes appear impossible for farmers to access. The issue of paying farmers to store water, especially on flood plains—where the land cannot be used in the winter—has been raised in this House previously. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, referred to this. Have the Government moved forward on this issue? IDBs have a vital role to play in water management and storage, and do a brilliant job.
The House of Lords Library brief indicates, quite rightly, that climate change is human induced; therefore, it is up to humans to try to remedy what is happening. Farmers are not sitting around idly; they are some of the hardest workers in the country and have little time to delve into possible solutions on how to grow innovative, more resilient crops or farm their land differently. It is, therefore, up to the Government and Defra to help them with schemes that will take them forward. The remit of ELMS should be widened.
I will take my extra minute to raise the OEP. On Tuesday, I attended a webinar with its chair, Dame Glenys Stacey, who took us through the OEP’s annual report, which covers both Governments’ periods in office. The change of Government does not alter the legal requirements to meet the targets set by the OEP. Of the 43 targets, only nine are on track, 12 are practically on track, 20 are largely off track and two could not be assessed. Goal 5, to minimise waste, has moved to red. Goal 4, to manage exposure to chemicals and pesticides, has moved from amber to red. ELMS are not delivering due to lack of progress on water compliance. This is coupled with a lack of progress on climate change targets. It was one of the most depressing hours that I have spent in a long time.
Climate change affects the whole world, including America: Los Angeles is in ashes, Mobile in Alabama is under six inches of snow—a record since 1895—and the President plans to take the US out of the Paris accords. I am shocked by the lack of vision and understanding demonstrated by some of the Conservative speakers. It is no wonder they lost the election.
Given the OEP’s report, is there any hope for us that at least the UK Government know which way is up and will now take climate change seriously? If not, I fear for the future of the horticulture and farming industries.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for securing this important debate. He is rightly concerned about the effect of extreme weather caused by climate change on our food security. His Majesty’s Official Opposition are firmly supportive of any measures that will protect our environment and we will continue to work constructively and collaboratively with the Government to ensure that we are taking the right steps to achieve our environmental goals.
On our watch, we made major progress on these, passing our benchmark Environment Act 2021. Our approach was a pragmatic one, setting ambitious targets to decarbonise and rapidly increase our renewable energy supply while seeking to balance those ambitious goals with the need to protect consumers from unsustainable price hikes. We also put vital measures in place to support farmers affected by extreme weather events, such as the £50 million farming recovery fund.
Yesterday, Tesco, the UK’s largest supermarket chain, warned that the UK’s future food security is at risk due to the farmers tax. It is fair and reasonable to challenge the Government for placing our food security at risk. Not only is the future of family farms in jeopardy as a result of the family farm tax, but many businesses in our food supply chain will struggle with the Government’s decision to increase employer national insurance contributions. This double whammy of tax hikes will hit our food supply chain hard and creates a potential litany of problems when combined with extreme weather events.
The noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, mentioned the family farm tax and national insurance contributions, while the noble Lords, Lord Framlingham and Lord Fuller, also mentioned the family farm tax. We urgently request that the Minister listens to Tesco, Morrisons, Asda, Lidl, Aldi, Co-op and M&S, all of which have come out saying that we need to pause and rethink the farmers tax policy. How can the Government ignore the voices that supply 73% of the UK population with their food?
What progress have the Government made to deliver additional support for farmers who have already been adversely affected by extreme weather events? What incremental steps are the Government taking to support farmers in the future, to ensure that sufficient help is available should the extreme weather we have seen in recent years continue and even worsen? Finally, can the Minister confirm to your Lordships’ House what discussions he and his colleagues have had with the supermarkets that I mentioned and what remedial action will he take to allay Tesco’s concerns that
“the UK’s future food security is at stake”
as a result of the Government’s family farm tax?
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for securing this debate and all noble Lords who have contributed. I declare an interest: I had broccoli this afternoon and it was very nice indeed. I welcome the opportunity to respond on the steps that the Government are taking to support farmers and growers to adapt to climate change. With respect, and if noble Lords will forgive me, I will respond to questions related to this Question for Short Debate.
Strengthening food security by supporting our farmers and food producers is a top priority for this Government. Food production faces pressing risks from climate change and nature loss over the long term. As the right reverend Prelate, the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, indicated, Met Office projections show us that the UK can expect warmer, wetter winters and hotter, drier summers. However, the precise impacts, severity and speed of climate change are harder to predict. What we expect is that, as the shocks and stresses happen from climate change, ensuring continued production and supply of nutritious food will become increasingly difficult. Defra is taking action to reduce the impact and to support the continued production and supply of food in the UK.
The third national adaptation programme, published in July 2023, was brought in by the last Government—I thank them for doing so—and set out the Government’s policies to adapt to climate change over the period from 2023 to 2028. It sets out a range of measures to improve resilience and adaptation to climate change across the food supply and farming sector. Alongside delivering the third national adaptation programme, Defra is committed to further strengthening this Government’s approach to climate resilience and will bring forward plans in due course.
Several noble Lords mentioned food security. The UK has a resilient food supply chain and is equipped to deal with situations with the potential to cause disruption. Our food security is built on supply from diverse sources, strong domestic production and imports through stable trade routes, as was so expressively illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Hannan. UK consumers have access through international trade to food products that cannot be produced here, or at least not on a year-round basis. This supplements domestic production and ensures that any disruption from risks such as adverse weather or disease does not affect the UK’s overall supply of food.
Defra works right across industry and government to monitor risks that may arise. This includes extensive, regular and ongoing engagement in preparedness for, and response to, issues with the potential to cause disruption to our food supply chains. Although industry does not see an immediate issue with broccoli and cauliflower supply, we will continue to monitor this risk closely. Meanwhile, the UK Agriculture Market Monitoring Group, which has representatives from all the devolved nations, monitors the UK agricultural markets, including price, supply, inputs, trade and recent developments.
Food security is national security and cannot be taken for granted. We need a resilient and healthy food system that works with nature and supports British farmers, fishers and food producers. That is why this Government will introduce a new deal for farmers to boost rural economic growth and strengthen Britain’s food security.
This Government are investing £5 billion into farming over the next two years—the largest ever investment directed at sustainable food production in our country’s history. We are going further to develop a 25-year farming road map to make the sector more profitable in the decades to come. We will provide farmers and land managers with the support that they need to help restore nature. That is vital to building our resilience to climate change, securing our long-term food security and supporting productivity. It means carrying on the transition away from payment for land ownership and towards paying to deliver public goods for the environment. It also means continuing to use regulation to require minimum standards, which will be designed in partnership with farmers and with sufficient lead-in times given for change.
This Government will continue to invest in the sector to support farmers to make their businesses, food production and our country more sustainable and resilient through environmental land management schemes, or ELMS. ELMS will remain at the centre of our offer for farmers, with the sustainable farming incentive, countryside stewardship higher tier and landscape recovery all continuing.
Adapting to climate change, including extreme weather, is a shared responsibility. By building resilience now, we can reduce the costs and disruption caused by significant flooding and wet conditions in the future that will have a negative impact on food production. We will continue to work with industry to support better risk management. The farming recovery fund has supported areas where farmland was most impacted by Storm Babet, Storm Henk and extreme weather between October 2023 and March 2024. In total, £57.5 million has been paid to around 12,700 farmers affected.
Several noble Lords asked about internal drainage boards. The delivery of the £75 million grant scheme is ongoing, helping to deliver two of the Government’s core priorities for Defra. These grants will help to protect agricultural land and rural communities from flooding, support IDBs’ recovery from winter flooding and modernise infrastructure to help lower costs for farmers and rural communities.
Building resilience is an important way to mitigate long-term risks associated with climate change and other environmental factors. We are working to create a future where farmers are empowered to manage their risks by taking forward-looking actions in their own businesses, supporting wider local action to manage flood and drought risk and harnessing the commercial insurance market. This will encourage a more resilient and sustainable agricultural sector. The whole agri-food industry has a role to play in climate adaptation, and the Government support industry-led efforts, such as the Food and Drink Sector Council’s subgroup on resilience.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the right reverend Prelate also mentioned innovation to support adaptation. The Government are also engaged with research on food supply resilience in relation to climate change and adaptation measures through our work with the Met Office. Publicly funded research and innovation are enabling us to adapt to climate change more effectively while improving levels of food security. This includes investment under the farming innovation programme, which aims to drive up productivity and enhance environmental sustainability.
The noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, asked about labour shortages. I underline the Government’s commitment to the horticultural and poultry industries. The seasonal worker visa route has been confirmed for 2025, with a total of 43,000 seasonal worker visas available for next year.
Several noble Lords asked various questions, and I will try to respond as much as I can within my time. If I do not answer all of them, I will write to noble Lords and place a copy in the Library. The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked about trade agreements. The Government have restarted or will soon resume trade negotiations with several international partners. We also want to get food exports moving again through a veterinary agreement with the EU. This Government will expand global trade opportunities for Britain’s food and drink exports while upholding and protecting our high environmental and animal welfare standards in any future trade deals.
The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, asked about the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act. Now, this is something new. I have just been given information here. Precision-breeding technology could revolutionise England’s plant-breeding industry by dramatically reducing the time needed to develop new products from decades to just years. In September 2024, the Government announced that they would be laying secondary legislation to implement the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2025 in England, and on 9 January 2025, we announced that we will be laying the legislation in March 2025. I hope the noble Earl will be happy with that.
Several noble Lords have mentioned the report by the APPG on science and technology in agriculture. I have read the summary, but not the whole report because of time. I encourage all parliamentarians to visit the exhibits next week in the Palace of Westminster, and I will be sharing that report with my colleagues elsewhere.
To conclude, I again thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for securing this important debate. I assure all noble Lords that the Government, working in partnership with industry, are taking appropriate steps to ensure that our valued farmers and food producers can adapt to the challenges from climate change, now and in the future.
Free Schools and Academies
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That this House takes note of the achievements of free schools and academies.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to open today’s debate on the achievements of academies and free schools. We know that a high-quality education system creates opportunity for all and gives every child the best chance to realise their potential, whatever their background. When we get it right, education helps young people develop the knowledge, character and resilience to succeed, no matter what life throws at them. Before I begin my remarks, I remind noble Lords that I was director of New Schools Network, a charity that was dedicated to supporting groups who wanted to set up free schools, a job of which I remain immensely proud.
I want to make clear that the focus on academies and free schools in this debate is not to ignore or undervalue the thousands of excellent maintained schools that do an outstanding job for their pupils. However, in the form of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, there is a dark cloud on the horizon for academies and free schools, hence this debate is an opportunity to remind ourselves of the positive progress made over the past 25 years and the role they have played in that success.
We have seen welcome improvements in our educational outcomes. Between 2009 and 2022, England went from 21st to seventh in the PISA league tables for maths, from 19th to ninth for reading and from 11th to ninth for science. Across the country, 90% of schools are now rated good or outstanding, compared with 68% in 2010, meaning that over 1 million more pupils are being educated in such schools. In the same period, the number of academies in England increased from 202 schools to 10,640. Reading is the building block of all learning and, thanks to the focus on synthetic phonics championed by Sir Nick Gibb, England now has the best primary school readers in the western world, with PIRLS league tables for reading rating England as the top country.
