House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speaker’s Statement
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
Before we start today’s business, I want to note that today is Holocaust Memorial Day. I know that the whole House will agree with me about the importance of remembering, especially on the 80th anniversary, the 6 million Jewish people murdered during the Holocaust, alongside the millions of other people killed as a result of Nazi persecution, as well as those killed in more recent genocides—Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Darfur. I know that colleagues will want to join me in thanking the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust for the important work it does.
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Ind)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
Our Government are driving an agenda to break down barriers to opportunity and reduce child poverty. Around £1.5 billion is spent annually on free lunches for over 3 million pupils. This includes all children from reception through to year 2, and we have committed to introducing free breakfast clubs in state-funded primary schools. As with all programmes, we will keep our approach under continued review.
Ian Byrne
Knowsley, an area in my constituency, has the highest proportion of obese and overweight children in England, according to NHS data. Knowsley council’s director of public health recently described to me how this was an issue of poverty and deprivation. We know from research into universal free school meals in London that such a policy can reduce obesity rates by up to 10%. Earlier this month, I got unanimous support from the council when I suggested that Knowsley could be a perfect test bed for the roll-out of universal free school meals. Will the Minister meet me and the leader of Knowsley council to discuss that possibility?
Stephen Morgan
Over 13,000 pupils in Knowsley are supported with a healthy and nutritious free meal at lunch time through the Department’s free school meals and universal infant free school meals programmes. Unlike the Conservative party, we are on the side of parents in making a child-centred Government a reality. My hon. Friend is a real champion on these matters, and I am happy to meet him to discuss them further.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Because the previous Government widened eligibility, one in three children could get a free school meal in 2024, compared with one in six in 2010. That was despite the fact that 600,000 fewer children were growing up in workless households and that the proportion of people on low pay had halved. Will the Minister commit that this Government will maintain those levels of eligibility?
Stephen Morgan
The Department recognises the valuable role that free school meals play and encourages all parents eligible for the entitlement offer. We will continue to review our approaches and take a consistent approach going forward.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Both in government and in opposition, the Liberal Democrats have a proud record of championing free school meals for all those who need them. However, even today, too many children from some of the poorest eligible families are missing out. Lib Dem-led Durham county council has automatically enrolled children for free school meals this academic year, resulting in over 2,500 additional children getting a meal at lunch time, and an extra £3 million in pupil premium funding for the county. Will Ministers finally commit to automatically enrolling all eligible children in England? The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is the perfect opportunity to do so.
Stephen Morgan
As I mentioned, we will keep our approach in all Government programmes, including eligibility for free school meals, under continued review. We are aware of local measures on auto-enrolment being trialled and are supportive of the overall aims of such schemes.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
The Government do not set or recommend pay in further education. However, in the midst of tough decisions taken at the Budget to fix the foundations, after having been left with a £22 billion black hole by the Conservatives, we have reprioritised an additional £300 million for further education.
Sarah Owen
I declare an interest, because my husband works at Luton sixth-form college, although this question does not affect him. I am proud to have Luton sixth-form college and Barnfield college in my constituency—places where young people develop not only their education but their ambitions. Excellent sixth forms stay that way only by attracting and retaining the best staff. However, with the funding shortfall left by the last Tory Government, I am concerned that it is our younger generations who will feel the loss. Will the Minister outline how sixth-form colleges can use their funds to deliver the deserved 5.5% pay rise for teaching staff?
Janet Daby
I recognise the vital role that sixth-form colleges play, including Luton sixth-form college, and I agree that high-quality staff are what helps to make them great, as well as our amazing students. That is why we announced an additional £300 million for further education in the Budget, and it is why we are releasing £50 million of that funding in this academic year, so that colleges can respond to priorities, including workforce recruitment and retention, and use those funds as they see fit.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Balcarras school in my constituency has calculated that if its funding for its sixth form had increased by just 2% over the past 15 years, it would now have more than £650,000 extra to keep its school running. The head warns me that the sector is now at breaking point. Do Ministers recognise what is going on in the sector after the years of underfunding we have had?
Janet Daby
I reiterate that the one-off £50 million grant will enable colleges to respond to current priorities and challenges as they see fit, including workforce recruitment and retention. It is up to those colleges and sixth forms to choose how to use that funding to best meet learners’ needs. I invite the hon. Member to write in if he would like some further information.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
The hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen) has asked a very important question. The Government funded the pay award for schools and academised sixth-form colleges but, unlike last year, not for stand-alone sixth-form colleges. That decision has already led to seven days of industrial action. After threats of judicial review, the Department for Education offered some additional funding, but only £7 million of the £19 million that is needed. That funding gap has led to a pay gap, and as a result the National Education Union has more strikes planned and the NASUWT is also balloting. What is the Government’s plan to end the dispute and end the damage that is being done to those students?
Janet Daby
The hon. Member will know that industrial relations are a matter for sixth-form colleges themselves, in co-ordination with the sector-led national bargaining arrangement through the national joint council. We encourage open and constructive dialogue by all parties in the best interests of staff and students during this critical transition period.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Getting more children reading for pleasure is a key part of our plan for change, and of our work to drive high and rising standards across education by giving all our children the best start in life. Earlier this month, I was pleased to join the Prime Minister as he unveiled a landmark partnership between schools here in the UK and in Ukraine, based on the power of reading and backed by legendary children’s authors including Michael Morpurgo.
Paul Davies
According to the Libraries for Primaries campaign, one in seven state primary schools in the UK lacks a dedicated library or reading space, and that figure rises to one in four in the most disadvantaged communities. As we know, reading for pleasure is essential to a child’s academic success and mental wellbeing. Thousands of primary schools still need libraries. Does the Minister agree that libraries are vital for child development, and what further steps can the Government take to ensure that every primary school has a library?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the power of reading. We all know that reading broadens horizons and nurtures creativity, and I want more children to experience that joy, although sadly, we also know that more and more children in our country are not enjoying reading for pleasure. Under the Tories, one in four children were leaving primary school without meeting the expected standard in reading; it is little wonder that they are unable to enjoy reading in the way they should. Through our plan for change, we will drive high and rising standards to make that a reality.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State accept that the use of phonics as the basis of teaching reading has been thoroughly vindicated?
Bridget Phillipson
I do accept the absolutely essential role of phonics—it was a Labour Government who first started the roll-out of phonics in 2006. We need all our children to reach a brilliant standard in reading, but as I have just said, one in four currently do not meet the required standard. There is so much more that we need to do to ensure that all our children get a firm foundation in those subjects and, yes, enjoy reading as well.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
We know that smartphones in the classroom have a negative impact on reading and on the educational attainment of children in general. When in government, we issued guidance to try to ban smartphones from the classroom, but the latest evidence is clear that they are still far too prevalent in schools. To fix the problem, the guidance needs to be put on a statutory footing. Does the Education Secretary agree that children’s educational outcomes are negatively affected by smartphones, and if she does, will she back our amendment to ban them from the classroom for good?
Bridget Phillipson
I agree that phones have no place in the classroom. It is entirely right that schools take firm action to stop their use, and I know that is what the vast majority of schools already do. As the right hon. Lady said, last July the Conservatives said that they did not need to legislate in this area. Nothing has changed in this time. I back the approach that they took in July in this area. This is yet another headline-grabbing gimmick, with no plans to drive up standards in our schools.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
The Labour Government are at the forefront of change and, as I said to the Bett conference last week, we are determined to ensure that
“AI will be a positive, radical, modernising force for good in the lives of working people.”
The Department for Education is a member of the AI working group collaborating across Government to share thinking and expertise as we develop future policy.
Christine Jardine
Many of my constituents and local academics have expressed concern about the cancellation last year, by this Government, of what would have been the UK’s only exascale computer, at Edinburgh University. That was not mentioned at all in the AI opportunities action plan. It would have been a major beneficial development in this sector. What discussions is the Secretary of State having with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that this takes place, and can she reassure the public that the benefits of AI will be spread to universities across the UK?
Bridget Phillipson
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s interest in this area. She will know that the proposed exascale supercomputer is one programme that the Government are considering. We are currently assessing the best way to take this forward. The previous programme was announced under the last Government, for which full funding was not allocated. We are committed to developing a strategy setting out a 10-year plan for our country’s needs. That plan will be published in the coming months alongside the spending review, but I will ensure that officials in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology pick up her concern and that she receives a full response.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
As autonomous institutions, universities are responsible for their staffing decisions, including recruitment and retention. Where the Tories left universities on the brink, we have acted decisively to secure the future of the higher education sector. We remain committed to restoring universities as engines of growth, opportunity and aspiration.
Peter Prinsley
The number of clinical academics is in worrying decline. These are the people who teach our doctors in universities and are conducting groundbreaking research. Consultant clinical academics’ contracts with universities give them pay parity with the NHS. However, the universities do not have the funding to match the costs of the new NHS pay structure for consultants. I have heard that, unable to retain them, 20 out of 26 medical schools in the country are offering voluntary redundancy to their staff, and sometimes not voluntary. Does the Minister agree that we must do all we can to support medical education and research in this country?
Janet Daby
I am aware that my hon. Friend has extensive knowledge in this area, and I seek to reassure him that the Government recognise the vital role that clinical academics play in research and education in the NHS. Although universities are independent and therefore responsible for decisions on pay, we are committed to working closely with education partners to ensure that clinical academia remains an attractive career choice for all, including students from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The new Pears medical school at the University of Cumbria and the Lancaster University medical school, among others, are struggling to recruit and retain medical academic staff, in no small part due to the last Government’s somewhat masochistic decision to undermine one of Britain’s best exports: namely, the income we receive from overseas students. Will the Minister undo this nonsense and allow Britain’s brilliant universities, especially the medical schools, to help boost the quest for economic growth?
Janet Daby
Students are incredibly important to our universities, and we have some world-leading universities. I will ask my hon. Friend in the other place to respond to the hon. Gentleman’s question.
Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
Labour’s plan for change will get a record share of children ready for school, hitting key developmental targets by the age of five. Family hubs will play a crucial part in that. We are investing £69 million in family hubs, targeting support where the money will make the biggest difference to children’s life chances.
Mike Tapp
In Deal, Blossom children’s centre has been closed, and the new merged service does not offer the level of service required for one to four-year-olds and is not fit for purpose. What can be done to reopen that much-loved and sorely missed community asset?
Janet Daby
Local authorities must engage with families to co-design services and ensure that those services meet their needs. We are investing £126 million in family hubs, Start for Life, and through our plan for change. This Government aim to get a record proportion of children hitting key developmental targets by the age of five. If my hon. Friend would like to write to me on any particular issue, I would be happy to take it up. Departmental officials are aware of the case he raises and are working with Kent county council to continue to deliver services.
Jim Shannon
The issue is in Kent and in Strangford, Mr Speaker. The Minister is right to respond on the importance of disability and family hubs in Kent, and in Northern Ireland we have a commitment to the very same process. Has she had an opportunity to discuss the ways forward here with those in Northern Ireland, so that we can share experiences and the best way?
Mr Speaker
Does the Minister wish to answer that question, because it is definitely not linked?
Janet Daby
I assure the hon. Member that the Secretary of State has had such conversations and will continue to do so.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
This topic is of interest to many colleagues across the House. The previous Conservative Education Secretary labelled the special educational needs and disabilities system that she left behind as “lose, lose, lose”, and the shadow Minister said that the previous Government should “hang their heads” in shame over their record. Just last week, a Schools Minister of 10 years said that they had “let down” thousands of children. We agree wholeheartedly. That is the system we inherited, but there is light at the end of the tunnel as this Labour Government work hard to reform and improve the system.
Edward Morello
Some 52% of students at Dorset Studio school in my constituency have special educational needs, which is well above the national average, and 11% are in receipt of education, health and care plans. A funding agreement between the Treasury and the Department for Education in February 2023 to upgrade the school’s facilities, including a new school hall, a canteen and specialist teaching facilities, aimed to bring the school up to purpose, yet there has been no progress since May 2024. Will the Minister outline what steps the Department will take to get the ball rolling? If she does not know, will she please meet me so that we can get things started as soon as possible?
Catherine McKinnell
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s question and his concern about making advancements. Improving capital provision for children with special educational needs and disabilities is a priority for this Government, which is why we have allocated £740 million of additional investment to create those additional places in mainstream and special schools. I am more than happy to look at the case he raises—indeed, it might also be for the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), to look at.
Olly Glover
In Oxfordshire, the high needs of our accumulated deficit is expected to rise to £77.1 million by the end of 2025, and across England it is expected to rise to nearly £6 billion in the same period. Does the Minister agree that, in the long term, a shift towards inclusive education, early intervention and enhanced support in mainstream schools is essential to create a sustainable and effective system that meets the needs of all children and young people, and will she commit to delivering it?
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Gentleman asks an important question, and we absolutely need to see a more inclusive mainstream system with an education, health and care plan process that gets children with special educational needs and disabilities the support they need. By doing so, we will improve the mainstream inclusivity of our schools. As I have outlined, we have allocated capital funding for that, but we are looking at reforms on a range of levels to ensure that children can be educated in their local community as far as is possible.
Lewis Cocking
I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Since I was elected, I have heard countless times from parents across Broxbourne that the special educational needs system is too difficult to navigate and all too often just does not work. What action is the Minister taking to improve the confidence of parents in the SEN system?
Catherine McKinnell
I recognise the story that the hon. Gentleman tells. Indeed, it is told by many families up and down the country. He should recognise that this legacy was left by the last Conservative Government for many families and many children, letting them down. We are working incredibly hard to reform our system with a curriculum and assessment review, with capital investment and by working with local authorities to improve the education, health and care plan process and the timeliness of assessments. We will continue to do that to clean up the mess.