Of course, we must not be complacent. There remain significant challenges that must be addressed: closing the attainment gap for pupils on free school meals, which had narrowed before Covid; improving attendance; ensuring that SEND pupils get the quality of education they deserve; and dealing with the growing mental health crisis facing our young people, to name just a few. I recognise that not all academies, trusts or free schools have been a success or delivered the high quality of education that we would expect, so it remains imperative for us to continue to interrogate the reasons behind failures and variations in performance and ensure that we act on the lessons they teach us.
That should not diminish our pride in the improvements that have taken place thanks to the hard work of teachers, support staff, pupils and governors. Much of that success has been achieved thanks to the cross-party consensus that we have seen around education over the past 25 years, placing value on the freedom and autonomy of school leaders and teachers so that, as Tony Blair said, the school is in charge of its own destiny—counterbalanced with strong accountability and acting on evidence of what success looks like. Many of these systemic improvements have been driven by the academies programme, which has had cross-party support since it was started in 2000 by the then Labour Government, and which itself built on the city technology colleges introduced in the 1980s.
In their first phase, academies provided a catalyst for new thinking within the system, bringing in external sponsors to take over failing schools. These sponsors came from a wide range of backgrounds and provided teachers with new opportunities to develop educational strategies to raise standards. Indeed, several of my noble friends speaking today are exemplars of the passionate individuals who took advantage of this opportunity to involve themselves directly in improving the life chances of some of our most disadvantaged young people.
The coalition Government’s Academies Act 2010 expanded academy status through the system, allowing more schools to benefit from the freedoms they enjoyed and to have the flexibilities to innovate, raise standards and achieve improved outcomes for their students. The diversity in provision in the school system—led by academies, free schools and UTCs, which I am sure my noble friend Lord Baker will talk more about shortly—has enabled a level of innovation and improvement that was simply not possible under the previous local authority-controlled approach.
Led by forward-thinking heads, entrepreneurial teachers have had greater freedom and opportunity to put into practice their ideas about how to best address the specific needs of their pupils, and we can see the impact that this can have. Between 2018 and 2023, the number of maintained schools rated good or outstanding increased by 4%, whereas the equivalent rating for sponsored academies—those required to academise due to poor performance—saw a 14% improvement.
Additionally, the academisation of education has helped to improve resilience across the system, with increasing numbers of trusts around the country allowing groups of schools to work together in deep and purposeful collaboration. Multi-academy trusts such as Ark, Harris, Star Academies, Mercia Learning Trust and Dixons Academies Trust have all been instrumental in helping turn around underperforming schools through strong leadership, sharing expertise and resources, as well as taking advantage of the free school programme to set up entirely new provision in areas of need and disadvantage.
I would argue that this has led to the positive development of increased collaboration across the entire education system. The latest Confederation of School Trusts national survey indicates that 72% of academy trusts support maintained schools. The free school programme has allowed the independent and state sectors to come together to open outstanding new provision, while the UTC model has embedded employers at the very heart of technical education.
From 2010, the free school programme built further on the original success of academies. The setting up of these new schools aimed to increase choice, improve standards and, in particular, foster innovation. The programme empowered communities, teachers, academy trusts, social entrepreneurs and others to open new state schools and led to the establishment of schools which dared to think the unthinkable. Representing a huge variety of educational philosophies, curriculum approaches, faiths and communities, free schools have, I believe, helped demonstrate the value of having a genuinely diverse and autonomous school system. New schools such as XP School, Marine Academy, Reach Academy Feltham, King’s Leadership Academy and Michaela, all set up under the programme, have injected a new dynamism into the school system, offering innovative ways of delivering a high-quality education—often to some of the most disadvantaged young people in England.
Not only has the free school programme seen new mainstream schools open but new special education and alternative provision schools have added capacity and expertise to the system to help some of our most vulnerable young people. Crucially, free schools have provided parents with greater choice, which in turn has helped raise standards across the system. It is incredible to think that, in a country in which setting up, let alone building, anything new is nearly impossible, over 700 free schools have opened since 2010, creating over 373,000 new school places.
The impact of these schools has outweighed their number. They are more likely to be based in areas of deprivation and where low standards had become entrenched. At their best, free schools have not only made a significant difference to their own pupils’ education but have had an impact far beyond this, helping to raise standards and aspirations across their whole area. The London Academy of Excellence in Newham, for instance, has had a significant impact on the performance of competing sixth forms to the benefit of all local young people.
Today, 25% of free schools are rated as outstanding—the highest type of any state school—and they now outperform other types of state-funded schools at every stage of education. Regrettably, there is some uncertainty over the future of the programme, as the Education Secretary is reviewing approvals previously given to 44 free schools to open. Can the Minister give an update as to when a decision on their fate might be made, to help end this damaging uncertainty currently facing parents and teachers?
This is just a brief overview of the positive change we have seen across our education system over the last quarter of a century. As we look to the future and build on the tangible improvements we have seen in our education system, we should be looking at how all schools can benefit from the freedoms and flexibilities that have been reserved for academies, free schools and UTCs, not take them away. I must admit I am finding it quite depressing to hear of the concern felt across the education sector by those who have been involved in helping to achieve these successes but who are now asking why the foundations of those improvements are being threatened.
What is the problem that the Government are seeking to resolve through the powers in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which removes the very freedoms that have helped schools improve, tackled underperformance and given more children a better chance of a good education? It is incumbent on all of us to look at the evidence and focus policy on strengthening, not weakening, our school system. This includes learning lessons from where academies and free schools have not performed, to ensure that we can continue to drive improvements and best practice across the system.
I hope the Minister reflects on what I am sure will be outstanding contributions to today’s debate and goes back to her departmental colleagues with a renewed purpose to build on the successes of academies, free schools and UTCs, not unpick their foundations.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister, and my noble friend Lord Addington for allowing me to speak now and so be able to catch the last train to Liverpool. I will have to depart a little earlier.
I want to recognise all our schools and teachers. All our children should have the right education for them. Some wonderful things happen in academies, which the noble Baroness mentioned. Some wonderful things also happen in maintained schools, which I do not think the noble Baroness mentioned.
Lord Storey
Oh, did she? I apologise.
We want the best for all our children. Let us be very clear at the beginning: empirically, there appears to be very little difference between the education attainment achieved by local maintained schools and academy schools. Figures from the House of Lords Library suggest that, performance wise, there is very little difference. Interestingly, the Institute of Education recognised that, while multi-academy trusts accounted for some of the highest performing schools, they also had far more lower performing schools.
It is right to be looking now at the situation of academies. We have a new Government, we are having a curriculum review, and we will soon have the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill before us. There are some differences with academies, so let us understand those. First, on qualified teachers, there is a need across the country for expert teachers who follow a transparent curriculum so that parents can be assured that their children are receiving a good education. A legal teaching qualification would ensure a certain standard of teaching. I would not want my children to be taught by an unqualified teacher. Parents should have that right as well.
Let us look at the national curriculum. We call it national but it is not, because it is not taught in Scotland or Northern Ireland, and, as we have heard, academies do not have to teach it. I want a curriculum that is paramount in ensuring that children all receive a certain standard of education. It was never the intention for academies to have freedom around the national curriculum. Imposing these controls would ensure that a base is covered but would not necessarily restrict how far academies can go with their teaching. I hope the curriculum review, when it is published, will recognise that all schools need space to develop particular aspects and units of the curriculum. For example, in Liverpool, I would like schools to be able to develop further teaching on the slave trade. I would like schools to be able to develop creative subjects, which currently they are not always able to deal with.
We should be increasing local authority powers over who can be admitted to academies. Giving them powers to restrict certain actions by academies would enable them to function as a monitoring body to hold the actions of academies accountable to government standards.
I have only to mention off-rolling as an example, where academies have almost ridden a coach and horses through admission policies by deciding that they will not have certain children in their school. When it comes to special educational needs, they say, “Oh, we haven’t got the the facilities; we haven’t got the teachers, so we won’t be admitting those children”. That is totally wrong.
Let us look at salaries. In 2023-24, the median salary for a classroom teacher in an academy was £44,870, while in an LA secondary school, it was £44,677. There is a case for paying more where there are shortage subjects; that is important. It is a scandal—and the last Government should take responsibility for this—that 400 schools in England do not have a qualified physics teacher at sixth-form level. You have only to look at shortages of specialist teachers in other subjects as well. I hope that the new Government, never mind getting to grips with the salary scales for all teachers, will make a push to get those posts filled in shortage subjects but also give an opportunity for teachers to be paid a little bit more to make sure that they are interested in teaching that subject.
Lord Hampton (CB)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, for enabling this vital debate. As ever, I declare my interest as a teacher in an academy in Hackney. As the noble Baroness said, this debate is in response to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, on which I shall have much more to say at Second Reading.
I have only ever taught in academies. I trained in a Catholic academy, despite the fact that I am not a Catholic. You will hear some people say how terrible academies are—that they are just fortresses of weird ideas and legalised ritual bullying. Near where we live is one of the original academies, Mossbourne Community Academy, which has a reputation for strictness and superb results. When my son was at primary school in year 6, we thought that he had no need for a strict school—but gradually, through his year, he became more and more frustrated that there were two boys in his class who were causing disruption. The teacher struggled to contain the behaviour, and the learning of the whole class was compromised. Often, the teacher would get so frustrated that he would punish the whole class for something that perhaps only one or two had done.
We were lucky enough to get our son into Mossbourne, where, because the behaviour is so good, he could actually learn his lessons; he could express an opinion and not get laughed at and he could get on with his studying in peace. There is nothing creative about background noise when you are trying to concentrate, whether it is in maths, product design or art. I was so impressed with the school that I joined it a year later, and I have been a teacher there ever since, alongside the other three of our children. There have been accusations of systemic bullying within academies, and specifically within my school, which I do not recognise. It is one of the top-performing non-selective schools in the country for value-added results. Our children are succeeding, and no child succeeds when they are unhappy.
After a similar debate, I took the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, around the school. The noble Earl and the noble Lord have been effusive in their praise of the school ever since.
The previous iteration of the school, Hackney Downs School, when it closed, had a 5% pass rate for either maths or English GCSE. Last year, 85% of our PP students achieved a grade 4 plus in both English and maths GCSE. Hackney is still one of the most deprived boroughs in the country, and 54% of our year 11 cohort last year were pupil premium. Tragically, one of our pupils, Pharrell Garcia, was stabbed and killed at the end of last year.
It is within this gloom that academies such as Mossbourne and the remarkable Carr Manor Community School in Leeds shine brightly in very difficult circumstances. They are a massive success story.
We have a Richard Rogers-designed, wooden-framed, stunning building that offers a varied and interesting curriculum, including courses for future medical and architectural students. My daughter does rowing in year 9, as part of her PE. So why are we trying to destroy this?
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, described the buses Bill as
“statist and anti-enterprise. It is also mildly nostalgic and backward-looking—a sort of return to the Attlee Government”.—[Official Report, 8/1/25; col. 783.]
I would say: right sentiment, wrong Bill.
Perhaps I may end by quoting what my head teacher, Rebecca Warren, says about these plans: “It’s a disaster for disadvantaged pupils, a condescending lowering of standards that will reverse the strides made in education over the last 20 years and ruin those children who need rigour and aspiration the most. My blood is boiling. I feel a mixture of heartbreak and anger, but with a feeling of terror thrown in”.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, for securing this debate on the “achievements” of free schools and academies—although that is not the noun that I would use.
Our debate already has focused—and I suspect largely will focus—on exam results. My focus will be broader, for I, and the Green Party collectively, do not think that education should be for exams or focused primarily on future employment but should provide life skills, particularly an interest in and capacity for lifelong learning, and allow for the development of innate interests and talents, the blossoming of body and mind, that provides the foundation for a decent, healthy life for each and every child and young person. Schools should be at the centre of active, lively, flourishing communities and not the cause of massive traffic jams as parents cross the city back and forth to hunt for the “best” school.
The creation and—often forcible—spread of free schools and academies, particularly chains, which account now for more than 80% of secondary schools in England and heading towards half of primaries, has actively worked against schools meeting those goals. They have been set to compete against each other for exam results, to outdo each other with the appearance and actuality of harsh and punitive discipline, particularly in poorer communities, with competition that encourages them to expel, or shuffle out, pupils who do not fit “the brand”.
How might we judge that cross-party consensus of the past 25 years? I have one league table: the Children’s Society offers us a crucial and deeply disturbing tool in its annual study of 15 year-olds across 27 nations, on which the UK ranks bottom. Last year, 25% of UK 15 year-olds reported low life satisfaction, compared with 7% of Dutch children of the same age. Low levels of life satisfaction were at least twice as prevalent among UK 15 year-olds compared with their peers in Finland, Denmark, Romania, Portugal, Croatia and Hungary—that makes my blood boil.
Blame for the unhappiness and the mental health crisis that the Financial Times highlights today with figures on mental health admissions to general medical wards, reflecting what one expert described as
“a population-level increase in mental health conditions”,
is often put on the rise of social media or on concern about the future linked to the climate emergency and nature crisis. Those are factors, but they have smartphones and the climate crisis in those comparable countries too.
What about physical health? Of children aged between 11 and 15, 19% are obese, and less than half of our children and young people are meeting the recommendation of 60 minutes of daily physical activity—and 30% did less than 30 minutes a day. We also all know that education about life skills, such as first aid, cooking and nutrition, food growing, financial literacy and indeed the enjoyment of reading for pleasure, which your Lordships’ House discussed earlier today, is sadly lacking. The FT’s Christmas campaign was directed at providing financial education.
Even worse, what about those who are forced out because they do not fit in? Figures for the autumn term 2023-24 are horrifying, showing nearly 350,000 suspensions—a rate of 413 suspensions per 10,000 pupils. The rate of expulsions is up too, with 4,200 children permanently excluded in one term, up from 3,100 the previous year. Those are the formal figures: from travelling around the country, I hear many reports of informal exclusions. Parents, often of children with special educational needs, are being encouraged—strongly suggested—to take the home-schooling route, much against their will.
Then there is attendance. There is a focus on the 150,000 “severely absent” children missing 50% or more of school sessions in the last year. That has tended to look at individuals and their families, but why is school not an attractive, welcoming, nurturing place but one to be dodged at almost all costs, particularly for vulnerable pupils?
My words are not intended in any way to be a criticism of some 500,000 teachers and other school professionals, the vast majority of whom I know, from regular school visits, do their best to provide a rounded education and a healthy, caring environment, all too often in opposition to government policies and institutional structures imposed on them, and in the face of grossly inadequate funding. I acknowledge that there are many other aspects of British society that impact badly on young people’s lives, but many of the young people I talk to tell me that school is something that harmed them—that they survived. If they did indeed struggle through the experience, they endured it, waiting to escape. That is not what school should be. Yet the academisation and expansion of free schools, competing against each other, delivering large profits to private providers of goods and services and high pay to fat cat bosses, is, together with a central ideology of valuing exam factories, fundamentally failing our young people.
Lord Harris of Peckham (Con)
My Lords, I am very disappointed with this new Bill. When, 34 years ago, Margaret Thatcher and the noble Lord, Lord Baker, came to see me to open a CTC school, I did not know much about them. I went to see the school and thought I could not do any worse. In five years, that school was twice the most improved school in the country, going from nine to 54, and 54 to 92. It was great. Then Tony Blair created academies and, with the help of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and Michael Gove, we opened about 30 more academies. Today, we have 55 academies, with 45,000 children. One in 40 children in London goes to our academies, and we have free schools as well. Those schools were all failing when we took them. Today, 73% of our schools are outstanding, against a national average of 14%. Academies are working.
We first took on schools in the primary sector about 12 years ago. We found it very important because, from looking at the records, if a child gets a good education at primary level they are likely to do better later in life. We have 22 primary schools, 18 of which are now outstanding and two are good. These are giving children a better education and a better chance in life to go on to secondary education. I must tell you about two schools. One was a primary school in Croydon. It was in special measures for 10. We took it over three and a half years ago and within two and a half years it was outstanding, with 70% of the same children in it. The inspector said, “This is one of the most improved schools I have ever seen so quickly”. We have to make sure that we give every child in this country the best education possible. With the academy group and other schools working together, we can do it. Because a child gets only one chance of getting a great education, we have to make sure that we give it to them.
I will tell you about another school, Downhills. Everybody in the Labour Party was against us, I am sorry to say, including David Lammy, who led a petition against us. He also let children come into one of our stores in Tottenham—60 children stood in that shop with banners, “Don’t let Harris have this school”. It was terrible. I went there with my wife and we were threatened that, if we went back again, something would happen to us. We put signs up outside but they took them down. They actually put concrete signs there, which cost us money to get rid of. Now that school is outstanding and oversubscribed. The Telegraph this weekend said how good it was—I promise you, none of that information came from us. The parents want their children to go to those schools, and we have to make sure that every child in this country gets the best education possible.
We have three schools in Tottenham. The two I talked about are outstanding primaries and we have a large, 1,500-pupil secondary school, sixth form and primary, which has also become outstanding. Tottenham is one of the hardest places in this country for schools and everyone who goes to one of our schools there has an outstanding education.
Interestingly, 61% of our disadvantaged sixth-form students went to university last year, and 15% of them went to a Russell group university. What a great thing that we are getting disadvantaged children into universities. The school just over the road, with which we had a lot of problems, has 600 students. It was the seventh-best school in the country, beating schools such as Eton. These are free schools—40% of the children who go to that school are on free school meals. It is the teachers and people there who make them work. They come and work Saturdays. They want to get on in life and be motivated. We have to make sure we continue that.
We need a small number of unqualified staff at our schools—for sport, music, dancing and science. We want to keep them. They are good. You are not going to get a 55 or 60 year-old man who does sport or dancing teacher qualified. We have won lots of competitions for dancing and singing—and “The Voice” and “Britain’s Got Talent”, which people have won. It is very hard to keep science teachers, and we have to make sure that we do.
Failing schools are letting people down. We have to make sure we do not let our children down. We want more academies. We want better schools for everybody. Together, we can make it work.
Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)
My Lords, how inspiring it is to follow my noble friend Lord Harris. His enthusiasm for the work of his life shines out and encourages us all. I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Evans on her sparkling and enthusiastic opening to this debate.
Surrounded as I am by noble Lords on this side, I wonder whether I dare confess—but I am going to—that, when academies were first introduced by the Blair Government, I had some misgivings. However, it is true that the spirit of the academy movement—a loosening of local authority control—was already present in the creation of grant-maintained schools, specialist grant-maintained schools and city technology colleges under previous Conservative Governments.
In my professional life before politics, I had been the chief inspector of schools in a local authority. I strongly believed that the most important public service there is, namely education—also known as the future of our children——should be democratically accountable through elected bodies. But, from being in a job that meant I was in schools and colleges a lot of the time, I also knew that the excellence or otherwise of any institution, including schools, depended on the quality of the head. It was also obvious that the best heads ran the best schools because they were innovative, creative and determined to make their schools serve pupils, parents and their neighbourhoods.
However, I began to note that those heads were frequently frustrated by their inability to pursue change inside the local authority system. They needed more flexibility in recruitment and to be able to vary teachers’ pay to attract the best. They needed the opportunity to vary the curriculum to reflect the needs of their pupils and generally unleash creativity within their institutions.
When the academies movement got under way, it did indeed attract those creative and innovative heads and teachers, whose achievements have created a system in which nearly 50% of all our schools are now academies. The results—particularly when compared with those in Scotland and Wales, which pursued a different path—are more than encouraging. Since 2000 the UK has moved from 21st to seventh in the international league tables in maths, and from 11th to ninth in science. One of the most impressive achievements is the result of the requirement for failing local authority schools to become academies, thus giving those schools more support and fresh hope for children, often in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, for the future. As Tony Blair said at the 2005 Labour Party conference,
“the beneficiaries are not fat cats. They are some of the poorest families in the poorest parts of Britain”.
My noble friend Lord Harris has given graphic illustrations of that.
While I obviously understand the wish of a new Government to innovate, I do not know and cannot understand why they would want to limit the current powers of academies to vary the curriculum to meet the needs of the pupils in their schools. Academies, like local authority schools, are inspected by Ofsted, and any irregularities that affect pupils, disadvantaged or otherwise, would surely be picked up and dealt with. Regular Ofsted inspections should also meet the Government’s concerns about qualified teacher status and the relaxing of requirements for that status in academies.
I greatly respect the Minister. I have in my mind that last week she apologised for sometimes being grumpy. I hope I am not going to bring out a display of grumpiness from her, but I hope she will allow me to ask the obvious question: exactly what problem with academies does the new Bill seek to solve? I had always believed that academies were an area of cross-party agreement, so my hope is that this debate and the passage of the new education Bill will continue in a good spirit. Good educational standards can only benefit our children, who will bear the burden of the future.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am the life president of the Baker Dearing Educational Trust, which promotes university technical colleges.
The Minister will be glad to know that I support many things in the Bill: money for under-fives, breakfast clubs and special educational needs. I also support the registration of home education, which is a tautology—it is more “home” than “education”. But I am not so keen on the Government’s thinking about the new curriculum. There are glimpses of what they would like to do in Clauses 40, 41 and 45. They would like maintained schools to merge with free schools and academies in order to have a broad and balanced curriculum. That will not in itself produce economic growth. Over the past few years I have learned that if you are to have economic growth you need difference, variety, choice and competition, and those are not in the Bill.
What is needed most in education today is an injection into ordinary comprehensives of strong technical and practical education. If the new schools that Ministers want to create have just a broad and balanced curriculum, there will be no space at all in the teaching week for high-quality technical and practical education. You cannot do it; you have to spend much more time than that.
That is why, over 15 years ago, Ron Dearing and I devised a new type of technical school, a university technical college. It is different because it is for 14 to 18 year-olds and has a very practical curriculum determined by local employers. It is also so different because 14 year-olds in their first term will spend two days a week either in workshops, in computer or product design, visiting local companies or having work experience there. That cannot be fitted into an obligation to do a full national curriculum. We of course teach English, maths and science to a high level. We get very good marks in T-levels and A-levels, and we are very proud of that.