Debbie Abrahams
I recognise what my hon. Friend says: she has inherited an appalling situation from the last Government. A recent Public Accounts Committee report bore that out. Can she give a little more information on how she will reduce the number of families not getting timely assessments? How will she address the doubling of demand for assessments?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend is right to refer to the worrying findings of the Public Accounts Committee on the situation we are in. As she rightly identifies, it is our ambition that all children receive the right support to succeed, where possible within mainstream schools. That will need education, health and care plans to be processed more effectively, but also for mainstream schools in and of themselves to be supported to become inclusive, so that children and their families are not left waiting. That will help to reduce the cost of transport, because far too many children are being transported to other local authorities over great distance and time, as they cannot be educated locally. All these measures will not only drive down the challenges for families, but get much better outcomes for the money being spent.
David Taylor
At a recent surgery, a constituent told me that she had fought Tory-led Hertfordshire county council to carry out an EHCP assessment for her son for well over a year. Since it concluded, she has been forced to go to tribunal six times in the past two years. She informed me that she met resistance from the school and the council throughout. After years of neglect by not only the previous Conservative Government, but Conservative local councils, I welcome the steps the Government are taking to reform the SEND system. What assurances can the Minister give to my constituent and others in Hemel that EHCP assessments will be a priority?
Catherine McKinnell
I am sorry to hear what my hon. Friend says about his constituent. We need to see education, health and care plan assessments progressed more promptly, and we need to ensure that plans are issued as quickly as possible, so that children can begin to benefit from the support. The Department is working closely with local authorities that have issues with timeliness. There is, without doubt, a lot more to do, but we are determined to improve the situation for children and their families.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
There are children with special educational needs and disabilities in every school across the country. Often, they face unacceptable barriers to participation, including school buildings that are not inclusive or fully accessible. What is the Minister doing, as part of the Government’s welcome commitment to inclusive mainstream schools, to ensure that all expenditure by the Department for Education on new school buildings and building refurbishments helps to make schools more inclusive?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend raises an important point. We want every teacher to be a SEND teacher and every school to be an inclusive school. We are making progress by investing £1 billion into SEND, and £740 million into creating more inclusive specialist places in mainstream schools and undertaking the adaptations that may be required in mainstream schools to make them more accessible.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is the single biggest piece of child protection legislation in a generation. It will stop more children falling through the cracks through landmarks reforms—no more empty words but real action to keep children safe. It is a shame that the Conservative Opposition have played silly games on this subject.
Luke Akehurst
Last week, the Leader of the Opposition dismissed safeguarding measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill as a distraction. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Timothy, you have been a bit loud recently, and I am sure you do not want an early cup of tea today.
Luke Akehurst
After the tragic cases of Star Hobson, Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Sara Sharif, will the Secretary of State remind Opposition Members why those measures are vital if we are to protect children?
Bridget Phillipson
Opposition Members might not like it, but that is what the Leader of the Opposition said. The Conservatives had 14 years to stop vulnerable children falling through the cracks. Now is the time for action—no more empty words or lessons learned. Labour has brought forward the single biggest piece of child protection legislation in a generation, but the Conservatives refuse to back it. To label the measures a distraction is a new low. I encourage the shadow Secretary of State to distance herself from those shocking remarks.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
The Secretary of State should consider what she just said. The Bill has specific clauses about home schooling. I know that the Labour Government do not like any form of education that is not in state-run, local authority schools, but those who home school have significant concerns that the Bill will put unfair burdens on them and will change the relationship between those who are lawfully and legally educating their children at home and the state. Will she meet home schooling representatives to discuss their concerns and to ensure that while the Bill contains the relevant safeguarding, those who home school are made to feel that they are contributing to their children’s welfare?
Bridget Phillipson
Parents who choose to home educate their children are within their rights to do so. Those who provide a safe, loving environment and a good standard of education have nothing to be concerned about in the legislation. We are concerned about the growing number of children of whom we simply have no visibility. The Bill will ensure that where there are serious concerns about child protection and safeguarding, such as where a section 47 investigation is under way, the local authority must consent to home education. I am staggered that the hon. Gentleman finds those straightforward measures to keep children safe such an outrage. They are about protecting children.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
Despite having to make tough decisions at the Budget to fix the foundations, key education priorities were protected. That is how we are able to provide a £1 billion high needs budget to help local authorities in schools support young people with SEND. As I said, we inherited a lose-lose-lose system, but we are determined to reform it and restore parents’ trust. The Secretary of State and I regularly meet Ministers from other Departments on special educational needs policies, to ensure that we take a whole of Government approach.
Chris Coghlan
Every headteacher in Dorking has told me that early intervention is vital for our special needs children. The London Business School told me that hiring people with special educational needs can be a source of competitive advantage for companies. Does the Minister agree that those principles could be the basis of a more financially sustainable and compassionate special educational needs system, and could avoid tragedies such as that of my constituent Jennifer Chalkley, who tragically lost her life aged 17 due to inadequate SEND provision?
Catherine McKinnell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful question. We absolutely recognise the role of early years education in identifying needs and providing timely support. We have launched the new SEND assessment resources and child development training, and are identifying and supporting communication needs through the early language support for every child programme, along with NHS England. We will continue to work across Government to ensure that children with SEND get the right support at the right time. I am very sorry to hear the tragic circumstances of the case the hon. Gentleman outlined.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. One of the biggest pressures on SEND funding in Stoke-on-Trent are the independent alternative providers that charge tens of thousands of pounds for single places, often with huge profit margins for themselves. We are subject to a safety valve arrangement. Could I therefore ask the Minister to meet a delegation of providers and teachers in Stoke-on-Trent, who are hungry for a new way of delivering SEND provision to ensure that our young children get the education they deserve?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the challenges and pressures on the budget. I have identified the need to improve the situation with school transport by educating children locally and to provide more inclusive mainstream places. Where special school places are required, we need to ensure they are in the right place and available for the children who need them. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to hear the ideas of his friends.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
It was a Labour Government who first enshrined freedom of expression in law, and Labour is to this day committed to freedom of speech and academic freedom. That is why we are pressing ahead with a robust, rigorous and workable Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, and taking common-sense decisions in the national interest.
Lee Anderson
Unfortunately, a minority of teachers subscribe to the sort of dog-whistle, divisive politics sometimes heard from those on the Government Benches —and from those down here on the Liberal Democrat Benches, by the way. This has put some children in Ashfield off expressing their own opinions during sensible debate in schooltime. Does the Secretary of State agree that while in the classroom, teachers should remain politically neutral?
Bridget Phillipson
I have had the privilege of visiting hundreds of schools across our country, and I can tell Members that children in the schools I visit are usually never backward in coming forward with their opinions; I would hope that is the case in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, too. Of course, schools have a duty to promote fundamental British values and are subject to long-standing legal duties that prohibit them from promoting partisan political views.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
The Government have a mission to break down barriers to opportunity, and we want to rebalance opportunities in favour of young people who have the most to gain from apprenticeships. Where starts have fallen by almost 40%, we are introducing foundation apprenticeships to give more young people a foot in the door at the start of their working life.
Laura Kyrke-Smith
We are fortunate to have some great apprenticeship providers in Aylesbury, such as the Buckinghamshire College Group and Buckinghamshire New University. When I joined pupils from the Grange school at their careers fair, I saw at first hand their excitement about the apprenticeship options on offer. We know that apprenticeships are a win-win for young people and for sectors facing recruitment challenges, such as health and social care and construction. What steps is the Minister taking to expand and strengthen apprenticeships, and to ensure that all young people who choose to go down that route are able to do so?
Janet Daby
My hon. Friend is a real champion for students at Buckinghamshire colleges, and indeed for young people across Aylesbury. I know the area she represents very well. After the Conservatives left us with a collapsing apprenticeship system and other skills shortages, Labour is listening to employers and redrawing the system through Skills England, a new growth and skills levy and new foundation apprenticeships. That is how we will unlock opportunity and drive growth.
Ian Roome
Back in the autumn, the new Government announced plans to reduce the financial support available for level 7 apprenticeships. Does the Secretary of State understand that curtailing higher-level apprenticeships will make it harder to access graduate-level skills and qualifications in rural areas such as North Devon, where there are no universities nearby?
Janet Daby
The Government have an extremely challenging fiscal inheritance and tough choices need to be taken on how funding should be prioritised to generate opportunities for all. Employers will still be able to offer and invest in level 7 apprenticeships where they feel they provide a good return on investment. We have taken advice from Skills England, which engages with employers on funding for level 7 apprenticeships, over the autumn. The Department expects to make a final decision on affected apprenticeships shortly.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
The Government have said in answer to written questions that they have a forecast for the number of apprenticeships but that they will not publish it for Members to see, which is a shame. At the last oral questions, the Secretary of State said it was still the Government’s policy to allow employers to spend 50% of their apprenticeship levy money on other things. Is not the reason the Government will not publish their forecast for the number of apprenticeships that their policy will lead to a sharp reduction in the number of people starting apprenticeships?
Janet Daby
We are very confident about what the Government are doing with apprenticeships. Our levy-funded growth and skills offer, with apprenticeships at the heart, will deliver greater flexibility for learners and employers in England, aligned with our industrial strategy, creating routes into good skilled jobs in growing industries. As a first step, that will include shorter duration and foundation apprenticeships in targeted sectors.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
High quality teaching is the most important in-school factor for improving outcomes for all children, including those with disabilities. That is why we are committed to delivering our first step of recruiting 6,500 new teachers to drive high and rising standards in our schools in both mainstream and specialist settings. We are doing that by bolstering pay and conditions, and restoring teaching as a respected, expert profession.
Marsha De Cordova
Research in June 2023 found that only 56% of teachers in mainstream schools felt confident about supporting children with a special educational need or disability. Today, that means many children, including in my constituency, are still missing out on learning and leaving school without the skills they need. Does the Minister agree that we need more specialist teachers, including those for multisensory purposes and for children with visual impairments, to ensure every child has the opportunity to fulfil their potential?
Catherine McKinnell
All teachers are teachers of special educational needs and disabilities. High quality teaching is central to ensuring that pupils with SEND are given the best possible opportunities to achieve in their education. To support all teachers, we are implementing high quality teacher training reforms, which begin with initial teacher training and continue through early career training to middle and senior leadership. These changes and reforms will ensure that teachers have the skills to support all pupils to succeed, including those with SEND.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
On Friday, I had the opportunity to visit Manor Mead special school, where 60 members of staff look after the 92 pupils, many of whom have the most severe learning disabilities and autism. I was absolutely blown away by the care of the staff, and I was particularly grateful to be shown around by the adorable Luchia, one of the pupils. Will the Minister join me in thanking all our special school teachers for the amazing commitment they show, and on Manor Mead’s behalf, may I invite her to visit and see that work at first hand?
Catherine McKinnell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question and for celebrating teachers, particularly in our special schools but also throughout our school system, who work tirelessly day in, day out to support pupils, particularly those with special educational needs and disabilities, to succeed. I will certainly take away his very kind invitation.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
As a Government, we have had to take tough decisions to get the public finances back on track. In 2025-26, the entitlements budget will be over £8 billion, with a further £75 million to support the sector in this pivotal expansion year. We have also announced the largest ever uplift to the early years pupil premium. Early years is central to our mission to give every child the best start in life.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Early years providers are being hammered. In many cases, their national insurance costs per staff member are almost doubling. A large number are small businesses in the private sector, while others are schools that are taking children before they go into reception classes. All of them—both primary schools in the state sector and small private providers—are worried about the extra costs being imposed on them. Can the Minister assure my constituents and, indeed, people throughout the country that families will not face higher costs and that those childcare places will still be there? Can he assure the House that we will have more childcare places at the end of this Parliament than we had at the start of it?
Stephen Morgan
Unlike the Conservative party, we are on the side of working parents, and high-quality education will be available to every child. As for the hon. Gentleman’s substantive point, it would help if the Conservatives were honest. They would not reverse the rise.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
The decision not to compensate nurseries for the national insurance increase has already pushed providers “to the brink”, according to the Early Years Alliance, and many in schools, including schools with nurseries, are worried that they will be next. Local councils received a bill of £1.8 billion as a result of the national insurance increase, but received compensation for less than a third of that because the indirect costs were not covered. Can the Minister reassure the House that compensation for the increase will cover all the costs to schools, not just the direct costs?
Stephen Morgan
The Government have announced that public sector employers will receive compensation for the increase in their national insurance contributions, including school-based nurseries and maintained nursery schools, but in line with the arrangements for other areas, there will be no additional NICs funding beyond that.
Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Children growing up in our country deserve the best start in life—nothing less. Through our plan for change, Labour will get a record share of children school-ready. We will make that a reality through opening new school-based nurseries, rolling out childcare, earlier intervention, speech and language support, help for parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities, and wider SEND reform. That is rightly ambitious, and we are determined to deliver it.
Josh Simons
As a Jewish person, Mr Speaker, may I take this opportunity to thank you for everything you have done to help the House to remember my ancestors and those of other Jewish people whom we remember today?
Welcome funding was announced for Abram Bryn Gates school in Bamfurlong, in my constituency, in the last free school funding round, but the school has just been told that that funding has been paused, possibly until 2028. It is a really important school, because it provides support for kids to stay in mainstream education even when they have left. When can my constituents expect a decision to be made on the funding for this school?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue on behalf of his constituents. I would be more than happy to meet him to discuss it further. We are working rapidly through the whole free schools pipeline to ensure that we are creating places where they are required—that includes specialist provision—and that there is a strong case and good value for the taxpayer.
Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Today marks the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. As the years slip away, our duty to remember only strengthens. I have had the privilege in recent months of listening to the powerful and deeply moving testimony of Holocaust survivors in person, including Renee Salt and Mala Tribich. It is vital that the world hears their voices—hears what happened to them and their families, and what happened to 6 million Jewish men, women and children during the Holocaust. That is especially important giving the shocking rise in antisemitic abuse that we have seen since 7 October. The Government could not feel more strongly about this, which is why we have confirmed that the Holocaust will be a compulsory topic in all schools following the completion of our curriculum and assessment review.
Mike Tapp
I recently launched an exciting new reading initiative across Dover and Deal called Tapp into Reading. We tour the schools and the children read theatrically from a VE Day text. This will end in May, at a theatre. Will the Education Secretary join the judging panel then?
Bridget Phillipson
That brilliant initiative shows what a champion my hon. Friend is for his constituents, and I will consider his request seriously. I would certainly be happy to visit his constituency soon and to work with him—perhaps also on how his local schools might be able to join the UK-Ukraine school partnerships programme, which is based on the power of reading.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I associate myself with the right hon. Lady’s words on Holocaust Memorial Day.
Just today, another voice came out against the disastrous academy proposals in the Government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. The Children’s Commissioner said in a scathing letter that ending the academy order to turn around failing schools will mean
“children spending longer in failing schools”.
The Secretary of State’s own Back Benchers have said that ending the academy order would be a huge mistake and would weaken standards. Instead of running all her policy past unions, which are more interested in their own power than in teachers’ pay, will the Education Secretary listen to the Children’s Commissioner, her own Back Benchers and headteachers up and down the country when—
Mr Speaker
Order. [Interruption.] These are topical questions. If the hon. Member wants to ask long questions, she should do so under a substantive question. It has got to be speedy—punchy questions and sharp answers. Members have to help me.
Bridget Phillipson
It was a Labour Government who created the academies movement, and a Labour Government will ensure that they continue to flourish. The Conservative Government left a thousand failing schools that continue to let down more than 400,000 children year after year. We will intervene more rapidly and more effectively to turn that around. The Opposition have nothing to say on school standards; they are more interested in their own record than the best outcomes for children.
Laura Trott
The Education Secretary does not understand that her Bill will make things worse, not better. The legislation is in total chaos. At the Dispatch Box she said that pay will not be capped by the legislation, yet we now know that it will be. The Government cannot even do a U-turn correctly. Last week the Prime Minister told the Leader of the Opposition to read the pay amendment, but five days later the Government have still not tabled it. Can the Secretary of State tell me when it is going to come?
Bridget Phillipson
There was an awful lot in that but very little about how we deliver higher standards for our children, and that is what the Bill is all about. The only people in hock to vested interests are the Conservatives—more interested in defending school uniform racketeers and the private schools lobby than investing in our state schools.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Bridget Phillipson
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend’s concerns, and I am determined to tackle the scourge of misogyny. She brings experience to this place—
Mr Speaker
Order. Sorry about this, Secretary of State. Please, Members have to sit down. They cannot just remain standing up when the questions are being answered. Do we all understand? Great.
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend brings real expertise to this matter from her experience in education. We are reviewing the relationship, sex and health education guidance to ensure that schools are able to teach what children need to know in the modern world. Our school staff have a crucial role to play in tackling this issue as well.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Last week’s National Audit Office report found £13.8 billion-worth of maintenance backlogs in our schools. With thousands of students who are taking A-levels and GCSEs studying in schools with crumbling reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete and the Joint Union Asbestos Committee warning that pupils and teachers face a tsunami of deaths after being exposed to asbestos on the school estate, what urgent steps are Ministers taking to ensure that our children and school staff can focus on teaching and learning and not have to worry about whether they are safe?
Bridget Phillipson
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Far too often our staff have had to focus on maintenance and buildings rather than driving up standards in our schools. The Conservatives talk about their record, but their record was children cowering under steel props because of the RAAC crisis that they left behind.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
High-quality childcare and early education is a crucial opportunity to transform life chances, but too often it is unavailable or unaffordable. That is why this Labour Government are committed to delivering additional places in new and expanded school-based nurseries. I congratulate my hon. Friend’s school on the work it is doing. Our plans will benefit children and parents with high-quality and accessible provision.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
Bridget Phillipson
I recognise the challenging context that many schools experience after 14 years under the Conservatives. At the Budget, notwithstanding the severe challenges that we face, the Chancellor prioritised key education areas, including making sure that we could deliver on that 5.5% pay award for teachers that the last Government refused to back.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Stephen Morgan
Protecting children is a cross-Government priority. Although the devolved nations have their own safeguarding systems, we will continue to work closely with them to ensure that safeguarding remains a priority and that we all engage with our schools to see where we need to strengthen our safeguarding support.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
The hon. Lady raises a really important point. No child should struggle to get to school because of a lack of transport, and no child should have to travel great distances if there could be an inclusive and appropriate place for them at their local mainstream school. That is what we are determined to deliver for all children, both to ensure that they get the best opportunities and for their families.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
Independent training providers are an important part of the post-16 education landscape. They are funded to deliver the training that employers and learners need. That supports our plan for a youth guarantee to ensure that every young person can earn and learn. Springfield Training contributes to that effort, governed by our contractual relationship with commercial providers.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Stephen Morgan
I thank the hon. Member for raising those matters. I would be happy to meet her to understand the issues in more detail.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Stephen Morgan
I thank pupils, teachers and school leaders for their resilience since the original buildings were closed in August 2023. We have delivered high-quality temporary modular accommodation that the school will use until its new permanent buildings are ready. We will continue to work closely with the trust and the local community to find a permanent solution.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
When I worked at the University of Salford, I was proud to be part of the revolution in higher degree apprenticeships that saw thousands of people finding new technical careers following higher education. With unemployment rising and with recruitment agencies reporting significant reductions in job postings as companies squeeze their payroll following the Government’s national insurance increases, what new measures are the Government taking to protect apprenticeship levels in this economic climate?
Janet Daby
After the Conservatives left us with a collapsing apprenticeship system as well as skills shortages, Labour has listened to employers and is redrawing the system through Skills England, a new growth and skills levy and new foundation apprenticeships.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
To insulate our homes and build the 1.5 million we need, we will need far more construction workers—about 1 million over the next decade. What steps are we taking on apprenticeships and training to ensure that we have the construction workers we need?
Janet Daby
We are working across Government with the sector to put in place training schemes to build up the next generation of installers, including new apprenticeships for retrofit co-ordinators and installation technicians. As I mentioned, we have also established Skills England, which will form a coherent national picture of skill gaps and how they can be addressed.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I recently visited a school in my constituency in a building that is hundreds of years old. Its school condition allocation does not cover the work needed to keep the school warm, safe and up to date. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that classrooms in older buildings are fitted out?
Stephen Morgan
Ensuring that schools and colleges have the resources and buildings that they need is a key part of our mission to break down barriers to opportunity. I will be happy to meet the hon. Member to hear more about his concerns.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
Millmead children’s centre in my constituency helps young people achieve their early learning goals and provides safeguarding services, and it has been doing so with deprived families for many years, yet although Kent county council has been given £4 million to protect family hubs, it is not protecting those services. Will the Minister explain to Kent county council that it should be finding the money for this vital service?
Janet Daby
I thank my hon. Friend for raising her concern so passionately. We are aware that Kent county council is taking the necessary steps to best meet the needs of families, and will continue to provide family hub services from existing alternative sites nearby. That said, I am happy to meet her to discuss the matter further.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Wokingham borough council often struggles to find schools, including specialist schools, that can meet the needs of SEND pupils. As a result, many children are receiving education other than at school, or are reliant on alternative provision. Even so, there are often instances in which some needs identified in the EHCP are not met. Will the Minister—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry; it is meant to be a topical question. Somebody have a quick go at answering.
Catherine McKinnell
The Department for Education’s regional team engage with Wokingham regularly to discuss its SEND provision, provide support and constructive challenge, and share best practice. That has included providing a DFE SEND adviser to work with Wokingham and support the local authority in improving its services.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I recently visited Beaconsfield primary school in Ealing Southall, where teachers told me they have to fill in up to six forms to get disabled children the help they need. The time that takes is time they do not have, and they often need to choose which child to prioritise for support. How will the Minister reduce unnecessary paperwork and make it easier and more efficient for schools to ensure that every disabled child gets the educational support that they need?
Bridget Phillipson
Yet again we hear about the urgent need to reform our SEND system. We are determined to turn it around. We will work with everyone across the House and anyone with an interest in this area, including parents, teachers and staff, because we need to get this right.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
For safeguarding purposes, a number of primary schools in my constituency now allow pupils to wear their PE kit all day on PE days, rather than getting them changed in school. What assurance and support will Ministers give those schools that are concerned about the changes to uniform policy that Labour is pushing through, particularly with respect to participation in PE?
Bridget Phillipson
There is no reason that schools should need to make any kind of change. Of course, headteachers make practical decisions about how they feel they should run their schools. We are cutting the cost to parents and putting more money back in their pockets, unlike the Conservative party, which seems to oppose practical, straightforward measures to cut the cost of school uniform.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Ensuring sensory and motor integration is crucial for a child’s development and learning, yet many services that do so are available only in the private sector. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can ensure that parents can access those crucial services?
Catherine McKinnell
I know that my hon. Friend is a strong advocate for children with special educational needs and disabilities in her constituency, and I am happy to meet her to discuss the issue.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Children’s Commissioner says that the Government are
“legislating against the things we know work in schools”.
Katharine Birbalsingh says the schools Bill is “catastrophic”. Sir Dan Moynihan asks:
“Why are we doing this?”.
Why does the Education Secretary think that she knows more about education than the Children’s Commissioner, the head of the best school in the country, and the head of the best multi-academy trust?
Bridget Phillipson
This Labour Government are determined to deliver high and rising standards for all our children. The Conservatives left 1,000 failing schools, continuing to let down more than 400,000 children. They left one in three children leaving primary school without a firm foundation in English and maths, and one in five children regularly out of school. If they want to debate their record, I will do it any day of the week.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
Will the Minister meet me to discuss the SEND crisis in Suffolk Coastal? I have had over 100 families reach out to me since the general election to talk about their urgent needs and the crisis that they face because of Suffolk county council.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
In Devon, only 4.9% of EHCPs are received within 20 weeks. Conservative-run Devon county council has been utterly failing our children for the past 10 years. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what more we can do to support the council and turn things around for families, like that of my constituent James, who has had to wait two and a half years for the test that he needs to get an EHCP?
Catherine McKinnell
Local authorities have been significantly impacted by the increased demand for EHCPs, and by workforce capacity issues. We know that they need a more effective and efficient service delivery for schools and families, and we are working as hard as we can to support local authorities in meeting their requirements in a timely way.
Fiscal Policy: Defence Spending
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the impact of Government fiscal policy on defence.
The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)
The Government’s plan for change says that we will
“set out the path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence in the spring”.
I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking this urgent question. It gives me the opportunity to reiterate what the Prime Minister has said, what the Defence Secretary told the House on Wednesday last week, and what the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry repeated in the House on Friday, which is that this Government have a cast-iron commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, and that we are already delivering for defence by increasing defence spending. At our first Budget, we announced an extra £3 billion on spending on defence in the next financial year.
James Cartlidge
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. Before I turn to the specifics, I hope you will indulge me and allow me to say on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition that we join all colleagues today in marking Holocaust Memorial Day. May we never forget or be complacent about the lessons.
Last Wednesday, the Defence Secretary stood at the Dispatch Box and laid bare the extent of the Russian grey zone threat. This is not a distant threat, but one that has been lurking in our own waters, threatening the United Kingdom and our critical infrastructure. I heard what the Secretary of State said, and responded by confirming that he had our full support in standing up to the Russians. I said that this showed why we urgently needed to increase defence spending. But there is one big problem. The rest of us were listening, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not. Despite all the evidence before our eyes of the growing threat, we learned this weekend from multiple sources that spending 2.5% will be delayed beyond 2030. Can the Minister disown such talk, and specifically confirm that we will hit 2.5% during this Parliament?
The Treasury is not just failing to back more defence spending; it is hitting our armed forces with higher taxes on death in service benefits and education. The Secretary of State confirmed on Friday that the application of inheritance tax to death in service benefits for the armed forces would go ahead. We understand that to be causing deep alarm throughout the forces community.
As for the education tax, we knew that the continuity of education allowance would not be uprated to 100% of the VAT impact, leaving many service personnel thousands of pounds out of pocket, so since the summer I have called for a full exemption for children of armed forces families. However, in a written answer to me in November on the continuity of education allowance and schools VAT, the Minister for Veterans and People said that
“the new VAT policy does not offer any exemptions”.
Yet on Friday we learned that children of US armed forces families serving in this country and attending British independent schools are exempt from VAT on their UK school fees. I do not begrudge them that—US forces are based in our country to defend us—but we want the same treatment for our people.
Finally, can the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State will bang on the door of No. 11 to demand, first, that the tax on death in service benefits be dropped and, secondly, that British forces families be treated the same as their American colleagues and granted a full exemption from education VAT? Is it not time that Labour backed our armed forces with action, rather than just words?
Luke Pollard
I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s words about Holocaust Memorial Day. His Majesty the King has been in Auschwitz for the 80th anniversary, and he spoke for the nation when he said that we will remember this evil long after the survivors of the Holocaust have passed.
I have set out clearly that, in the spring, we will lay out a path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence. We will also publish a strategic defence review, setting out what we will spend the money on and how we will respond to emerging threats. As the hon. Gentleman will know from the Defence Secretary’s statement last week, we will make it absolutely clear to those who threaten us that we will use the formidable capabilities available to us to defend the UK and our allies.