University technical colleges are never called free schools. We are specialist schools, and we have quite remarkable results. We are so popular that we had to turn away 5,000 children last September, and we will be turning away even more this year. In Ofsted we get over 82% good and outstanding. Every year, 23% of our students who leave at 18 become apprentices, compared with only 4% at an ordinary school; 50% go to university to do STEM subjects, which is 75% better than any other state school; and the rest get local jobs. We are actually promoting economic recovery by 96% of our students going into work or higher education. That is quite a unique contribution and one that should not be sacrificed.
When we started, we focused on engineering, advanced manufacturing and computing. Now it is much more sophisticated. We now have lessons in cybersecurity with GCHQ and lessons in virtual reality, run by games companies, which involve wearing helmets on your head. With automotive companies we have CADCAM, because children have to be able to design on a screen and operate 3D printers. Most children should leave school at 18 knowing how to work a 3D printer, an essential part of all activities in Britain today.
As a result, we help economic recovery more than any other educational institution in the country. We also have a very low unemployment rate of about 4%; the national average is 13.6%. The one thing that the Government are going to have to deal with over the next 14 years is the problem of rising youth unemployment.
If the measure goes through, I hope we recognise that specialist schools such as UTCs should be exempt from the obligations to provide a broad and balanced curriculum. We do English, maths and science, but we also need time for the practical and technical work that local employers lead.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a social mobility commissioner, but I am of course speaking in a personal capacity. My focus in that role is promoting the importance of common standards and the family to social mobility, and I do that because there are others on the commission far more equipped to examine education policy, as there are here in the Chamber today. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park, not just on her compelling introduction to this debate but on the wealth of experience in this policy area that she brings to the topic.
My main reason for promoting the role of the family, though, is that credit for what I have achieved as an adult must go to my parents for the attitude and standards they instilled in me. Sadly, it was not my schooling at a comprehensive in the late 1970s and early 1980s. My school was shiny and new with lots of facilities, but it lacked discipline, ambition and school uniform. We were considered modern, but I recall that when I collected my CSE exam results, the back of the slip said that the average grade for the area was 5. I am not sure what the equivalent of grade 5 CSE is in today’s GCSE, but a grade 1 CSE, the highest level, was an O-level grade C equivalent.
I tend to think that I got on in life despite my education, not because of it, but that does not mean that I do not believe in the importance of quality education. Indeed, it has been inspiring so far this afternoon to listen to some noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and my noble friend Lord Harris. A quality education would have made my life much easier, I believe, but my experience has reinforced to me the importance of standards. It does not matter how academically able a child is, or whether they are better suited to technical or vocational learning; they will not succeed unless the adults responsible for them, whether at home or in school, set standards and uphold them. That is what I have seen when I have visited many academy schools.
For the last 14 or 15 years, I have visited a different school in Nottinghamshire at least once a year as part of the charity Speakers for Schools. What has struck me since I started doing this is that, I think without exception, every school in Nottinghamshire that has bid for me to speak to their students has been an academy or a failing school which another academy has taken over, and the same head whose original school where I have spoken has asked me to attend. All these academies are different, but the teachers I have met and their commitment to standards has been consistent.
Out of curiosity, last year I applied online, like anyone can, to visit Katharine Birbalsingh’s Michaela school—I am surprised that I am the first Member of your Lordships’ House speaking today to mention it. Oh my God, I was completely blown away. Every single person I encountered, from the security guard on the gate—who is necessary because of the threats Katharine has been subject to—to every teacher and all their happy and healthy children I met, was impressive. When you go and visit, and see it with your own eyes, it is not surprising why that school is so successful—that very much chimes with what the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, said.
I want every child in this country to get the opportunity to learn like that. That the Secretary of State for Education cannot bring herself to congratulate Michaela is bad enough, but the fact that Bridget Phillipson, Keir Starmer and this Government want to dismantle the structure which makes such a school possible, and all the schools that I have had the pleasure to visit in recent years, is, to my mind, nothing short of criminal. That the Government are doing so while at the same time saying that growth is their top priority and setting out ambitions for the UK to be at the forefront of AI and all other forms of new technology makes absolutely no sense.
Take it from someone with direct experience of the upheaval in our education system in the 1970s: the Government may believe that dismantling the current education structure will increase equality and opportunity, but what they risk is lowering standards for everyone. I urge them to think again.
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Evans for securing this debate, and I note my interest in the register.
I am pleased to speak today, but of course hanging over us is the Damoclean sword of the schools Bill. Why does it matter? In 2010, approximately 5% of all state schools were failing or in special measures. By 2024, that figure had reduced to 1%—an 80% reduction over a period when academic standards became more rigorous. This heavy lifting fell largely to the academies programme. If a school was judged failing, it was automatically academised. The deal was simple, everybody understood it and it worked. Under this new Bill, that vital intervention is to be eviscerated. A major part of this Labour Government’s constituency will be the losers: children from less well-off families in areas of deprivation, because that is where failing schools are concentrated.
I know this because, over the last 12 years, the academy trust that I founded has taken on at least 10 of these kinds of schools and improved them, in some cases dramatically. The families and children that we met were at their wits’ end, often with no alternative route to state education. In some cases, these schools have been failing for decades. We took on one failing school in Great Yarmouth. It had never been rated “Good” or better since the creation of Ofsted in 1993; it is now rated “Good”. Why break something that works?
On free schools, a similar story exists. They have been an astonishing success in the vast majority of cases. Over 800 have been built, and where they did not work, we closed them or moved them to new management. Everyone knew the rules. In my trust, we have opened three free schools in Norfolk. Now, each one is outstanding. There are many trusts more successful than ours. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Harris. Take a look at the Star Academies Trust, which opened 23 schools: 17 have been inspected by Ofsted; 15 rated “Outstanding” and two “Good”. Last year, seven of those free schools were ranked in the top 50 schools in England for Progress 8, but this programme is now to be closed.
Why destroy a programme that has been painstakingly built by Governments of both political parties? In my time as academies and free schools Minister, I relied on the interventions that had been devised by noble Lords opposite—the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett, Lord Adonis and Lord Knight—and underpinning it were two watchwords which should prevail throughout all government-funded entities: transparency and accountability.
I give one small example. In local authority-run schools, it is almost impossible to understand what is going on financially, but an academy trust has to file an externally audited set of accounts every year within four months of the year ending. You will not find that in a local authority school. They do not even have audits every year. The best I could find when I was a Minister was every three years, and even I could not get copies of the reports, let alone the public. Transparency ensures that an academy’s resources are focused on where it matters, which is education.
The Bill will banish teachers who have not completed the nine-month teacher training programme, but there is an acute shortage of teachers. I believe that 13,000 teachers will fall foul of this rule. Where are the replacements coming from? The private schools tax is promised to deliver 6,000, but we will believe that when we see it. In the meantime, it will just make the job of improving schools far, far harder. Another government invention was Teach First. These wonderful people got only six weeks’ training and yet are some of the best in the system.
Overall, the Bill sends a strong signal to under-performing schools that they can dodge hard-edged accountability. Even though they fail their pupils, they can get away with it—and it will be the most disadvantaged communities who pay the price. Because there will be an opt-out for automatic academisation, schools will fight it.
There are some extraordinary clauses in the Bill, giving the Secretary of State the right to intervene on school uniform policy. There are 23,000 schools; that is crazy. There is a much simpler way: change the mandate of the members to include a responsibility to ensure that the cost of the school uniform for a pupil-premium child does not exceed, say, £25. In one fell swoop, we would deal with the problem. Members have powers essentially as proxies for shareholders—for example, they appoint auditors and can fire the directors.
These checks and balances were put in place by Labour. The improvements that I drove into the system were largely down to the Labour Government of the Blair era. Yet today, we managed to have four members of the Labour Party on the Benches opposite for this debate. If we care about the education of disadvantaged children, this programme should be strengthened, not weakened.
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to speak in this debate on academies and free schools and the transformation they have brought to England’s education system. I thank my noble friend Lady Evans for securing this debate and for her tireless work in championing educational excellence. She, along with many of my noble friends here today, was instrumental in a movement that shattered complacency, exposed failure and put pupils, not bureaucracies, at the heart of education. My noble friend was not only a director of the New Schools Network but the co-author of the 2009 Policy Exchange report which called for the rapid expansion of the academies programme.
For too long, schools in England were trapped in a system that served itself rather than the children in it. Parents had no choice; good teachers had no freedom; failing schools went unchallenged. That has changed over the last 25 years. The coalition Government expanded Labour’s academy programme, introduced free schools and gave schools the autonomy to raise standards, innovate and succeed. The results speak for themselves. England now has the best primary school readers in the western world. In maths, reading and science, we have soared up the international rankings, while Scotland and Wales, where autonomy was rejected, have fallen behind. In maths, England rose from 21st to seventh in the global PISA rankings; Wales stagnated at 27th. In reading, England climbed from 19th to ninth; Wales stayed at 28th. In science, England moved from 11th to ninth; Wales plummeted from 21st to 29th.
The success of free schools is even clearer. They are more likely to be oversubscribed, more likely to be located in the most deprived areas and more likely to send their students to top universities. Stellar free schools such as the London Academy of Excellence in Newham and Michaela in Brent are engines of aspiration and social mobility. None of this happened by accident. It happened because of vision, courage and persistence, because of the leadership of Michael Gove, the pioneering work of the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and the determination of my noble friends Lord Hill, Lord Nash and Lord Agnew, who refused to accept that only the state could set up schools and fought off bitter opposition. It happened because of my noble friend Lord Baker, whose city technology colleges paved the way for the academies that followed. It happened because of my noble friend Lord Harris, who has done so much personally and directly to improve the lives of children in this country. Many honourable members in the other place, such as Dame Siobhain McDonagh, are among those who rightly champion the transformative impact of the Harris academies.
Yet this Government now seek to dismantle everything they have inherited. The schools Bill is a counterrevolution, a retreat into failure. It abolishes academies’ freedoms over teacher pay, forcing high-performing schools to pay their best teachers the same as their worst. It removes academies’ discretion over recruitment, making it harder to bring talented teachers into the profession. It scraps the requirement for failing schools to become academies, turning back to the failed system of local authority control. It abolishes freedom over the curriculum and seeks to dumb down the academic rigour injected by Michael Gove and Sir Nick Gibb by replacing it with one that reflects the issues and diversities of our society.
This is not reform but regression. The assault on excellence exemplified by the axing of the Latin excellence programme for state schools will narrow the horizons for working class children across the country. Many of the pupils who have benefited most have been the poorest in our society. For those who believe that schools need more centralisation and co-ordination, it is important to remember that helping hands from the Government, rather than leaving the running of schools to those who have a track record of excellence, can rapidly become strangulation. The tragedy is that, as a result of such a strangulation, it will be the most disadvantaged children who lose out.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Evans for initiating this debate, which has already produced some high-quality speeches. The contribution of my noble friend Lord Harris was one of the most compelling and persuasive that I have heard for a very long time. The Secretary of State should not just read it but watch it.