We inherited a situation in which, during their entire time in power, not a single Conservative Government spent 2.5% of GDP on defence. The last time that 2.5% of GDP was spent on defence was under the last Labour Government. We have inherited falling morale; a retention and recruitment crisis; service personnel living in mouldy, broken homes; and a hollowed-out and underfunded military. That is what the SDR will seek to fix, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to give us his full support.
Having listened to last week’s debate, the hon. Gentleman will know that those who die on active service are exempt from the inheritance tax provisions. He will also know that the Defence Secretary has uplifted CEA support to 90% for those who privately educate their children while serving in the military. We will continue to support our armed forces, renewing the contract between the nation and those who serve. We will publish the defence review in the spring, when we will also set out our path to spending 2.5%.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
We live in an increasingly volatile world, so I thank the Minister for his clarification on defence spending. Surely the cost of fighting a war, notwithstanding the human cost, is significantly higher than that of having a credible deterrent force. The Prime Minister recently told me at the Liaison Committee that the strategic defence review has to be completed before the path to 2.5% can be plotted, so why have there been discussions about the timeline for that path before the SDR has been published?
Luke Pollard
We have said that we will publish the strategic defence review in the spring, and we will also set out a path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence in the spring. I do not recognise the publication timeline suggested by my hon. Friend, but he is right that deterring a war is cheaper than fighting one. That is why we are continuing to support our allies in Ukraine, and making sure that we have a NATO-first defence policy—to deter aggression facing the United Kingdom and our allies, and, if necessary, to defeat it with formidable capabilities.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
The Government’s commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence has been shrouded in delay and uncertainty. At a time when Europe faces its gravest security crisis in decades, this is unacceptable. Promises without a clear path are hollow, and the Government should commit to setting out by Easter a detailed and credible plan for reaching 2.5%.
We must also make the right spending decisions, and the House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee has raised concerns about the capability of the British Army. What plans does the Minister have to reverse the previous Conservative Government’s cuts to the Army? He mentioned retention, which is another critical issue. Improving the living conditions of our armed forces must be a priority if we are to attract and keep the talent we need.
Finally, the ongoing problems of inefficient defence procurement undermine our readiness, so what is the Minister doing to tackle those long-standing problems? The Government must stop dragging their heels, set out the pathway to 2.5% and end the uncertainty.
Luke Pollard
I have a lot of time for the hon. Lady, but we have been very clear and consistent that we will set out a path to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence in the spring. I remind her that when her party was in government, instead of increasing defence spending by £3 billion, as Labour did, the Liberal Democrats’ and the Conservatives’ first Budget cut defence spending by £2 billion, and cut it by 20% across the Parliament in which her party was in power. I support the hon. Lady in wanting a better deal for our forces, but I remind her to look in the rear-view mirror occasionally.
Mr Speaker
Order. While we are talking about mirrors, can the hon. Gentleman look at me occasionally, so he is not just staring one way?
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
It is interesting that Members on the Opposition Front Bench seem to have forgotten that when they left office, they left us with the smallest Army since Napoleonic times, a lack of ships and aeroplanes, some of the poorest equipment and many problems with procurement. It is important that we keep to the timetable on the SDR, but given the rumours we are hearing and the stories in the press, will the Minister provide an assurance that he will keep this House fully informed on progress on the SDR, not provide that information through the press?
Luke Pollard
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that our armed forces were hollowed out and underfunded over the past 14 years of Conservative Government, but the Defence Secretary will come to the House to report the strategic defence review and announcements will be made by Government about the path to 2.5% of GDP. I understand the enthusiasm, especially that of Conservative Members, to listen to anonymous briefings, but we have been clear that this Government will treat the House with respect. We will be in the House to make announcements on the SDR and on the path to 2.5% of GDP to be spent on defence.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I have a simple question: would it be compatible with the military covenant to make compensation payments to former members of the IRA?
Luke Pollard
That is not a matter for the Ministry of Defence and it is not within my portfolio, but if the hon. Gentleman writes to me, I will ensure Northern Ireland Office officials respond to him. However, I do not think there will be strong support for such action from much of the House.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
On our journey to increasing defence spending, it is crucial that we keep the public on side, especially given our dire financial inheritance from the Conservative party and the hollowed-out state of our armed forces, as Conservative Members have acknowledged. That is why I welcome the Government’s break from tradition in informing this House and the British people about their steps to deploy a nuclear submarine to respond to Yantar, the Russian spy boat, along with the Plymouth-based RFA Proteus. What steps will the Government take in the future, over the coming weeks and months, to keep the British public informed, so that they stay on side as we increase defence spending to respond to the threat from Russia?
Luke Pollard
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for his question. He is right that last week we declassified information about the activities of the Russian spy ship Yantar, including revealing details of the surfacing of a Royal Navy submarine to deter the Yantar’s activities loitering above our critical national infrastructure. It is absolutely right that this Government make the case that warfare has changed, especially when it comes to the protection of our critical underwater infrastructure. Making the case that we have formidable abilities, but also being clear in the SDR about how we will invest in those capabilities alongside our allies, is essential. The SDR will be published in the spring, when I am sure he will be able to see more about that.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I am going to surprise the Minister and say that I think he is right that the armed forces were not big enough when we left Government, and that every Chancellor since the end of the cold war slashed spending because it was the easy thing to do. Once the Ukraine war started, because of Russia’s illegal invasion, we put tens of billions of pounds into the response, so my question to the Minister is simple: if the strategic defence review suggests that we have to spend more money, are we going to spend that money or will it be directed to ensure that the amount does not rise above 2.5%?
Luke Pollard
The right hon. Gentleman is certainly right that the forces were hollowed out and underfunded, which we are seeking to address by increasing defence spending. We have provided £3 billion in the Budget and the path to moving from 2.3% to 2.5% will be laid out in the spring. The SDR will set out what capabilities we need to have to meet the threat environment, against that pathway to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
The last Conservative Government did not spend 2.5 % of GDP on defence at any point during their 14 years of power. Unfortunately, the increase that will come will have to address a lot of the damage that that Government did to our Army, our Navy and our Air Force. Does the Minister agree that it takes a Labour Government to deliver those spending commitments?
Luke Pollard
It is certainly true that the last time this country spent 2.5% of GDP on defence was under a Labour Government. The Tories cut defence spending as a percentage of GDP over their time in power. It is important that the strategic defence review wins cross-party support when published. I hope that the shadow Defence Secretary will be able to offer the Government a common position, so that what is published will be not just Labour’s defence strategy but Britain’s defence strategy, and we can be strong at home as well as secure abroad.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
If Labour colleagues are going to insist on reiterating that the last time 2.5% of GDP was spent on defence it was by a Labour Government, I suppose I have to point out that the last time 3% was spent by any Government it was by a Conservative Government, and the last time 4% was spent by any Government it was by a Conservative Government. Both those figures were some time after the fall of the Berlin wall. When the Berlin wall was still up, under the present accounting system we were spending up to 5.5% on defence, so please can everyone stop obsessing about 2.5% and when it will come in, because we need a lot more?
Luke Pollard
I have a lot of time for the right hon. Gentleman. He did not plug his “Shifting the goalposts?” Defence Committee report, which clearly set out changes in GDP spend on defence. I believe that he used the report to argue for more defence spending when his party was in power. Now that we are in power, we are doing it: we increased defence spending by £3 billion in the Budget and will lay out a path to 2.5% in the spring.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Today is Holocaust Memorial Day. Does the Minister agree that this solemn day is a reminder of what we are fighting to defend, and the need to always protect our values and freedoms?
Luke Pollard
Today is a day when we remember not just all those who were killed in the Holocaust, but those killed in genocides since. It is a day when there is unity and cross-party support for tackling hate, in whatever form and wherever it comes from. It underlines why we must stand with our friends in these difficult times, why we need strong defence, and why we need to root out hate wherever it rears its ugly head.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
Let me reiterate what the Minister is not quite saying: we are looking forward to a defence review that will set out what we need. It will not then be circumscribed as a percentage of GDP by some artificial ceiling; the Government will spend whatever is necessary arising from the defence review, and his Department will send a defence review to the Treasury untrammelled by any spending constraint. We need to address the desperate threat situation that the country is in.
Luke Pollard
Lord Robertson is conducting the externally led strategic defence review based on the terms of reference that were agreed with the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister. Lord Robertson will publish it in the spring. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is looking forward to it as much as I am.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
Under the last Government, only two out of 49 major defence projects were being delivered on time and on budget. Will the Minister set out what the Government are doing to get to grips with the financial mismanagement and failed procurement system that we inherited in defence?
Luke Pollard
It is certainly true that we inherited a broken defence procurement system; I think broken was the word that the shadow defence procurement Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), used when he was on the Defence Committee. It must make for awkward team meetings, given that the man responsible for the broken procurement system, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), is sitting in those meetings as his boss. We have set out clearly that, as part of our defence reform work, we will create a new national armaments director. The new defence industrial strategy will be published in due course, which will set out how we will spend more with British companies, supporting not just the primes but small and medium-sized enterprises in all parts of the United Kingdom.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Let me try to help the Minister understand where the Opposition’s concern is coming from: it is because of the realisation, or suspicion, that the arbiter of when and how 2.5% is realised is not the Secretary of State for Defence but the Chancellor. This is a Chancellor who scarcely understands the fundamentals of economics, much less the fundamentals of defence and the threat environment that these islands face. What will the path to 2.5% look like? Is there a date, or is it when certain criteria are met? Also, the Minister be clear on who the final arbiter will be? Is the Treasury saying, “2.5% when you need it,” or “2.5% when we decide it”?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman invites me to make the announcement that I am saying will come in the spring. To answer his concerns, I point him to the fact that the path to 2.5% will be set out in the spring.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
During my recent visit to Britannia Royal Naval College with the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I saw the vital role that investment in defence plays in supporting our armed forces and creating skilled jobs. Does the Minister agree that unlike the Conservatives’ inconsistent defence strategy, this Labour Government’s £9 billion investment in Rolls-Royce shows a clear commitment to strengthening our national security and growing our economy?
Luke Pollard
The armed forces parliamentary scheme is a brilliant scheme that introduces Members across this House to the important work done by our armed forces. As a Navy brat myself and the proud MP for Devonport in Plymouth, I know the importance of a strong Royal Navy, Royal Marines and Royal Fleet Auxiliary. The £9 billion announcement last week is an important part of securing our nuclear future, backing jobs across the country and supporting jobs across the entire supply chain—it makes Britain stronger.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The armed forces covenant is a promise—a promise that together we acknowledge and understand that those who serve or have served in the armed forces and their families, including the bereaved, should be treated with fairness and respect. How is the imposition of inheritance tax on death in service payments of some families of deceased soldiers fair and consistent with that?
Luke Pollard
It is certainly true that we have a manifesto commitment to put the armed forces covenant fully into law. That will come forward in the armed forces Bill in due course. We set out from the Dispatch Box last week that the inheritance tax does not apply to those members of our armed forces who die on active service. The other areas are subject to a Treasury consultation, and the Treasury will make an announcement in due course.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Is it not the reality of the past 14 years that we have fewer soldiers and fewer Navy and Air Force personnel and that, in an uncertain world, we need to reverse that trend and grow our military forces to deal with those threats?
Luke Pollard
It is certainly true that this Government inherited an armed forces that, as world-class as they are, were struggling with falling morale, poor housing and capability gaps thanks to 14 years of underfunding and hollowing out. The strategic defence review will set out what capabilities we need to meet the threats, and the path to 2.5% will set out what will be spent on those capabilities. We also need to improve how we spend because the defence procurement system is broken— something that was well highlighted by the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) and the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) when they were in government. That will be fixed, and we will ensure that we have a strong set of armed forces able to deter aggression and defeat it if necessary.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
The Minister says the strategic defence review will be announced in the spring, but is that the astronomical spring, which he will note ends on 21 June, or the meteorological spring, which ends, from memory, on 31 May? He talks about a “pathway to 2.5%”. That is a carefully crafted phrase from the Dispatch Box. Is the pathway short or long? Can he not give an answer to a straight question: when will we hear about 2.5%? When will it be announced? What is the date and the year?
Luke Pollard
The strategic defence review will be published in spring this year, and the path to 2.5% will also be announced in spring this year.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister and his Department for setting out the need for increased defence spending because, like so many here, I believe we are living through a change of era where the assumptions of globalisation and multilateralism are being refuted by reality, and it demands the renewal of our modern productive power in defence and the civil economy. The simple reality is to that build strong alliances, we must maintain and build our autonomy. Is it not the case that the one key fact about all this is that to maintain a good relationship with the United States, we will have to spend more on defence?
Luke Pollard
I agree with my hon. Friend that we have to spend more on defence. I think everyone in this House agrees with that, and that is why this Labour Government are spending more on defence: an extra £2.9 billion as announced in the Budget and a pathway to spending 2.5% of our GDP, which will be announced later in the spring.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
It was the Minister’s assessment of costs that drove the decision to decommission Bulwark and Albion. But if the Brazilians are going to buy them, they cannot have been that bad, can they?
Luke Pollard
Let me say very clearly to the right hon. Gentleman that we inherited a position where it was not planned that Albion and Bulwark would go to sea for a single day before they were decommissioned—that was the plan we inherited from the Conservative Government. We are looking at new capabilities as part of the strategic defence review, and the Defence Secretary has also committed from this Dispatch Box to the multi-role supply ship project, to provide littoral and landing capabilities for our brilliant Royal Marines, who have a bright future in the strategic defence review.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
I think both sides of the House can agree that our peace and security are founded on strong armed forces. Will the Minister therefore welcome the fact that we are spending £3 billion more on defence this year, as well as our firm commitment to get to 2.5% of GDP?
Luke Pollard
I agree that it is important that we spend more on defence. That is why the Chancellor laid out from this Dispatch Box that we will spend an additional £2.9 billion on defence in the next financial year. It is also why the Government have laid out our plan to renew the contract between the nation and those who serve. This is about not just kit and equipment but people. Addressing falling morale and poor-quality defence housing matter to our armed forces, and that is why this Labour Government are addressing those issues.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
A trained and skilled workforce is central to a successful defence policy, and I saw that at first hand during my visit to RAF Valley, where I met Babcock apprentices who attend Grŵp Llandrillo Menai. The Babcock programme supports young people to develop skills, so can I ask the Secretary of State to ensure that any increase in defence spending includes significant investment in training and apprenticeships?
Luke Pollard
As someone who has a large Babcock premises in his own constituency in Devonport, I understand the importance of making sure that there is investment in skills. It is absolutely right that, just as we invest in the skills of our armed forces personnel, we also invest in the skills of the civilians who support them. That needs to happen not just in the primes but across the entire supply chain, and that is what is being set out in the defence review and the defence industrial strategy, which will be published in due course.
Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)
I am a strong supporter of making sure that we reach 2.5% of GDP on defence. However, may I remind Conservative Members that one of the first things this Government did was to scrap a £40 million contract with a helicopter company that transported Conservative Ministers around the country? Does the Minister agree that that will help to ensure that our defence spending goes on defending the nation, not on assuaging the egos of Conservative Members?
Luke Pollard
The shadow Defence Secretary was certainly a regular user of the helicopters, so he will be able to advise colleagues whether they were good value. It is true that the Government need to demonstrate our support for our armed forces. We are doing that by making sure that we invest more in defence, and we have also given our armed forces the largest pay rise in 20 years. Recruits’ pay is up 34% under this Labour Government, and we are creating a new direct entry to cyber to make sure that we can get the people we need in the future. It is not just the kit and capability but the people that this Government are investing in, and we will continue to do so. I expect to see more of that in the defence review published in the spring.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
I would like to see slightly more humility from all political parties on the subject of defence spending. [Interruption.] Thank you. The Minister is right that defence spending was cut under the coalition, but we are in a different world now, with a great power attacking Europe. I would also like to inform him that one of my best friends, Captain David Hicks MC, was killed in Afghanistan in 2007, in part because of the atrocious level of military kit provided to our armed forces there. So I think all political parties need to reflect on their records.
Luke Pollard
I think that the whole House will want to pass on its condolences to the hon. Gentleman and the family of Captain Hicks. It is right that one of the Government’s objectives is to have a strategic defence review that is also the nation’s defence review—one that is not just Labour’s defence policy, but that can be supported cross-party. For that reason, I have laid out clearly the path and the timetable for our publication of the SDR and the 2.5% pathway in the spring. When that happens, I hope we can have a debate about how those capabilities match the threats and how we can support the SDR as a cross-party-backed defence review that gives our troops and our industry the direction and support they need to keep our nation safe.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
On the Floor of the House today, the Minister has stated that he wishes to have more money for the armed forces, and he has been very critical of previous procurement exercises by the former Government. Can I therefore ask him whether he agrees that giving away the Chagos islands, and paying to do so, is a bad deal, and that that money would be better spent on investing in our armed forces?
Luke Pollard
The hon. Gentleman might have missed the debate in which it was set out clearly that the deal we have secured to ensure the long-term future of the Chagos islands began under his Conservative Government—11 rounds of negotiations under the Conservative party, I think it was. The UK-US base on Diego Garcia is strategically important, which is why it is absolutely vital to secure its long-term future free from any constitutional threat. That is what the deal does, and I hope that when it comes before the House the hon. Gentleman will be able to back it, just as I will.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Which comes first, the strategic and operational needs of our armed forces or fiscal parameters set by Treasury bureaucrats?
Luke Pollard
The strategic defence review will set out clearly what threats the nation is facing and what capabilities we need. I would expect to see renewal of our capabilities, because we have seen from the war in Ukraine that warfare has changed. Some of the assumptions about how we structure our armed forces and how we fight have been challenged by the experience of warfare in Ukraine, and that is one of the reasons why this SDR is so important. It will set out the evolving capabilities that we need and how we will deliver them to keep our nation safe.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
Given that the vast majority of the Ministry of Defence supply chain is in the private sector—for example, BAE Systems in Fylde at Warton and at Samlesbury, with jobs across Lancashire—and that those private companies have seen significant increases in costs following the Chancellor’s Budget squeezing their payroll costs, as well as increasing regulation through the employment Bill and in other areas, we will be able to buy considerably less kit for 2.5% at the end of the defence review than at the start of it. As the Government go through the defence review process, are they cutting the shopping list or planning to go above 2.5%?
Luke Pollard
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I support the work of the private sector businesses that do so much to support our armed forces. The needs of our armed forces will change and are changing; that means changed capability, but it also means a change in how we buy our kit. Certainly, if we look at some of the absolute procurement disasters under the last Government—only two of 49 defence procurement projects are on time and on budget—we see that we need not only to buy the right kit, but to buy it better. That is something that the last Government clearly failed to do; the shadow defence procurement Minister himself, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, described the defence procurement system as “broken”. We need to take steps forward, and the SDR and the defence industrial strategy will set out how we will improve defence procurement.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I am the new Member for many places.
I thank the Minister very much for his answers. I ask him very respectfully whether he agrees that the story in the press this week about the proposed sale of Navy ships to Brazil, when our fleet already appears depleted, is worrying? There is a need to increase our defence spending, not simply to fulfil international obligations but to be in a position to defend ourselves in the frontier of the cyber-security world, and in the physical world as well. Will the Minister reassure this House that the decisions that are made have been future-proofed with our security in mind—the security of all of us in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—and prioritised as such?
Luke Pollard
That is precisely the reason why the Prime Minister commissioned the strategic defence review within two weeks of coming to office, to assess the changing context that we are facing but also the changing capabilities that we need, as a nation, to keep us safe. That includes retiring old capabilities, especially capabilities that were never planned to go to sea again—a decision made under the last Government. We have already increased defence spending in the Budget—it is up by £2.9 billion—and we will set out a path towards spending 2.5% of GDP on defence in the spring.
Storm Éowyn
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s response to Storm Éowyn.
On Thursday of last week, the Met Office issued two red weather warnings for Storm Éowyn, meaning there was danger to life across Northern Ireland and central and southern Scotland. As a result, and in consultation with the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, I approved a decision to issue an emergency mobile phone alert containing information about the weather warnings and guidance on how to stay as safe as possible to approximately 4.5 million people across Northern Ireland and Scotland. This was the largest real-life use of the emergency alert system to date.
On Friday morning, Storm Éowyn brought extremely strong winds to different parts of the UK, with gusts exceeding 92 mph in Northern Ireland. Initial observations from the Met Office say it was “probably the strongest storm” to hit the UK in at least 10 years and the most severe storm for Northern Ireland since 1998. Very sadly, we have had reports so far of two deaths during the storm—a young man in Scotland and a young man in the Republic of Ireland. Our thoughts are with and our condolences go to their families.
The storm caused widespread property damage and significant disruption to transport and power supplies, particularly in Northern Ireland and Scotland. At its peak, 285,000 properties in Northern Ireland—that is about a quarter of the population—and around 290,000 properties in Scotland lost power. More than 95% of the customers in Scotland have had their power restored. Work is continuing to bring that number down. In England and Wales, around 325,000 properties lost supply, and the vast majority have been reconnected.
As a result of the power outages, disruption to telecoms was reported by mobile phone operators in the areas affected. Significant impacts were also felt across the rail and road networks, with train services cancelled, and Edinburgh airport and both Belfast airports suspending operations on Friday. Also on Friday, all schools in Northern Ireland were closed, as were almost 90% of Scotland’s schools, and all colleges and universities. In England, there was also a smaller number of school closures. As a result of the storm, around 3,000 properties in Northern Ireland are experiencing disruption to water supplies, and supplies of bottled water are en route to Northern Ireland.
I want to thank the emergency services, the engineers and others who have worked tirelessly and with great courage in the face of extremely difficult weather conditions. They put in a huge effort to provide support to those who have needed it to restore power, repair damage and clear roads and railways. I know the whole House will join me in thanking them for their work.
The Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive have led the response efforts in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and there has been good co-operation between the UK Government and the devolved Governments over the past few days. We remain in regular contact to assess the situation and see what more needs to be done. On Saturday, the Prime Minister spoke to the Scottish First Minister and the Northern Ireland First Minister and Deputy First Minister to offer any support that the UK Government could provide. Today, the Prime Minister has also spoken to the Taoiseach and discussed the latest situation in the Republic of Ireland.
Over the weekend, I chaired a ministerial Cobra meeting with relevant Cabinet colleagues as well as the First Minister of Scotland and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland. I reiterated the Prime Minister’s offer of assistance, and we discussed the practical support that the UK Government could provide. Under industry arrangements, electricity network operators have facilitated mutual aid, and 102 engineers with equipment have travelled to Northern Ireland to support power restoration. Northern Ireland has requested specific mutual aid from Great Britain in the form not only of engineers, but of helicopters, generators and batteries, as well as equipment more widely, including chainsaws and vehicles.
UK Government Departments are moving as quickly as they can to meet these requests. We believe the majority of requests can be met through either the usual mutual aid channels or, in some cases, commercial arrangements with industry. The Cobra unit in my Department, which has met twice over the weekend at official level and once again this morning, is continuing to co-ordinate the support to ensure it is provided as swiftly as possible.
I have met Cobra officials several times to review the situation and ensure that we are doing all we can to support those affected. The message has been simple: to get as much help as quickly as possible to where it is needed. The situation on the ground is improving, but it is estimated that it could be up to 10 days before everyone is reconnected—a long time. This is very serious and we are working as hard as we can to accelerate the restoration of power.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is today in Northern Ireland, where he has met the Minister for Infrastructure to discuss recovery, and residents impacted by the storm. The Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks) is in Scotland this afternoon, meeting staff who are working on reconnections. Since Friday, around 220,000 properties in Northern Ireland, and 600,000 across Great Britain, have had their power restored. Welfare provisions have been provided to households without power, travel disruption has eased, most schools in Northern Ireland have reopened today, and we hope that the majority of the remainder will reopen tomorrow.
However, the situation remains serious and there is a need for ongoing help. In Northern Ireland an estimated 60,000 properties are still without power, as are around 7,500 in Scotland. Northern Ireland electricity networks expect to restore power to the vast majority of homes and businesses over the coming days, and we will continue to provide additional support that may be needed to accelerate that reconnection for as many households as possible.
Storm Éowyn has now moved away from the UK, but another storm, which the Spanish Met Office has named Storm Herminia, has brought heavy bands of rain to south-west England and Wales. A number of properties have been flooded, and 35,000 properties lost power, although the majority of those have now had it restored. We expect the impact of this storm to be significantly less than that of Storm Éowyn.
I hope this statement underscores the seriousness and urgency with which the Government are working to address the destruction that Storm Éowyn has wrought. In the days ahead we will continue to work closely with our colleagues in the devolved Governments, particularly in Northern Ireland, which has been worst hit in this situation, to ensure that all households are reconnected as soon as possible, and that full support is provided to affected households in the meantime. I commend this statement to the House.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for his statement and for providing advance sight of it. I pay tribute to all the emergency services, responders and volunteers who have undertaken, and continue to undertake, action in response to Storm Éowyn. We join the Minister in sending our deepest condolences to those families who are grieving after the tragic deaths in Scotland and the Republic of Ireland.
Red weather warnings are rarely issued, and Storm Éowyn is certainly the worst of its kind for some time. It highlights the importance of work to strengthen preparedness and resilience across the board. I understand that the Government will be undertaking a pandemic preparedness exercise later this year. Are there any plans to undertake a similar exercise for storms and adverse weather, particularly focusing on the use of the emergency alert system that was introduced by the previous Government, its effectiveness, and the protection of critical infrastructure?
On critical infrastructure, in relation to water, what can the UK Government do to help ensure the resilience of those systems that went down over the weekend into the future? Much of the damage has been caused, or worsened, by extensive flooding. I recognise that the Government have established the floods resilience taskforce, but reports suggest that it has met just once since July. That is disappointing, if true, and I hope that the Secretary of State will clarify what actions were taken up as a result of that meeting.
As communities seek to recover and rebuild after Storm Éowyn, many face being hit again by Storm Herminia. What preparations are in place for that storm, and what flooding response preparations are now in place after the weekend?
Storm Éowyn has caused enormous damage right across the United Kingdom, as the Secretary of State said, but Scotland and Northern Ireland were particularly hard-hit. It is imperative that the Government fully understand the challenges faced by devolved authorities in providing adequate funding for storm and flooding preparedness, as well as response. I would appreciate clarity from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on what work is being taken forward under the proper agreements to ensure progress on that.
I would also appreciate clarity on what discussions were held with the devolved Administrations ahead of the storm to co-ordinate responses and ensure that the proper preparations were in place. As the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster set out in his statement, winds of more than 90 mph left a quarter of all homes in Northern Ireland, as well as many businesses, without power. Labour made a commitment in its manifesto to support the Northern Ireland Executive to improve public services in the Province. If ever there was a test of the Government’s commitment to supporting the Executive and public services in Northern Ireland, it is now, after this horrific storm.
We understand that, under mutual aid arrangements, the UK Government are providing some targeted support to Northern Ireland. Can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster unpack that further? I think he said in his statement that 102 engineers from Great Britain were currently in Northern Ireland to get power restored to affected communities. Can he confirm that figure? How many more are due to arrive, and when will they arrive? Can he confirm, given the increased frequency of this type of weather incident, what action he is taking to ensure that Northern Ireland Electricity has the in-house skills and capacity needed to respond to similar events in future? Is NHS England offering any support to the health service in Northern Ireland?