I looked at the list of speakers for this debate, saw the number of highly qualified noble Lords and paused before adding my name because, in 50 years in this building, I do not think I have ever spoken in an education debate. However, I have always taken an interest in education, as a local MP, as the parent of children who attended state schools and now once again as a governor in a multi-academy trust, as in the register. Much has changed since I was first a governor, in the 1960s. We had short meetings then, dominated by a head and a forceful lady from the Inner London Education Authority. We had slightly longer meetings in the 1980s when I was again a governor, because the fertile mind of my noble friend Lord Baker had introduced a fresh initiative, LMS—local management of schools—which we were getting our minds around. Now, as a trust member, I have taken a renewed interest in governance. I make no complaints that the entry requirements are now slightly higher. I had to have a DBS check and do online safety requirements for certificates on equality and diversity awareness, safeguarding and prevention, and NCSC security. I make no complaints about that at all.
However, some of the challenges facing the trust that I am on are the same as those for maintained schools. The 2.8% pay offer, not accepted by the unions, is currently unfunded, as indeed is the national insurance increase. Teacher recruitment and retention is a problem for all schools, but particularly for schools that are supporting children from more deprived backgrounds, as many multi-academy trusts are. They often have a higher number of children with SEND, needing more staff to support them, without clarity about how that will be funded. I welcome the steps taken by my noble friend Lady Barran when in government to rationalise the assessment of SEND and reduce delays. That needs to be built on.
Some of the other challenges for the trust are different. I will mention just one. The trust I have joined, which has an outstanding chair and CEO, is expanding, with local schools wanting to join. However, the time it takes to go through the process of adding schools leads to unnecessary uncertainty and a diversion of effort. Taking on a single academy is less difficult, but taking on a maintained school can take up to 12 months, with the property services division of the local authority often responsible for delay. Anything that the regional directors at the DfE can do to minimise delays for trusts that want to expand would be enormously welcome.
I have seen the benefits of academies where a school in special measures joins the trust. The trust then has much more direct control over that school than an LEA would have, and it can share resources with that school for a time, turning it around. I have seen the rapid improvement that is needed with a school, with a focus, for example, on issues such as non-attendance, and with teachers and pupils from stronger schools helping out with weaker schools. The trust with which I am involved is geographically concentrated. That means we can help a small number of schools in a much more focused way than the broader-based LEA could.
I listened with some dismay to the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. I have found no evidence of the bad practices that they mentioned at the schools in my group.
My final point has not been mentioned so far. The success of the academy movement has meant that some LEAs have been left with but a handful of primary schools. That means they have been even less able to support the schools remaining in their control. This reinforces the imperative for academy rollout to be completed, rather than delayed as the Government are suggesting at the moment.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I first join the congratulations to my noble friend Lady Evans, who has great experience in this area, on securing this debate. There are a number of speakers here who are far more knowledgeable than me on this sector. In particular, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Harris of Peckham and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, on their excellent speeches.
By way of disclosure, I was until recently a trustee at AIM Academies Trust, covering three schools in north London, such as the London Academy of 1,500 students and 200 staff, led by the excellent Paddy McGrath and sponsored by the philanthropist Peter Shalson.
I am also a member of the Leigh Academies Trust, one of the country’s largest and most established multi-academy trusts, based in Strood, Medway, in Kent. The trust was formed in 2008, with its origins as one of the UK’s original 15 CTCs, as the Leigh Technology Academy—a programme championed by my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking and, in the interest of full disclosure, in effect started by my uncle, Sir Geoffrey Leigh. Today, it encompasses more than 20,000 students between the ages of two months and 19 years, in 32 primary schools, secondary schools and special academies.
These two organisations have transformed the lives of hundreds of thousands of students for the better. The advantages of the model are clear, as primary and secondary education is integrated and substantial resources shared among many schools to run highly efficient and successful organisations. I am proud and honoured to be associated with them.
Academies and free schools in England are a great success. Just look at the world league tables or even measure us against Wales and Scotland. As the Secretary of State herself said in the other palace two weeks ago:
“Academies, introduced by the last Labour Government and expanded by the Conservative party, have been instrumental in raising standards in our school system. They have delivered brilliant results, particularly for the most disadvantaged children”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/1/25; col. 857.]
The aforementioned London Academy replaced the failing Edgware School. In 2023, it was among the 55 highest-performing schools in the country. This has been achieved through the flexibilities it has been afforded. Over 50% of the students are eligible for the pupil premium and the admission policy prioritises students eligible for free school meals. AIM North London, historically one of the lowest-performing schools in the country, was, as recently as December 2023, graded good by Ofsted for the first time in its entire history. Historically, it was bottom of the league table and it serves one of the most deprived areas in north London.
Why is all this success now under threat? Labour claims to want to promote aspiration, but all it is doing is destroying something that works so well. There are some well-documented attacks planned by this Government, which we need to resist—for example, enforcing teacher qualification regulations, which is clearly yet another policy this Government are undertaking to appease their union bosses. There is a significant recruitment crisis in teaching, as workplaces outside the sector offer much better deals for people who want such employment. As my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking said, sometimes unqualified teachers are essential for sports, music and other areas. Why stop that? It just might be a ploy for the Government to meet their manifesto pledge of 6,500 new teachers by the end of this Parliament.
I was going to talk about statutory pay, but I understand that the Secretary of State has made a most welcome U-turn on that. Let us park it and see what happens. Retaining staff is essential for academies, where special situations often arise. I gather that Daniel Kebede, general secretary of the National Education Union, has welcomed the new Bill, because he thinks a uniform pay framework improves fairness and teacher mobility. He is wrong. Uniformity does not always lead to fairness. There are different challenges in different regions of the UK, and pay is not the only driver. Teachers want to be in successful schools led by strong leaders and employing the very best at the top, and this often ripples down the system. If a comparison is needed, just look at the disaster at the state-run, union-dominated Wanstead High School—not an academy.
The requirement to adopt the national curriculum for all is classic socialism, and I think the wonderful aforementioned Katharine Birbalsingh of Michaela school is quite right: it is, in fact, a Marxist system. The Confederation of School Trusts has rightly pointed out that we need greater flexibility in our school system, not greater prescription and control.
Finally, I hope the Minister reflects on all she has heard today and agrees to modify the proposed Bill, which has been sprung on us without any consultation, to ensure we do not recklessly destroy a great English success story.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lady Evans for securing today’s debate and getting an opportunity to talk about the good news of English schools in the midst of such bad global news. I was one of the Schools Ministers in DfE in the midst of the terrible global news of the pandemic. I hope the Minister will bring forward further changes to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, building on the changes announced by the Prime Minister today.
I think it is a sign of good government and putting children first that you change your mind, and it was that spirit and focus on children that led Michael Gove to take on the idea from Andrew Adonis—the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—and others and turbocharge the academies programme. By the time I joined in February 2020, that turbocharged programme had created more than 2,400 charitable trusts running schools in a contractual relationship with the Secretary of State, and most children in England by that time were in an academy or free school. By statute, failed schools were no longer allowed to languish in local authorities, which were at best reluctant to admit failure, at the expense of the children. It was not a conspiracy—just human nature and local authorities having other priorities.
The academies’ freedom to work across local authority boundaries enabled the creation of different faith schools within the free school system. There are now numerous Sikh, Hindu and Muslim schools with wider catchment areas. Sir Hamid Patel of Star Academies served Muslim and other communities with excellence and integrity, and there were new Church of England secondary schools such as Fulham Boys School. It was a sadness, though, that no black-led Church denomination managed to establish a successful school, despite these denominations having a long history of Saturday schools. That freedom to work across local authority boundaries also assisted the creation of the specialist schools, the UTCs and the specialist maths sixth-form colleges.
No one promised that there would not be failed trusts, but school and trust failure is revealed swiftly, and that is a much-needed achievement. Children do not have another chance. Getting in quickly is imperative, so I join with other noble Lords: I am concerned about the discretion being added to an academy order when a school has failed.
Sorting out DAOs remained a priority even in a pandemic: those disadvantaged children, already in a failed school, were then faced with a pandemic, so it had to be. Of course the system still has weaknesses. I think I used to describe single-academy trusts as often in splendid, outstanding isolation: they were often some of the best academic schools but with woeful levels of free school meal pupils, and many were grammar schools. I really had hoped that, instead of focusing on the academies, this new Government would sort this. It is possible to sort the low admission of free school meal pupils.
Just over a month into my service, the Prime Minister closed all schools, except for vulnerable children and children of key workers. For someone for whom school was a place of safety, I knew what this could and did mean. Local authority priorities became children’s social care, public health, refuse collection, children’s social care, adult social care and children’s social care—I hope noble Lords get my drift. Inadvertently, the academy system came into its own. In the pandemic there were areas where the local authority encouraged trusts to “do schools”—hubs were set up, best practice was shared across the schools and the local authority got on with children’s social care. The best MATs did all the back-office functions and schools just did discipline, safeguarding and education. That was invaluable in a pandemic.
What of the Department for Education? Due to that contract with the Secretary of State, there were teams of civil servants called, I think, regional directors. The DfE was operational. It was not just policy and delivery. Those teams knew English schools, the leaders, the local authority and the trust that in one instance had lost its finance director, who had died in the February before the pandemic. They knew how to plug that gap. Without REACT teams, I cannot imagine how schools and local authorities would have coped.
It may seem a strange time to send this postcard from DfE sanctuary buildings, but I wish to encourage His Majesty’s Government to utilise, embolden and encourage these academy trusts. When you are planning the biggest local government reorganisation for decades, why is the mood music for the local authority now more on schools? Even if that is your overall direction of travel, why not wait? The eye of many a local authority will be off the ball during such a reorganisation —it has to be. The people running local authorities are only human. I hope that some will be humble enough to call on their academy trust to “do schools” and focus, in the midst of reorganisation, on children’s social care.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Berridge. I thank my noble friend Lady Evans for securing this debate. I refer to my interests in the register—in particular, my chairmanship of Parents and Teachers for Excellence.
As my noble friend Lady Shephard asked, what problem are the Government trying to solve here? We all agree that everything important in this country starts with the imperative to give all our children a great education. The extraordinary improvement in national educational outcomes over the past 20-odd years is one of the few bright spots in our recent national history—apart from Brexit, of course. It started under Labour with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, recognising that one size does not fit all. Improvement in school results did not take hold until Michael Gove, then in the other place, took up these views and drove them through with the help of a co-operative Department for Education.
Bit by bit the successes came, resulting in changes to educational outcomes that now mean that many additional hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of adults are able to navigate society as literate, numerate citizens—many more than would have been the case if our previous educational results had still prevailed when over one in five failed to reach that standard.
As Policy Exchange has recently shown, and as other noble Lords have referred to, England’s performance in global PISA rankings has improved from 27th to 11th in maths, and from 25th to 13th in reading. Those two metrics are crucial, not all the many hundreds of other things that people want to be taught in schools.
How did this happen? It happened because of free schools that showed the path to academic excellence in so many ways, whether for Michaela, which many have mentioned, West London Free School or so many others, such as the ones my noble friend Lord Harris so eloquently referred to. Because of academisation, which gave freedom to schools to craft their own way to educate their own pupils, 17 of the top 20 English secondary schools, and 42 of the top 50, are academies or free schools. Poorly performing schools have been required to become academies and, in general, show rapid improvement as a result.
So I repeat: what are the Government up to here? Are they in the grip of doctrinaire fantasies? The facts are there to tell them what gives a child a good education: phonics, Shanghai maths, a knowledge-rich education and, of course, structured discipline. These are found in academies and free schools, and not so much in government-run maintained schools. Or is it that the Government are in hock to the unions, whose focus seems to have been more on conditions and pay for their members than on educational outcomes? If so, I respectfully point out that many academy chains pay their teachers above the pay scale.
The changes proposed by the Government bid fair to reverse many years of improvement in pupil results, and thus improvements in the lives of millions of this country’s future adults and in our economy and national life. These proposed changes would be tragic and arguably vindictive. I urge the Minister to persuade the Government to think again.
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lady Evans for securing this debate and for the way in which she introduced it, with her passion, enthusiasm and expertise. We benefited from some outstanding speeches, not least from my noble friend Lord Harris of Peckham and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. At its best, education, they remind us, is a partnership between inspiring teachers, supportive parents and enthusiastic, well-behaved students. It is about promoting expectations, excellence, encouragement, enthusiasm, ethos and effort. Yet, as we have heard, those leadership qualities are under threat in our academies and free schools.
We have been here before. I was in the audience in 1986 when my noble friend Lord Baker announced the plan for city technology colleges. With fear and trembling, I went up to him and asked whether we could have one of these schools in my hometown of Gateshead, one of the most deprived communities in the country. He was very kind and encouraging. He said, “Yes, of course, but you’re going to have to find me a sponsor first”. That led me to the door of Peter Vardy, a remarkable and inspirational business leader who not only agreed to provide the necessary funding but added so much more. He set the standards of excellence and the ethos and built a great team, of which I was privileged to be a member for a time as vice-chairman. Emmanuel City Technology College opened its doors in September 1990 and was an instant success with pupils, parents and teachers. It was massively oversubscribed. It was not popular, however, with the teaching and local government unions, which felt threatened by its success.
In 1997, the unions persuaded the new Labour Government that CTCs should be closed, not because they were failing students but because their success was threatening them. However, before the policy was implemented, Tony Blair’s education adviser decided that he wanted to visit Emmanuel to see it for himself. That adviser was Andrew Adonis, now the noble Lord, Lord Adonis. I quote from his account of that visit in his excellent book Education, Education, Education, published in 2012. I will start on page 55. He wrote:
“I decided … to visit more City Technology Colleges and get … the details of what made them tick … The seminal moment was at Emmanuel College, Gateshead, sponsored by … Peter Vardy. Tony Blair on my mobile just as I was leaving an inspirational session with a group of sixth-formers telling me about their life stories, the brilliance of their school and their ambitions to get on. When I told Tony where I was, he said: ‘Of course I know the CTC and Peter Vardy ... Even out in Sedgefield’”—
his constituency—
“‘they want to go to his school’”.
The noble Lord continues on page 56.
“Why were the CTC so successful? Over … my visits, I came to see it in simple terms. It was governance, independence, leadership, ethos and standards. The CTCs had all five and they were mutually reinforcing ... The sponsors were not ‘here today, gone tomorrow’, like all too many local education chief education officers. They were making long-term commitments”,
like my noble friend Lord Harris of Peckham. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, continues:
“Strong headteachers were appointed and supported by these sponsors, instilling an ethos of success, discipline and high standards in every aspect of the CTC’s work”.
His conclusion and advice to Tony Blair and David Blunkett—now the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett—was that they should not be closing down successful CTCs; rather, they should be closing down failing local authority schools and replacing them with academies based on the CTC model.
Thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, the college was saved. Thanks to Peter Vardy and the Emmanuel Schools Foundation team, it prospered and expanded. Emmanuel College became one of the best schools in the country and maintained its outstanding grade in Ofsted inspections for the entire 20-year period in which that rating was given. Less than two miles away, my former school, Joseph Swan, which is run by the local authority, was judged as inadequate by Ofsted. In 2019, Emmanuel was asked to take it over, and it is now turning it around, increasing the life chances of disadvantaged young people in the process.
My point is that academic success should not be envied; it should be emulated. You do not help the poorest-performing students by undermining the performance of the best. The aim is to level up, not to level down—to learn from the best to inspire the rest. No education policy can succeed if it is quick to punish success yet patient and slow to tolerate failure.
I therefore urge the Minister and officials to acquire a copy of the book by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, and include it in the Secretary of State’s weekend box with a Post-it note on chapter 7, which is entitled “Why academies succeeded”. It is available on Amazon, hardly used, for £3.54, which represents extraordinarily good value to the taxpayer, as indeed do academies and free schools.
Baroness Laing of Elderslie (Con)
My Lords, this has been a most interesting and constructive debate. It has been a great pleasure to hear the reminiscences and advice of many people who truly are experts in the education world. Actually, I have just made a bit of a misnomer: this has not been a debate at all, because in a debate you have two sides putting forward two premises and, probably, disagreeing with one another. My heart goes out to the Minister, who has heard only one side of the debate today, but I wonder whether that is because there is really only one side to it and there is very little support for the Government’s position. I know the Minister will put forward the other side, and we will listen carefully, but we cannot help but notice that there is no enthusiasm on the Government Benches to criticise free schools and the freedom in education policy that has brought up standards over the last 30 years.
Over these last three decades, I have had the privilege of observing the variety of schools in the constituency that I had the honour to represent. I have watched schools ebb and flow. I have watched them become successful and watched them deplete, and I have come to the conclusion that there are three aspects that really matter in education policy. Schools need freedom, leadership and confidence, and each of those flows from the others.
I have watched particular schools that were failing— I will not name them because it would not be fair, but I could—become part of an academy trust. They therefore came under the direction of an inspirational educator— I can think of three particular head teachers who I put in that category—who was able to use their talents not for only one school but for a whole group of schools, and to allow one school to learn from another. That is what raised standards. It is not ideology that raises standards and gives all children equality of opportunity around this country; it is the practicality of putting them in a school that is free to organise itself in the best way that reflects the local community. A school that has leadership leads to inspiration in the teaching force and therefore in the children. That is what leads to confidence—confidence in the teachers, confidence of the teachers and confidence in the children, which allows them to go on to make great successes of their lives.
So I was very sad to see the publication of the new Government’s education policy. Why? Why would they take away that freedom? We saw this happen when the Blair Government came in in 1997. Schools were benefiting from the reforms brought in by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, in the 1988 education Act and, out of a misplaced ideological adherence to some form of making everyone the same, the then Labour Government abolished those schools. But they then realised their mistake and tried to bring them back again—which, to be fair, they did in later years.
Over these years, we have been used to saying that what we are trying to achieve is equality of opportunity but, sadly, what we see now is equality versus opportunity. You do not raise standards by making everyone the same; that only lowers standards. This Government, by adhering to an idea of equality, are aiming to take away opportunity. Our children need the freedom to prosper, to benefit from inspirational leadership, to build confidence and therefore to give every child in every community in this country the opportunity they all deserve.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of Future Academies, a multi-academy trust with 10 schools in London and Hertfordshire, 7,000 pupils and a SCITT teacher-training facility. I support the child protection elements in the Bill and commend the Government for bringing them forward so swiftly, but I do not support the academy and free school elements.
I am a child of Labour. I owe my place in your Lordships’ House to the Labour Party as my wife and I, via the charity we established, were appointed in 2008 by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, as sponsors of a failing school, Pimlico, just down the river. That drew me further and further into education. Since then, Future has made it its mission to take on failing schools and has set up a new outstanding primary school. We also have a particular emphasis on a very strong extracurricular programme—extra sport, music, drama, trips and residentials—and a very strong careers offer.
All our schools are now rated good or outstanding except one, which is acknowledged by Ofsted to be rapidly working its way towards “good” and one we took on only a few weeks ago. Our most recent success, Phoenix Academy in Hammersmith—in special measures when we took it over—has a 50% pupil premium cohort, largely drawn from the White City estate. It recently received “outstanding” from Ofsted in all grades and is now in the top 2% of schools by progress in the country.
All of this is thanks to our superb staff. Working in a MAT, our most effective school leaders can paint on a broader canvas, rather than just running one school, as was the case under the previous highly fragmented school system. We are also able to employ very well-qualified people in the centre on finance, HR, IT and estates. Our outstanding SCITT trains teachers in our pedagogy and knowledge-rich curriculum, and we can offer our staff excellent career development opportunities to work in different schools. Indeed, they often say that one of the best aspects of working in a MAT is having strong career development opportunities, which they could not have when they worked in a single school. Our heads often say that, when they ran one school, they used to lose all their best staff because they could not offer them those opportunities. We also have a curriculum centre that provides teacher resources and greatly assists our teachers’ workload.
Across the country, there are many MATs using their freedoms to dramatically improve the life chances of their children. The Labour Party should be rightly proud of this, as it started the programme. My grandmother used to say, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. I look forward to the Minister giving us her evidence-based reasons why the Government seek to change the system. I am also concerned about the weak and optional nature of the intervention powers envisaged, which seem a licence for endless JRs. I say that as someone who was JR’d up to the Court of Appeal—and that was after the objectors broke into my office. Surely, we do not want to go back to those days.
The sector is in shock, confusion and worry about the proposed changes coming, as they do, without any consultation, ahead of both a new Ofsted framework and a curriculum and assessment review. This is leaving a total lack of clarity concerning accountability and intervention, described by one school leader to me as leaving them trying to put the tail on the donkey. I urge the Government to think again.
Lastly, Future Academies runs the Government’s Latin excellence programme, under which we have brought Latin to 40 schools not previously offering it and 8,000 pupils. Unhappily, the Government plan to curtail this programme next month, half way through the school year, leaving those schools stranded. Many schools will not be able to offer Latin going forward and pupils may not be able to complete their GCSEs. I have written to the Minister about this. I understand that a meeting with the Secretary of State is being organised and this may involve a number of high-profile figures who are very concerned about the matter. I would be grateful if the Minister could facilitate this meeting with the relevant school leaders from Future Academies as a matter of urgency.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I have always tried to be positive, proactive and collegiate in any contribution I have made in this House. When I heard what the Government were proposing in relation to academies, much of which we have heard about today, words failed me. The only words I could muster were the ones I will share now: “barking mad”.
However, I have to thank His Majesty’s Government and the Minister for some changes already and some indications that things will not be as disastrous as we think. I would encourage the Minister to keep listening, keep thinking and keep her mind open. We should only be giving up the best to get the better, and not letting go of what we have heard.
I ask the Minister to consider, whenever these changes come into place, a set of metrics, performance indicators and measures against, so we can look at them and see exactly how things have levelled up and not levelled down, as people fear. Will the Government design those? Will they put them into the Bill? Can we have reports regularly that have been independently verified, so we have absolutely no doubt about what is happening?