Storm Éowyn hit every nation in our United Kingdom. We have seen travel and power problems, along with the tragic loss of young life in Scotland. In Wales, the storm has prompted school closures and yet more outages. Can the Minister assure the House that he is impressing upon his colleagues in Cardiff Bay and Holyrood the need to make sure that local authorities and local health boards are properly resourced to deliver preparedness and resilience services in their communities, using the record block grants provided by the previous Government and the package announced by the Chancellor in last autumn’s Budget? Our thoughts and prayers are with all those communities affected by Storm Éowyn and with all those working so tirelessly to help them.
Pat McFadden
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response and, in particular, for his tribute to the emergency service workers and engineers who have worked so hard over recent days. He asked a number of questions, and I will try to go through them.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether there would be a further test of the national emergency alert system. Yes, there will be. I announced that to the House about 10 days ago. There will be a second nationwide test later this year. He asked about resilience meetings. I can assure him that there has been more than one meeting on resilience over the past seven months, and I take part in them regularly. He asked about co-operation with the devolved Governments. There has been good co-operation with the devolved Governments in recent days both at the official level—we have had regular contact over the weekend—and also at the ministerial Cobra meeting that I chaired on Saturday evening, which involved the First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland and the First Minister of Scotland.
The hon. Gentleman asked about financial support. Both Northern Ireland and Scotland received significant increases in their budgets. I am pleased that he acknowledged—a rare acknowledgment from the Opposition Front Bench—the generosity of the settlement as a result of the Budget from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor a few months ago. He asked about the number of engineers. The latest figure I have is 102, but the number moves around.
As I said in my statement, we have had two storms and floods and power outages in different parts of the country. The principal that my officials and I have tried to instil is this: as much help as possible, as quickly as possible, to the areas where it is needed. That is what has driven our response over the weekend and through today.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
Storm Éowyn caused real damage to homes and property in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), who has a family emergency today but with whom I worked closely over the weekend. The costs include significant losses to the economy, after many businesses had to close on Friday. Around 15,000 people lost power across Fife in freezing conditions. I thank the ScottishPower engineers and all those who worked hard in dangerous conditions to get power restored and to care for others. However, some, including older and vulnerable people, on the outskirts of Aberdour, Burntisland, Cowdenbeath and Auchtertool are still without power.
I was closely engaged with many constituents over the weekend, ensuring that a generator was brought to a care home without power in Auchtertool on Saturday. I thank the Windsor hotel in Kirkcaldy and the Woodside hotel in Cowdenbeath, who accommodated people hit by the storm at no cost. Such acts of community solidarity are priceless in times of need. Does the Minister agree that lessons from the response to Storm Éowyn must be learned and implemented, as climate change will bring more extreme weather events? They include the effectiveness of the priority services register, reliance on phoning 105 when people have no mobile phone battery or working phone line, and more preparatory work by the Scottish Government and local authorities to get resources and support to communities.
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I echo her thanks to those who have extended premises or help to their neighbours in these difficult times. These events can be very difficult, but they also show the best of society, such as the hotels in Fife that she mentioned. We are constantly learning and adapting from different emergencies and trying to improve our processes. In recent days I have been impressed by the speed with which mutual aid arrangements have worked. It is never perfect, but we will keep trying to learn and improve as these situations arise.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for advance sight of his statement and for his thoughtful presentation of it. As he said, Storm Éowyn may well have been the strongest storm to hit the United Kingdom in 10 years. Sadly, it is a sign of what is likely to come. I am praying for those who are grieving those who have died, and I pay tribute, alongside everyone else in every corner of this House, to all who worked throughout the weekend to support others, often at great cost and even risk to themselves.
Back home, communities such as Patterdale, Flookburgh, Cark, Shap, Tebay, Crosby Ravensworth, Witherslack and Bouth saw many homes, businesses and community centres lose power. Like others, I am incredibly grateful to the engineers at Electricity North West and the wider community groups who have worked tirelessly to reconnect residents and support those without power. I want to mention the Commodore Inn at Grange over Sands, the Kings Arms at Stainton, the Watermill at Ings and the Kings Head at Ravenstonedale, which provided shelter, food and drink to residents hit by the power cuts.
Storms are becoming more commonplace and severe, and the damage that they leave behind all the more troubling and increasing. Four days on, tens of thousands of homes across the British Isles are still without power, and transport networks remain badly hit. The Government’s failure at the recent Budget to guarantee funding for flood defences beyond this coming financial year is a cause of great anxiety for communities such as mine, who are often the first to be hit by extreme weather events. It also strikes me as extraordinarily short-sighted. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster demand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer puts this right, and quickly?
Farmers are our crucial ally in the fight to build more storm-resilient communities. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster get the Treasury to ringfence funding, in addition to the environmental land management budget, to support farmers to protect our villages, towns and cities through natural flood management? Farmers are also major victims of these storms, with crops and livestock tragically lost and equipment destroyed.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is a two-minute limit.
Madam Deputy Speaker
By some 10%. Perhaps he will make this a very short final sentence.
Tim Farron
Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ensure that resilience funding goes to the farmers who need it? Finally, will he meet the electricity companies to consider how they can improve the resilience of power lines?
Pat McFadden
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions, and I echo his thanks to those who have helped so many over the past few days. He is right that these storms seem to be becoming more frequent. If he wants more money for flood defences, he of course must support the revenue raisers that go towards that money—I hope there will be consistency on that. I also echo his thanks to farmers for their efforts in difficult times such as these. We know they can be very hard hit by the kind of weather we have seen over the weekend.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
This weekend, Cumbria was hammered by Storm Éowyn. I must compliment the hundreds of local authority staff and contractors who worked day and night to deal with hundreds of incidents of fallen trees and damage to power lines and buildings, but I note that many of my residents are still waiting for power to be restored. Will the Government consider the eligibility criteria for the Bellwin scheme and whether it truly supports the emergency response costs, which will very likely run to seven figures for each of Cumbria’s two unitary authorities?
Pat McFadden
We do not have plans to revise the Bellwin scheme right now, but we are working very hard to restore power to people in my hon. Friend’s area and in any other area where power has still not been restored. A huge effort has gone into this work in recent days and hundreds of thousands of homes have been reconnected, but the worst of it is still in Northern Ireland, where some 60,000 are without power.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
My constituency was very significantly impacted by the storm, and we were just grateful there was no loss of life. That is why I was particularly sorry to hear about the young man in Mauchline; my condolences go out to his family. I pay tribute to all the emergency services, local authorities and everybody at ScottishPower who has done so much to restore the network—I will be even more grateful to them if they abide by their promise and get the village of Skirling back on the network tonight.
The one issue that has come up in this emergency, as in so many others, is the importance of contact with the elderly and vulnerable and of having an effective system for that contact. Inevitably, people who have not previously been identified do emerge. However, despite all the lessons from previous incidents, I do not believe we have a sufficiently effective system to identify the people who will be most in need in such circumstances.
Pat McFadden
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that contact with the elderly and the vulnerable is important. The priority services register is a pre-registration system for emergency events such as the storm, and I encourage anybody in that category who has not used it to register in advance. It gives the power companies much better information about exactly who is vulnerable in situations where the power is cut off.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I begin by paying tribute to all those across Hexham, including local authority staff and members of the community, who helped out during the storm. As the Government conduct the national resilience review, will my right hon. Friend ensure that the needs of our most isolated and rural communities are prioritised when considering these kinds of events, which are becoming far more common?
Pat McFadden
It is really important for our national solidarity that when the resilience review is published in the spring, it does exactly what my hon. Friend says: it must consider resilience in not only the urban areas, but the isolated areas, which can often be the hardest hit, and are often hit for the longest time, when we have such emergencies.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I offer my sympathies to everyone who has been severely affected by Storm Éowyn, and in particular those who have lost loved ones. I share the Minister’s acknowledgment of the work that has been and continues to be done in the aftermath of the storm. Huge thanks go to Scottish and Southern Electricity Networks, the ScottishPower emergency network, our local authority, staff at Openreach, our road and rail teams and all the emergency services for the way they have handled and responded to this weather emergency.
I have a couple of specific questions. Will the Minister commit to reviewing the operation of battery back-up phones, which are replacing phones on the copper wire network, including whether they are effective in a power outage, particularly in places where the power is off for long periods of time? Make no mistake: this weather event was caused by climate change and is yet another warning—if one were needed—against rowing back on our net zero commitments. Will the Minister acknowledge that and redouble efforts to tackle carbon emissions in an effort to protect future generations from the most extreme scenarios that we might face?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Member is right to point out that as technology changes and phone technology changes, we must not end up increasing our vulnerability. It is really important that regulators and phone companies consider that as those changes go through. Our commitments to the energy transition remain as they were. It is a big priority for us to increase our energy security as we move through the coming years.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
Over the past few days we have seen three notable things happen: Storm Éowyn has had tragic consequences; the CIA has announced that it thinks it is more likely that covid came from a Chinese laboratory than from animals—that is, it thinks it more likely that it was made on purpose; and the Russians, quite blatantly, put a spy boat in UK waters and the Defence Secretary announced in this place that we had deployed a nuclear submarine to surface nearby to see it off. Resilience is a huge topic. Does the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster agree that siloing resilience in the Cabinet Office, security in the Home Office and defence in the Ministry of Defence might not be the way to go in the future, and that we need to think of these things as very much connected?
Pat McFadden
My hon. Friend is right that those things are connected, but using the example of recent days, I can see advantage in the Cobra team’s role. Requests came in that involved help from several Government Departments. The important thing in a situation like that is that they are not just dissipated around Departments, but someone at the centre holds the ring, drives progress and makes sure it is pulled together. That is precisely the role the Cabinet Office and Cobra officials played in recent days. I believe there is value in someone holding the ring and driving progress in that way.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I add my tribute and thanks to the emergency services, core workers and care workers who were on the ground over the weekend, and to those providing welfare in our churches and halls of all creeds—the Orange halls and the Gaelic Athletic Association centres—which opened their doors for our local communities. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster mentioned that 60,000 properties are still without electricity, but more individuals are affected. Our pensioners, young people, mothers and children are still waiting for their power to be supplied, and some are still waiting for water to be reconnected to their homes as well.
I thank the Government for their assistance to the Northern Ireland Executive, but did the Chancellor, in his Cobra meetings, have the feeling that the Executive were prepared enough for what was coming, rather than simply asking the UK Government for assistance? When the statement says that the Northern Ireland Executive were asking for things like chainsaws, it concerns me that more could have been done by our Executive to prepare for what was coming.
Pat McFadden
Let me echo what the hon. Gentleman says about different parts of the community who opened their doors to help their neighbours—he is absolutely right about that. On the Northern Ireland Executive, I actually want to pay tribute to the role played by the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Executive in recent days. As I said, we believe it was the worst storm to affect Northern Ireland since 1998 or thereabouts. This is an emergency and a time when people in different parts of the country should pull together. I was very happy to chair a Cobra meeting and do whatever else—other calls over the weekend—to make sure that we got as much help to Northern Ireland as quickly as we could to where it was needed. I will continue to do that over the next few days.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
Whether our constituencies are rural or urban, the destruction that we saw last week should remind us of the need for urgent climate action. In the summer of 2021, my constituency experienced an extreme rainstorm, and homes in south Hampstead were invaded by water and raw sewage. One of my constituents, a recovering stroke victim, was left on the street with nothing but a small bag of belongings, and is now homeless. The same area was flooded in 2002 and in 1975, but no drainage improvements have been made. Can my right hon. Friend, who knows my constituency well, confirm that drainage infrastructure will be included in the Government’s resilience review?
Pat McFadden
I can certainly confirm that the risk of flooding and extreme weather events will be covered in the review. It is important that we publish a national risk register that is updated constantly: we published our latest version just 10 days ago. As climate changes—and, indeed, as terrorism and other threats change—it is especially important, when we are considering resilience and how we should prepare and protect the country, that we are not caught in the past but look to the way in which the world is changing.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
I echo the tributes to the emergency services and all those who have been out trying to keep people safe. It is particularly poignant for all of us on the Fylde coast who, each year, mark our police officers who have lost their lives rescuing people during stormy conditions. Two things are noticeable to those who visit Fylde: it is beautiful, and it is very flat. As it is a coastal constituency, that means that during storms, the wind reaches particularly high levels, while the water that is trying to get into the sea from the hillier parts of Lancashire slows down and does not leave the area so quickly, making it more prone to flooding.
I met representatives of the Environment Agency on Friday to discuss these issues in the midst of the storm. One problem concerns the pumping station at Lytham, which, like many others, has a funding allocation to pump water out to the river system when there is an immediate threat to life or residences but not necessarily when water is already backlogging on to farm and agricultural land across the area, which will cause further risks if that then creates a breach. May I ask two very brief questions? First, will there be a review of that funding from the Environment Agency. Can the Minister confirm the timelines for that? Secondly, when will the sustainable drainage systems legislation come into force?
Pat McFadden
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is beautiful and flat, and he is right to pay tribute to it. As for the funding for pumping stations or anything else, of course we want the right resources to be there, but I must gently say to Opposition Members that if they are going to call for more funding for things, they will have to support the revenue-raising measures that enable the Government to provide it. We cannot have a situation in which Members oppose every revenue-raising measure and then call for more funding in response to every statement.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Let me echo others in thanking the emergency services and the power companies for the job that they have done over the past few days, certainly in my constituency. We lost power in some areas for a while, and school buildings have been damaged and are being looked at as we speak. I welcome the review that the Minister mentioned, but will he look at safeguards within the emergency alert system? The current system might not be ideal for domestic abuse victims or those suffering from hearing impairments.
Pat McFadden
I gather that the first time the emergency alert system was tested, under the last Government, there was an effort to inform organisations that had contact with victims of domestic abuse, because we are aware of issues in that regard and we have to think as much as possible about who might be affected; but I think that, overall, the system has benefits. These alerts are not issued easily, and the latest was issued in response to a very rare red “danger to life” weather warning which affected the whole of Northern Ireland and most of the central belt of Scotland, as well as some other parts. We do not do this lightly, but when we do it, I think it is a useful system. However, if there are any lessons to be learned about how it is being used, of course we should learn them.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for his clear commitment to making things better. Northern Ireland and Strangford has been in the eye of the storm, and over the weekend it was incredible. There were whole villages with no electricity, including Ballywalter, Greyabbey and Kircubbin, as well as parts of Ards and parts of Comber and Killyleagh. Indeed, Killinchy is still without electricity. Trees are blocking roads all over the place, and there is no information about them being cleared. There are pensioners with no access to phone, light or heat, and many pensioners have gone up to 36 hours with no heat in their homes. Those pensioners, by the way, are prioritised by Northern Ireland Electricity for generators or some method of heating.
I thank all the workers who came out in the worst of the storm and who are working hard, but the NIE helpline —what a disaster. People have had to wait 45 minutes for replies and have got recorded messages. I think it started to improve only today—maybe yesterday—probably due to the intervention of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the Executive. Has he had any discussions with the Executive about prioritising pensioners’ homes? The storm has left them incredibly vulnerable and wondering how to cope with the unknown. Waiting until 3 or 4 February to get the electric fixed is not satisfactory; that has to be sorted out. My people in Strangford want action right now, not on 3 or 4 February.
Pat McFadden
The hon. Gentleman is quite right to outline the situation and the consequences for his constituents. I totally share his concern about the prospect of people being without power for 10 days—as I said in my opening statement, that is too long—and that is why we are trying to get as much help to Northern Ireland as quickly as possible to see whether we can reduce that time.
The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the plight of pensioners, who will be vulnerable in this situation. We are getting as much help as we can to people on the ground. The engineers are working under difficult circumstances, and I support what they are doing, but we are here to help as much as we can with his constituents. It is Northern Ireland that has had the worst of the storm, and it is Northern Ireland where the focus of our help effort is concentrated.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
We have had terrible flooding in my constituency because of Storm Éowyn. As I drove through my home village of Bampton yesterday, I saw an elderly resident—Richard Hutter—desperately trying to pull up the drain so that the water could be taken from the high street. The wall between Withycombe and Rodhuish has fallen into the stream, so there is water all over the roads. At Exebridge, where the silt has not been taken out from under the bridges for years, there is flooding again—for probably the 10th time.
Nearly a decade of underfunding at the hands of the Conservative Administration, which oversaw a 45% cut in the local government settlement, has exacerbated subsidence, erosion and poor road conditions. That has had dangerous consequences, as we have witnessed over the past few days. I ask this question more in hope than in expectation: will the Government revise the funding mechanisms for local government to ensure that villages such as those in Tiverton and Minehead are better protected from future adverse weather?
Pat McFadden
My sympathies go out to the hon. Lady’s constituents—flooding is devastating for those who are affected by it—and I understand what she said about the consequences. I note what she said about funding. We have a better settlement for local authorities this year than they have had in recent years, but I must say to her what I also said to Conservative Members: all appeals for more funding, to be consistent, must be matched by consistent support for the revenue measures needed to raise that money in the first place.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
First, I thank the many workers who have worked tirelessly in treacherous conditions to restore power. I watched them on Saturday afternoon and Sunday. Equally, I give sincere thanks to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for the work that he did. I know from speaking to the Deputy First Minister over the weekend and this morning before coming to the House that she was very pleased with the response, effort and commitment that he has shown to the people of Northern Ireland. That is an indication of how, by being part of the United Kingdom, we can draw on wider resources where there is willingness to do so.
However, there are still many people without power in Northern Ireland. Many people find it incomprehensible that some of the resources being sent to Northern Ireland are going to the Republic rather than being used in Northern Ireland. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster address that? An increase in the number of generators, people to fit them and so on would enable people who need machines for health and other reasons to have supply in their homes ahead of power being restored.
Pat McFadden
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. Of course I take this seriously. As I said to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), we want to do everything we can to get power restored for people who are without it. According to the latest figures I have seen, we have sent more than 100 engineers to Northern Ireland. That number will move. The electricity grids of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are physically linked, so sometimes it might make sense in connecting people to work on both sides of the border. We will respond as positively as we can to requests for generators to get help to people who need it.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I join others in expressing the appreciation of the whole community for the hard work in the most difficult circumstances of those who have been trying to reconnect us. I also join in the condolences to the families of those who have lost their lives, including the family of a young father just outside my constituency who lost his life in an incident with a generator. I know personally some of his close relatives, and the devastation is incredible.
On the issue of mutual aid, which is more than welcome, can the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster tell us who pays for it, ultimately? Does the Treasury pick up the bill, or is the bill for the engineers, generators, chainsaws and all the rest of it ultimately passed to the Northern Ireland Executive, who seem to have been pretty ill-prepared given that they have had to go looking for chainsaws?
Pat McFadden
I add my condolences to the family of the person the hon. and learned Gentleman referred to close to his constituency, and to the families of anyone who has lost their life as a consequence of what has happened in recent days. I have to be candid with him: when I have been discussing requests for help for people in Northern Ireland, I have focused not on arguing about the bill, but on getting the generators, engineers, helicopters and other help that is needed, because when people are without power, they want the help as quickly as possible.
Point of Order
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My point of order relates to comments by Ministers on their plans to impose local government restructuring.
At oral questions on 20 January, the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution asserted:
“The Government are not requiring any area to reorganise…this is a bottom-up reorganisation being requested by local councils”.—[Official Report, 20 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 720-721.]
However, in answer to a written question on 16 January, the same Minister wrote:
“All levels of local government have a part to play in bringing improved structures to their area through reorganisation, and we expect all councils in an area to work together to develop unitary proposals”.
Labour’s devolution White Paper also pledges to legislate to create a ministerial direction power to force such restructuring through. This is not bottom-up reorganisation.
Ministers have an obligation under the 1997 resolution on ministerial accountability to give accurate answers to Parliament. I seek your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether contradictory answers are compatible with that resolution.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for providing prior notice of his point of order. As he will know, I am not responsible for ministerial answers to questions, but he has put his point on the record very clearly and I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted his comments.
Creative Industries
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Arts and Tourism (Chris Bryant)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the creative industries.
I have of course noted the point of order that was just raised, and I will pass on the comments and make sure that an answer is provided. I should declare an interest of my own in this debate. Two of my books are optioned, one to Mother Films and another to Pathé, so if we stray into talking about film and high-end television, I will have to be careful. [Interruption.] Have Members come across Paddington and his stare before?
The UK is home to world-class creative industries; I think we can all agree about that. Every single day, our arts and culture bring joy to millions of people, not just in our four nations but all over the world. They are part of our soft power, part of our economic power and part of the joy that we give to the world. They enrich our lives, they bring our communities together and they drive our economy. These are industries powered by extraordinary artists, musicians, dancers, publishers, architects and game designers who, year after year, find ways to break out of the straitjacket of conformity. I know this because on Saturday night I went to see the Matthew Bourne version of “Swan Lake”, and if that is not an example of people breaking out of the straitjacket of conformity, I do not know what is.
While Governments of every stripe have appreciated the social value of our creative industries—some more than others—many have underpriced the huge economic potential of industries that are already among our most powerful engines of growth. This Government understand the true economic value that these industries have now and can have in the future. They generated £125 billion for the economy in 2023. They account for one in 14 jobs across the country now, and I would guess that by 2029 that will be one in 10. They have shown growth at one and a half times the rate of the rest of our economy in the past decade, despite all the economic headwinds they and we have faced. Today, we are the third largest art market in the world, larger than all the European art markets combined, and I want to make sure that we remain at the top of that list. Only the USA exports more advertising than us, and nobody exports more books than us—although not necessarily mine.
To put this in perspective, our creative industries were worth more to the economy in 2022 than three of our heavyweight sectors—aerospace, life sciences and automotive industries—combined. When we think about growth, our first thought should therefore be of the creative industries, and I am proud that that is precisely how this Government are viewing them. I would argue that these industries have managed all this in spite of, not always in partnership with, their Government over the past 14 years. They have been built by ordinary people doing extraordinary things: rule breakers, convention breakers and trend defiers who have pioneered thousands of small revolutions in our arts and culture.
I believe that with a genuine partner in Government—one that bulldozes barriers, that creates stability and certainty for businesses and international investors, that collaborates with businesses and artists as equal partners to turbocharge growth, that does not try to persuade every ballerina in the country to retrain, and that ensures that creative education is at the heart of all our education in schools and that every single child in this country does not go through their education without a proper creative education —we can create even greater British success stories.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I observe no Paddington stare. The point is well made about young people starting off and growing into the creative industries. The pantomimes and local amateur dramatics that I get involved in are the seedcorn of these things by getting kids on stage, but does the Minister agree that if the local newspapers go down—and so many of them are in danger right across the UK—those things will not get the publicity and support that helps to grow the industry?
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman asks four questions in one, which is quite creative of him. He says he is involved with pantomime; some of us on the Labour Benches would say that he has been in pantomime for much of his political career. He makes an important point about journalism, which is a very important creative industry in this country. The Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), who is sitting beside me, has responsibility for print journalism. She takes ensuring the survival of local journalism very seriously. How on earth could people otherwise hear stories from their local community? There is also a job to do on tackling misinformation. If the only information people ever hear about their local community comes from social media, a lot of it might not be as accurate as we would like.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for setting the scene so positively. Does he agree that one of the great benefits of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is that all the cultures and regions come together? If I have the chance, later I will talk about Northern Ireland’s contribution. We can all gain if we work together.
Chris Bryant
I agree 100%. So many programmes made in Northern Ireland are an intrinsic part of what the UK has to offer. I am not sure whether “Derry Girls” is necessarily the hon. Gentleman’s thing, but it is one of the funniest programmes we have seen in many years. “Game of Thrones,” of course, was made in Northern Ireland, and many Northern Irish actors have done extraordinarily well on the British scene, and on a much wider canvas.
I am particularly stimulated by the fact that Albert Finney and Glenda Jackson were born on the same day. Those working-class kids both ended up going to the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art and having phenomenal acting careers, with Oscars, awards and so on. Where are the Albert Finneys and Glenda Jacksons of the future? Whether they come from Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales or a difficult estate in England—even Stoke-on-Trent—we will have failed so many of our young people if the only schools that provide a real creative education, in art, music or drama, are the Etons of this country, and we will not have the creative industries we need.
Since last July, creative businesses have been nothing but straight with us about what is holding them back, and this Government have heard them loud and clear. They want investment, innovation, international competitiveness and skills. Each one of these has to be a litmus test for what we are doing as a Department and as a Government.
Today, I want to set out some of the challenges, as we see them, and what this Government are doing to address them. Our starting point, right across Government, has been an appreciation of what the creative industries give us. They are not a “nice to have” or a cherry on the cake; they are an essential part of who we are as a country and what we are trying to achieve as a Government.
We are very aware that brands like the BBC and the Premier League are an important part of our soft power around the world, which is one of the reasons why the Foreign Secretary and the Culture Secretary recently launched the Soft Power Council, because we think we can do far more with that.
People sometimes focus on the BBC, which I worked for many moons ago. I remember getting into a taxi in Brussels, and the driver asked me what I did. I said that I worked for the BBC, and he said, “Oh, I love the BBC and all those wonderful TV programmes: ‘Inspector Morse’ and ‘Brideshead Revisited.’” He basically gave me a long list of ITV programmes.
Jamie Stone
“The Traitors,” which attracted 7.4 million viewers on the BBC last Friday, was filmed at Ardross castle in my constituency.
Chris Bryant
I was at a tourism conference last Thursday, and our tourism offer is especially good at giving people the opportunity to visit places where films have been made. One of the biggest investors in our country in the past few years has been Tom Cruise, who has another film coming out in the near future. Many film locations are wonderful places for tourist visits. I notice the hon. Gentleman has gone from panto to “The Traitors”—need I say more? Of course, “The Traitors” was originally a Dutch format, but the BBC has made it better than anybody else made it, and has given it new life. I will not spoil it for anyone, but I thought the final episode was very unfair, ending as it did.
From the outset, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade made our creative sector one of eight growth-driving industries at the heart of our industrial strategy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and I are developing a long-term sector plan, along with Baroness Shriti Vadera and Sir Peter Bazalgette.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I commend the hon. Gentleman on the passionate case he is making for investment in the arts. Does he recognise the work of Darren Henley and Arts Council England? I suspect that we have all received copies of the third edition of Darren Henley’s book, which sets out very clearly the case for public investment in the arts and the multiplier effect that has. In the months running up to the comprehensive spending review, is it not essential that the whole sector comes together to ensure the hon. Gentleman is well equipped to go into battle with Treasury officials?
Chris Bryant
The right hon. Gentleman used to be a Treasury Minister, so perhaps he can give us some tips on how we can secure that funding. I note that since July last year, Conservative MPs have developed a tendency to call for more expenditure and less taxation on things. I gently suggest to him that those two things do not meet together. If he gives me tips on how I can get more money out of the Treasury, I will give him tips on how to talk about demanding more money.
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the sector: some of our biggest creative industries are completely commercially focused, including publishing, architecture, advertising and video games. However, I have tried to make the argument that the sector is a whole ecosystem; we do not get Great British films and a Great British film industry without a Great British theatre industry, and we do not get a Great British commercial theatre industry without having a subsidised theatre industry as well. We need to foster a combination of broadcasters, subsidised performing arts and commercially centred creative industries, and build on that.