Please do not jeopardise the chances of young people by stopping it for some and hoping it will come better for others. Given what we have heard today, don’t you dare spoil the work that the noble Lords, Lord Harris, Lord Agnew, Lord Hampton, Lord Nash and Lord Fink, have done. Our children—my Ollie—as I know the Minister knows, are precious. I am not going to stand by and let this be wrecked.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I do not often speak about education. I think this is probably the first time I have ever done so. I was tempted to intervene for two reasons. First, we have heard some very powerful arguments today in favour of the status quo. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton—he is almost my noble friend—teaches at a school in Hackney where my grandson has the honour of being a pupil and being taught by the noble Lord. The feedback I get from my grandson—they are usually pretty honest, children of 15 or 16—is that it is the most wonderful school you could possibly ever want to go to because “They make me work”.
My granddaughter is at school in Hackney, but not at Mossbourne; she is having a good time there and learning a lot. What we learned from my discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the school is that what it delivers, apart from the ambition, which the noble Lord, Lord Baker, mentioned, and quality and hard work, is an enormous variety of things that the students might want to choose from. They range from workshops, training in industry, medicine, architecture and the Duke of Edinburgh. They do rowing at Hackney, which must be difficult at the river there—well, there is none—as well as music and everything like that. The school offers them a variety of things and makes sure that they jolly well do them.
I live in Cornwall now, and I find that you cannot get local tradesmen to do welding or carpentry, because the schools do not teach that. We have to get to a situation where different types of schools offer different facilities, and it is up to the parents or guardians or whoever to choose, with the students, where they would like to work hard to get a place. If they have to work hard to get a place, that is quite a good start for the rest of life.
I am thrilled with what Mossbourne is doing. I am not going to go on about it, because my noble friend has spoken very highly of it, but I hope that parental pressure and support from other offspring and everything else will help the Government decide what to do in future. I do not see the need for massive change; the key is to improve the bad ones, and there are plenty of them. They need money, resources and committed teachers, and lots of them, but the key is to get the right output variety that will suit the students, where they live and what their capabilities are, so they can do a decent job and enjoy it.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this has been something of a trip down memory lane, because I think just about every single Education Minister of the previous Conservative Government who is in this House has spoken in this debate. I had my run-ins with all of them, and occasionally came round to alliance with all of them—at least on one or two occasions. I would hope that they keep an open mind about the Bill that is coming up, because I do not see it being quite the destroyer that they are talking about; it is just talking about a limitation of expansion. What they are saying seems a little more in the vein of a moment when academisation would be for every school. The Conservative Government then looked around and said, “Wait a minute”, under pressure from a variety of, often, Conservative local authorities saying, “Our local maintained schools are pretty good”. Indeed, they are, according to the stats.
So let us just take a deep breath. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure this House that we are not going to get rid of successful schools. Academisation has had one or two problems. I give you two words: “off rolling”. If you look at the general amount of attention paid to this before the pandemic, with papers published in the House of Commons, you can see what was happening with a group of children. You had a situation where any child who would not pass an exam and was a potential liability was shunted to the side. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, standing in the Moses Room and saying, “This is something we must crack down on”. He got my eternal respect for that—he is a man who displayed great integrity at that Dispatch Box.
Let us just take a deep breath. There is also the fact that we have a system with lots of children not in education. We can put it all down to the pandemic, but the actual thrust was there beforehand. I know that the previous Government tried—Henry VIII powers and the House of Lords do not go well together; I hope the current Government remember that. I also hope that they take on this fact and make sure that we have a registration of what is going on outside. At the moment, there is a subclass of child who is not getting an education; we do not know what is happening to them.
On special educational needs, I draw the House’s attention to my declared interests, although to this audience I think it might be a little bit of a waste of time. We have a situation that does not work for special educational needs—unless you happen to be a lawyer being paid to get people through the appeals process. It is a definition of failure if ever there were one.
We need to make sure that in the Bill that is coming up—basically, this is the warm-up bout before the Second Reading, or something like that—we get something that is better. I hope that parliamentary pressure, and the considerable wisdom such as has been spoken in this debate, is brought to bear on the right targets. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, ran up the standard for good parliamentary monitoring, and I hope that we can all match her, because we want to make this work a little better. There have been things about the current academy system that work, but there are things that clearly have not worked that well. There are people who have been left behind—people who are a liability to the status of a school. If we have the great hand that says, “Yes, you have failed; you will do another process”, there is clearly a cost to that. I hope that we can look at that when we go through the Bill.
Academies have their good points and their bad. They are not perfect. They may have improved in certain places, but there are people who have been left behind. There may be a child who has special educational needs and who will not pass their exams, but why are they not welcome? Why will they not be taken on? That is the situation: the great growth of people who are being home-educated. Can we make sure that we look at this when we go through the Bill? Without that, we will be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Let us make sure that we look at the whole situation. I hope that the Government do not damage what successes there have been. They have been hard won and we have paid a high price for them, but I hope we can get through.
I look forward to what the Minister will say. I remember, a few months ago when the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, was about to speak on another aspect of education—I think it was the limitations of Progress 8, and everybody had been against it—I said that I wished her well in her speech but did not envy the task. I think the Minister is in the same position today.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, we all expected a very high-quality debate this afternoon, and we certainly had the deep experience of many years reflected in your Lordships’ speeches. I thank my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park for securing the debate and for her work in this field. As my noble friend said, we have had some transformational successes over the past 25 years, some brilliant innovations and, of course, some things that did not work, which either have been or should be learnt from and addressed—I would argue that the vast majority have been.
As we have heard, this debate is taking place against the backdrop of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which was considered in Committee in the other place today. I am not going to dwell on that Bill today—the Minister smiles—as there will be time for that when it comes to this place. However, I wanted to share with the Minister some genuine reflections that I hope she and her ministerial colleagues might consider, with an aim of looking to the challenges of the future in our schools system.
I shall start with the variation in results across our schools, both maintained and academies. In the same local authority, SATs results at the end of primary vary between individual schools by at least 20 percentage points in pretty much every local authority area, and in the most extreme cases by 40 percentage points. Some of this can be explained by differences in deprivation, but even adjusting for this there are huge differences in any given area. We know what we need to drive this down and narrow the gap, but I think that the job for the DfE is to try to unlock more of that best practice in our schools.
We tried to do some of this work when I was in government, and I know that my predecessors did the same. At the risk of losing the good will of the House, I will quote from the work we did on high-quality trust descriptions—I think officials in the Box may be running for the door at this point. When I joined the department, I asked colleagues what our definition of a good trust was. There was a long pause and the answer came, “This is not a Soviet model, Minister”. Of course it is not a Soviet model, but we should be clear what we think good looks like, so we worked with a number of the most successful trusts in the country and the Association of Directors of Children’s Services and built on that best practice that delivers for disadvantaged children and those with special educational needs.
So, here goes. I appreciate that prose crafted by a committee is rarely elegant, but I will try to be brief. The first principle is that trusts should focus on a high-quality and inclusive education. They should create a culture in all schools that is motivating and ambitious for all, including disadvantaged children and children with SEND, so students can achieve their full potential. The second is a focus on school improvement, not just in cases of intervention but in all schools. The third relates to the workforce. The highest-performing trusts create a high-performing working culture for all their staff that promotes collaboration, aspiration and support, uses the flexibilities of the trust structure to create opportunities for staff, recognises the critical value of high-quality teaching and champions the profession.
We then went on to finance, looking at the effective use of resources, and finally, governance and leadership, where the trust’s strategy should be grounded in the needs of its schools, the communities they serve and the wider educational system. I was struck when I reread those—I used to know them off by heart—by how important a strong culture is in delivering great outcomes for our children. That is true in a maintained school and in our trust schools. So, since this is a schools debate, the first exam question for the Government is how they can encourage strong, positive cultures in our schools. Because, if we get that right, as trusts such as those we have heard about this afternoon have done at scale and in our most deprived communities, everything else follows. I really urge the Minister to press the schools she speaks to, to talk about what makes or breaks their culture.
The second exam question is how we build resilient schools for the future. All of us have met individual head teachers who are extraordinary and, luckily, those head teachers continue to exist. But we need resilience; we need to be confident that we have the capacity across the system to maintain the highest standards for every child, even when those head teachers retire. My noble friend Lord Nash was the first person who said to me that we really underestimate the potential benefits for the workforce if a trust is able to offer its staff a more conventional career path than is typically the case.
We need resilience in turnaround capacity, which, with a couple of specific exceptions, sits almost entirely in the trust sector. We also need resilience in future leadership, which is why we created the trust CEO leadership programme, which I think saw literally the single highest return on money that any Government could spend to drive good standards in our trusts. I hope the Minister can reassure me that it will be continued.
The third and final question that needs careful thought is that of choice for parents. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, was too modest to say that Mossbourne Academy is 11 times oversubscribed. Parents are voting with their feet. We need choice for parents about the school that is best for their child, because we are not having a Soviet model in this country, and choice for teachers about where they want to teach. I understand very well the fiscal pressures if a school is not full, but there is a real risk that the Government’s narrative of consistency removes that choice and that inadvertently we do end up with a Soviet model that will be good for no one—not for children, not for staff and not for parents.
There is so much more that I could cover, including my concerns about the pressure that the Government risk placing on our schools with the combination of changes to Ofsted and to the curriculum, and now the changes proposed in the Bill. Honestly, if I was in the Minister’s shoes, time spent reflecting on what we have learned from academies and free schools and what the best maintained schools and trusts do in practice—and how to encourage a culture that drives those outcomes—would be time well spent. Academies and free schools do not have a monopoly on good ideas, but they have had the flexibility to implement them and room to innovate. I urge the Minister, along with other noble Lords, to think on how we can offer those flexibilities to every school, not just trusts and academies.
A school leader said to me this week that tone matters and that the tone he was hearing did not trust the sector, or our school and trust leaders, but rather focused on consistency. It genuinely does not help that such hostile comments about academies were made by the Prime Minister and across the Cabinet during the Labour election campaign. I know the Government say they want to keep schools innovating, but that is not what they are hearing. All schools need to hear that they are trusted to have the flexibility to do the right thing for the children in their care. If we want to recruit teachers and allow our schools to flourish, we have to focus on that. As the brilliant head teacher of Harris Westminster wrote recently on X, in a long thread that I commend to your Lordships about conditions for teachers, “Let’s talk less about making it easy and more about making it meaningful. That is why teachers go to work in the morning”.
Yesterday I was with the wonderful Denton Community College just outside Manchester, which has recently become part of the Northern Education Trust. The pupils are living proof of the difference that a great trust can make to a school and its community. I am really worried that, as many noble Lords have said, we will lose the progress that we have seen in recent years. My simple message to the Minister is: let us build on what is working, spread the freedoms that have driven such improvements in performance for our children across all our schools and think again about the Bill.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, on securing this important debate and thank noble Lords for the excellent contributions we have heard from across your Lordships’ House, drawing on a wide and long experience in education. Several noble Lords have suggested that I will find it difficult or unpleasant to respond to this debate, or that I may even become grumpy about my requirement to do so. Far from it—there is nothing I like to do more than to recognise and champion the achievements of great schools and trusts, as we have been doing this afternoon.
Many of your Lordships have referred to the reforms the Government are introducing through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. I am looking forward to debating the specifics of the Bill when it reaches us from the other place, not least because it will give us the opportunity to set right some of the misconceptions that I have heard during this afternoon’s debate. I am confident that we will get further with this Bill than the 2022 Schools Bill, in which the first clause contained so many restrictions on academies that they nearly ran out of the alphabet for the subsections, and the Government Benches, let alone the education system, could not reach a consensus. So let us move away from some of the more extreme comments that have been made about this Bill and on to a serious and informed consideration of what we can all do to ensure the highest standards in schools that will enable all children to achieve and thrive.
Let me be clear on this Government’s mission, which is to drive high and rising standards in all schools. Over the past few decades, before the pandemic, attainment improved in some areas. There is also a wide consensus on evidence-based approaches that have been proven effective, which some noble Lords referenced, including phonics, a knowledge-rich approach to the curriculum and ordered classrooms where children learn and thrive, as was identified by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. We are committed to building on what has worked, including the excellence and innovation from our best schools and trusts.
I agreed with almost all of the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which was very measured. I do not think there is much difference between us, even if there is with some of the other comments in the debate. Part of that is because, before addressing further points made by noble Lords, I would like to be crystal clear that multi-academy trusts and free schools are partners and often leaders in delivering our mission. As many noble Lords have said, trusts and free schools have contributed, and continue to contribute, much to the richness of our school system. Labour is the proud parent of the academy movement, and I was there at, and soon after, the birth.
Since then, there have been some remarkable examples of existing schools being transformed and new free schools flourishing. The federation founded by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is just one example of how the academies movement has made a real difference, and I commend him for the passion that he has shown today and for the work he has done to transform schools and the lives of children within them. Before Christmas, I was able to visit the Arrow Vale school, an academy in my former constituency of Redditch—a school where I started my teaching career—that had gone through tough times and is now part of a strong academy trust and is outstanding. Similarly, many free schools have achieved strong attainment, progress and Ofsted results.
Far from one of the charges that has been made, I am pleased that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State will be meeting with Katharine Birbalsingh to talk about the success of the Michaela school. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, knows how impressed I was by the UTC in Aston, when I was able to visit. We want this to continue; academies and free schools are here to stay. We want high-quality trusts to grow— in fact, we need only look at recent statistics, which show that this Government are currently supporting 781 conversions, a higher number than at any point since 2018.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, rightly argues that it is not the time to rest on our laurels and say that the job is done. Our system is not working well enough: a third of children leave primary school without fundamental reading, writing and maths skills. Dis-advantaged children are too often being failed and children with special educational needs and disabilities are left without the support they need to excel at school. Since the pandemic, average attainment is down, the gap for disadvantaged children has opened up and we have an absence crisis, with more than one in five children missing a day of school each fortnight, fuelled by fewer and fewer children feeling they belong at school. This needs to change.
High and rising standards must be the right of every child, delivered, as noble Lords have said, through excellent teaching and leadership, a high-quality curriculum and a system that removes the barriers to learning that hold too many children back, all underpinned by strong and clear accountability.
As many noble Lords have said, part of the success of high-quality trusts and free schools has been the flexibility to innovate, to change long-standing practices and to try something new—but these have been available only to academies. When the academies movement began, much of this innovation was experimental, even disruptive by design. But now, 20-plus years later, 60% of our schoolchildren are enrolled in academies, most in multi-academy trusts. We need to build a school system that builds on those successes—a system with a floor but no ceiling, enabling healthy competition for all schools, for the new disruptors and for the new innovators, so that we can promote and support innovation.
This is why we have introduced the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill: to give every family the certainty that they will be able to access a good local school for their child where they can achieve and thrive, regardless of where they live. It is also why, through our wider reforms, we are designing a school system that supports and challenges all schools to deliver high standards for every child.
The national curriculum will benefit all children, based on high standards and shared knowledge. This will be a starting point for the innovation I mentioned, which will allow brilliant teachers to inspire their pupils. We will restore the principles established by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who, when the national curriculum was introduced 35 years ago, expected almost every state school, including grant-maintained schools, to deliver it—and I do not believe the noble Lord, Lord Baker, has ever been accused of being a proponent of classic socialism.
This national curriculum will be delivered by expert teachers, with all new teachers with or working towards qualified teacher status on a journey that allows them to grow, develop and transfer their qualifications as they move between schools. We hear the passionate and informed comments of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and others, about the range of people working within our schools. I would like to reassure the noble Lord that the requirement for qualified teacher status will not apply to any teacher who was recruited and commenced employment with a school or trust prior to the implementation of this measure. We want to work with trusts, such as Harris, to ensure that we are not undermining the excellent staff who are doing some of the specific and particular roles he talked about. We will work more on ensuring that this is the case.
We will deliver a minimum core pay offer for all teachers, while also enabling all state schools to create an attractive pay and conditions offer that attracts and retains the staff our children need. We will create a floor but no ceiling there as well. We know the challenges that schools face regarding recruitment and retention, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, outlined, and we want the innovation, excellence and flexibility that we have seen in the academy system to be available to all schools.
Pay and conditions are a crucial component of ensuring that teaching becomes a more attractive place for graduates and those seeking to combine work and family life. That is why my colleague the Schools Minister announced earlier this week that we have heard feedback from the sector that what this means for teachers’ pay and conditions could be clearer. That is why we are tabling an amendment to clarify the clauses on pay and conditions, which will set a floor on pay for all teachers in state schools. Academies will have to have due regard to the rest of the terms and conditions in the STPCD, but we will remit the School Teachers’ Review Body to build more flexibility, so that there is no ceiling on pay and conditions and so that all schools can benefit from flexibilities in that core role of recruiting and retaining the very best people into our teaching profession.
We have also heard noble Lords rightly identify the work that has been done across the system as schools collaborate, work with others and take control of those that are failing in order to drive improvement in our system. As I suggested earlier, we need to go further in terms of that improvement, and we are doing so to make that improvement better and faster, because we know that too many pupils are in schools which have not improved or improved enough in their current structure.
I am afraid that the noble Baroness, Lady Finn, is wrong: we are not scrapping sponsored conversion. We will continue to move schools that do not have the capacity to improve to strong trusts. However, under the previous Government, schools did not always get the support to improve when they needed it. Between September 2022 and September 2025, 40% of all schools in a category of concern took over a year to convert into sponsored academies, and 10% took more than two years. The previous Government attempted to address this problem by funding turnaround trusts, but the model was ineffective and those trusts took on only very small numbers of schools. We need more tools to ensure that improvement.
We are strengthening the tools that we have to give support and tackle failure with our new RISE teams. For schools which require more intensive support, we will draw on strong multi-academy trusts and other sources of capacity in the maintained sector to deploy those new RISE teams, which are led by experienced and successful senior school leaders who know how to improve schools and who have done it. They will work alongside struggling schools, including those stuck in a long-standing cycle of underperformance, to share their knowledge and bring the best of school improvement capacity to bear. They will have funds to help the schools implement the improvements they need. The names of the first tranche of these advisers will be announced shortly, but I can inform noble Lords that many of them come from the academies system that we are rightly celebrating today. We are confident that RISE will be effective, but we will not shy away from changing a school’s governance if there is no improvement.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, rightly raised the issue of those vulnerable children who are let down by our system. We need schools to collaborate in the wider community to ensure that the system delivers for every child across an area. That is why we are introducing new duties for schools and local authorities to co-operate on admissions and place planning to ensure that decisions reflect the needs of the community, especially in the placement of vulnerable children, and why we are providing in the Bill for local authorities to be able to direct that a pupil out of school who has a nominated school properly allocated to them is duly admitted. They already have that power with respect to local authority-maintained schools, and it does not make sense for local authorities to continue to need to ask the Secretary of State to make such a direction for academies; every day lost in a child’s education is one that they cannot get back. But that power will rightly come with appropriate protections to guard against misuse, which will include a clear and transparent route for academy trusts to appeal to the independent schools adjudicator where they disagree with a local authority direction notice.
Just as we are committed to growing strong trusts, we will continue to open pipeline free schools where they meet local need for places and offer value for money. But although we celebrate the good schools that have been created through the free schools programme, substantial funding has been allocated to new free schools, which has often created surplus capacity. This can result in poor value for money and can divert resources from much-needed work to improve the condition of existing schools and colleges. An NAO report in 2017 found that half the 113,500 places planned up to 2021 would create spare capacity. That is why my right honourable friend announced a review into mainstream free schools last October. We have engaged closely with trusts and other key partners to gather the latest evidence, and we will also take into account whether projects would provide a distinctive curriculum, for example at post-16 level, and any impact on existing local providers.
In thanking noble Lords for this debate, I also recognise that many noble Lords have paid tribute to the achievements of high-quality academies and free schools over many years. I am and the Government are happy to join them in that and want to build on that success.
This Government will build on what works and fix what does not, so that the system works for all children—levelling up, not down—with a core offer for all parents, with no ceiling on what staff and pupils can achieve and with higher and broader expectations for children. We are taking action to ensure that parents, wherever they live, will have a good school for their child and be confident, as all of us would wish, that they will achieve and thrive.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I listened very carefully to the Minister’s remarks and welcome many of them. We all violently agree on having the highest possible aspiration for our children; the question is how we get there. I will give one example of where we do not agree, after listening to other noble Lords with so much experience across the House in delivering education for our children. When we talk about flexibility, the Minister gives the example of giving the STRB more scope to offer flexibility. That is a centralisation of flexibility. Everything that we have heard is about centralising, whereas everything that we look at which is working is about trusting leaders in our schools and in our trusts to make those decisions about the flexibilities that they need for their children. I urge the Minister to listen not to me but to those behind me and across the House.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I do not believe that the noble Baroness is arguing for the end of the STRB. The STRB is responsible for setting that framework for pay and conditions and can be instructed in its remit to consider how to remove some of the inflexibilities that exist currently for academies but not for other schools. That is the intention of these proposals.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her closing comments and all noble Lords who have contributed today. It has been a really good debate. There has been a clear passion across all Benches. We are violently agreeing that we want every young person to have the best possible education that they can and to have access to high quality education. We all agree that there is absolutely no room for complacency whatsoever and that we must always be looking to improve and to take our education system forward.
Today is the first time we have been able to have a conversation since the introduction of the Bill, the contents of which, as the Minister has heard, have taken many by surprise. We have been able to air some issues and real concerns. We will go into much more detail as we start to talk about the Bill, which might undermine some of the things that she has talked about and which we all clearly agree with across the House.
I point again to the experience of the speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is a teacher and we heard from people who have set up chains, such as my noble friends Lord Harris, Lord Agnew and Lord Nash. We heard from a governor, my noble friend Lord Young; the ex-Ministers my noble friends Lady Barran and Lady Berridge; and a previous inspector, my noble friend Lady Shephard. We all want the same thing; we all want to deliver a better education. There are just some concerns that we would like to discuss further with the Minister as we go through the Bill. But I thank all noble Lords for giving their time on a Thursday for what I think has been a largely uplifting and great debate in which we heard the passion that we all have to improve young people’s lives. I thank everyone once again.