The right hon. Gentleman refers to Arts Council England. As he knows, we have initiated a full review of how Arts Council England works, to ensure that the money does what it is intended to do around the whole of England. The review will be led by Baroness Margaret Hodge, who will be doughty—I think that is the best word—and I look forward to seeing what she comes up with.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman talks about the ecosystem, but he has done something that we have not seen for a long time: he has united every creative sector in opposition to his plans to water down copyright. Copyright has underpinned the success of our creative industries and made them global powerhouses. Yesterday, Sir Paul McCartney warned against those plans, and spoke about what could happen to all creative industries. Does the hon. Gentleman take on board what he says, and will he revisit the plans?
Chris Bryant
As I have said to the hon. Gentleman privately, and am happy to say again in public, I do not believe for a single instant that the legislation that we will eventually put to the House will undermine or water down our copyright regime in this country. It has been absolutely essential to the creative industries that they own their intellectual property and can control their right to it, and we will not change that. However, we face a real problem in this country, as do many countries around the world, which is that there is legal uncertainty around—
Chris Bryant
There is such legal uncertainty that the matter is being contested in different court cases around the world. This afternoon, I met Getty Images, which has brought one such case. We cannot simply wait for the court cases to resolve the matter for us somehow. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would endorse elements of the consultation—for instance, those around transparency. Let us have that conversation. It is a genuine consultation. Earlier this afternoon, I said to my office that I am very happy for Sir Paul McCartney to come in; we can talk it all through with him.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Minister talks about the ecosystem and bringing together all the sectors. There is no better example in this country—perhaps in the world—than the Edinburgh international festivals, which bring all the sectors together. Edinburgh is also a heartland of small venues. What will the Government do to help small venues, which have been suffering for five or six years, to cope with the national insurance changes, because they are employers and are being hit by them?
Chris Bryant
The hon. Lady makes a very good point about the Edinburgh festivals; I hope that the Hansard Reporters heard the “s” at the end. Sometimes people just refer to the Edinburgh international festival, but there is a series of festivals, including book and television festivals. That ecosystem has managed to grow and grow; it is precisely the kind of thing that we want to do. Another element of the Edinburgh international festivals is that there is a cluster there. The previous Government rightly identified that where we can create a cluster around a creative industry, we stand a greater chance of building it and enabling greater growth. For instance, Royal Leamington Spa is a cluster for the video games industry, as is Dundee. There are various clusters around the country; that is something that we want to build on.
The hon. Lady asks about small venues. As she may know, we have backed the call made in the previous Parliament by the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage)—I wanted to call her the Secretary of State—for a voluntary levy on tickets for gigs in arenas to provide money for small venues. I am very hopeful about that. I am pushing as hard as I can for the industry to adopt the measure on a voluntary basis, but we have made it very clear that if it does not, we will make it happen on a statutory basis. I hope that we can move forward on that relatively soon. Likewise, many small venues in the hospitality industries thought that there would be a cliff edge at the end of March for the 70% relief on business rates. We have said that the relief will be 40%, and there will be a renewal of and change to business rates in future years. We are trying to help small music venues in all those ways, but in the end, if there is nobody to perform in a small music venue, it is not a small music venue. That is why I return to the effort to ensure that we have creative education in all our schools.
As hon. Members will be aware, there are many creative businesses in this country that have a great idea or product and are ready to expand, but cannot access the finance that they need to take their growth to the next level. Like every part of the UK economy, the creative industries have amazing start-ups that struggle to scale up. As a first step to addressing that all-important finance barrier, the British Business Bank, which supports over £17 billion in finance for business, committed in the last week to increasing the scale of its support for the creative industries. Possibly one of the most important things that we can do over the next couple of years is try to improve access to finance for all our creative businesses, whether at the moment of their inception, at the point of scale-up, or when they are 10 years in. We should back venture capital funds investing in UK creative industries, and support experts who understand the unique strengths of the sector in the UK.
To provide creative businesses across the country with the support that they need to scale up, we have confirmed over £16 million of funding for the Create Growth programme. In addition, we are backing early-stage games developers with £5.5 million funding for the Dundee-based UK games fund. We want the next generation of hit UK games to be made across the UK.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
I welcome the measures the Government are bringing in to support our important creative industries. Those businesses also need a talent pipeline, and my constituency has a world-leading arts university and a higher education and further education system supporting film, television and games development. What are the Government doing to support that talent pipeline and our educational institutions?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, I have often wondered whether we should have a specific programme for her area, because she is right that there is a concentration of courses, universities and businesses devoted to those same industries. I would be happy to meet her, and perhaps if she would like to come into the Department, we could go through some of the specifics about how we will be assisting in her area.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Minister makes the good point that creative industries need to be backed with finance that they can access. Will he ensure that grassroots, small-scale projects away from the big cities, such as on the Isle of Wight where my constituency is, receive the finance they need, so we can realise our aim and endeavour of getting a film studio set up?
Chris Bryant
I have heard tell of a film studio in the hon. Member’s constituency, so I wondered whether he was going to refer to that. Obviously, the previous Government and this Government have been committed in different ways to ensuring that we expand the provision of film studio space in the country. We are almost up to the level of having more space than Hollywood, and we are keen to progress that. Again, if he wants to come into the Department and talk about the specifics of what we might be able to do in his constituency, I would be happy to do that. He is right that sometimes we have focused on the massive projects, but we cannot get many massive projects in the creative industries without starting with the small and medium-sized businesses, and that is where we need to go.
One thing that has stood in the way of film studios for quite some time is the re-evaluation of business rates. I am glad that we have got to a much more sensible position over the past 12 months on the matter. Likewise, planning applications have been phenomenally difficult in many cases. We were proud to put £25 million into the Crown Works studio in Gateshead, which I look forward to visiting soon.
One of the principal barriers to innovation in 2025 is that not enough investment is going into research and development in the creative industries, and I know the Select Committee has looked at that. It is why the Prime Minister’s Council for Science and Technology recommended that
“Public investment in R&D in the creative industries should reflect the size, economic contribution, and future growth potential of the sector.”
That is why we confirmed earlier this month that we will strengthen the investment from our national research funding agency—UK Research and Innovation—into creative research and development.
Another part of the equation is, of course, tax relief. One of the great catalysts for the strong growth of our creative industries has been targeted tax reliefs for different sectors, introduced by both the Conservative Government and this Labour Government. We built on those reliefs in our first 100 days in government, with an enhanced independent film tax credit to support home-grown talent and UK co-productions and an enhanced tax relief for visual effects from the start of this year. That tax relief sends a clear message to our directors, visual effect artists and actors: “Be courageous, take risks and reap the rewards. Your Government are behind you.” I hope to be able to say more on film and high-end television at the Select Committee tomorrow morning—I am sure the Committee has some difficult questions for me.
On skills, education and the workforce, we want to see more good-quality creative jobs and more creative businesses popping up across the country. But too often what I hear from young people is that they could no more dream of getting those jobs than going to the moon. That is not just a tragic waste of human potential; it is bad business. That is why Steven Knight, the creator of “Peaky Blinders”, who is working to bring a film school to Birmingham, is recruiting and training 20% of the workforce from local postcodes, and I applaud him. It is essential for investors to know that they do not have to incur the cost of shipping people in to work on a project when that talent exists everywhere, but the opportunity does not.
That is why we made it a core priority in our manifesto to improve access to the arts and music as part of our opportunity mission. We wasted no time in getting that work under way, with the Education Secretary launching an expert-led independent curriculum and assessment review within a month of the general election. On top of that, we provided a further £3 million to expand the creative careers programme, so that we can broaden and diversify the talent pipeline in the creative industries.
Only by restoring culture’s place in the classroom and beyond will we be able to get young people ready for the creative jobs of tomorrow. We set up Skills England to work with employers and to help give us a coherent national picture of where skills gaps exist and how they can be addressed through further qualifications and technical education. In its first report, Skills England highlighted the importance of the creative industries for both current and future opportunity and growth.
We also need to ensure that there are opportunities in the workplace. We know that apprenticeships can be incredible springboards into creative careers, but that relies on there being a levy that works in the interests of employers and apprentices. For years before the general election, I heard repeatedly from the creative industries how difficult it was to use the apprenticeship levy in their industry. If someone is making a film, it might be a six, seven or eight-month project, which was not enough to meet the previous criteria for the apprenticeship levy. That is why I am really proud that we are working with Skills England to transform the apprenticeship levy into a new growth and skills levy, to create opportunities and provide greater flexibility for employers and apprenticeships. We plan to bring forward changes so that shorter apprenticeships are available from August 2025, recognising the particular needs of the creative industries. A 12-month apprenticeship is no good for employers who need skills for projects that are shorter than that. We are knocking down that needless hurdle.
For sectors such as music, the grassroots is always where it all begins. We are therefore not only continuing to support Arts Council England’s supporting grassroots music fund, but working up a 12-point plan for music—it says 10-point plan here, but when I looked at it this morning, it was already a 12-point plan. The truth of the matter is that music is a vital part of our lives, whether it is classical music, opera, pop music or heavy metal, which some people like—I see the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), nodding in a heavy metal sort of way; he has to be careful at his age, although I think he is younger than I am. The point is that we all have our different tastes in music, but we know how important it is to people’s enjoyment of life and to their being able to express themselves.
There is also nothing as important as being able to go to a live music event. One thing we are working very hard on—I made a statement about it earlier this year—is trying to make sure that the secondary ticket market, which has behaved in a frankly duplicitous and often parasitical way towards the music industry, is brought to heel and actually operates in the interests of fans.
I also want to talk about exports. We have some remarkable export strengths in the creative industries. Publishing achieved year-on-year growth and is now worth £11.6 billion to our economy, with export income accounting for almost 60% of its revenue. We are the largest book exporter in the world, and we should be proud of it. However, we need more success stories like publishing, and we need to make sure that the problems that publishing is having with exporting books—for instance, to the European Union—are overcome.
If we are to have such success stories, we need to fix some of the issues that the last Government unfortunately failed to address, such as touring. If we want the next generation of Ed Sheerans, Dua Lipas, Adeles and Stormzys to stand any chance of breaking into new markets, they must be able to perform overseas without having to navigate a maze of rules and regulations. That is why we are engaging with the EU and EU member states to find an answer that improves arrangements for touring across the European continent, without seeing a return to free movement.
That equally applies to the art market. Artworks are being brought to the UK to be sold in the UK art market, where they might command the highest price, but they are facing great difficulties entering the country. That is the kind of thing we also need to sort out.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. The Minister is giving a very substantial speech, but he has been on his feet for 30 minutes. Hopefully he will be coming to a conclusion at some point.
Chris Bryant
I am afraid that I inherited this speech, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will try to shut up as soon as I possibly can. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I think I have united the House there. That was very unkind—I feel a bit upset now.
It will not have escaped hon. Members that the challenges I have outlined today are all interconnected. As I have said, we cannot have thriving creative businesses without creative talent with the right skills. We will not see strong export growth numbers if businesses are unable to access the finance they need to expand. The independent film tax relief will be worth nothing if we do not have a curriculum that values culture and fosters, champions and promotes creativity. That is why we are focused on the whole creative ecosystem—from the first spark of inspiration in the classroom, through the first leap into the unknown at a theatre or grassroots music venue, to getting the first foot on the ladder to take a local business national or a national business global. This Government recognise that it all matters, and through the partnership I have spoken about today, we hope to make sure that growth in those industries continues for many decades to come.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
It really is a pleasure to speak in today’s debate. Right at the outset, I apologise that I will not be here for the closing of the debate, because I have to travel back to Leeds for a funeral tomorrow.
As the Minister said, our creative industries are world leading. With limitless creativity, imagination and entrepreneurial spirit, our creative industries are fundamental to the UK economy, and the contribution they make has often been underappreciated. These industries generate £124 billion a year and employ over 2.4 million people in every corner of the country, and as we have heard, growing the economy means growing our creative industries—even if there was a desperate attempt by the Minister to boost his book sales during his speech.
The importance of the creative industries goes beyond the economy. They provide the news that informs our democracy, the events that showcase our talent and the films that we all love. The imagination of our designers, writers, artists and creators is world leading and brings joy, inspiration and opportunity to our lives. It is testament to the UK being a world leader in many things, events included, given the phenomenal success of events such as the Olympics and other sporting events, the coronation and, of course, the Eurovision song contest. A moment ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) mentioned Darren Henley’s book. He actually mentions me in that book as the first and only Minister for the Eurovision song contest. It was probably the only position I have held in government that my partner was actually interested in.
Stuart Andrew
No.
For all the reasons I have mentioned, we as Conservatives backed our creative industries in government. Our record on supporting the creative industries speaks for itself: between 2010 and 2022, those industries grew at more than twice the rate of UK gross value added, expanding by more than 50%. More than 1 million new jobs were created in the sector during that period. During the pandemic, we introduced unprecedented support for the creative industries, including the £1.57 billion culture recovery fund, the £500 million film and TV production restart scheme, and the £800 million live events reinsurance scheme. That support protected over 5,000 organisations and supported 220,000 jobs, ensuring that our creative industries have been able to bounce back.
Our commitment to support the creative industries also extended to significant tax reliefs. We introduced over £1 billion of tax reliefs for the creative industries, including support for filmmakers through the UK independent film tax credit and business rates relief for theatres and cultural venues. This investment complemented our creative industries sector deal, which put £350 million of public and private investment into the sector. A key example is the £37 million and the new devolved powers to the North East mayoral combined authority to create a film and TV powerhouse up in the north-east, which will enable £450 million of private investment to build the new Crown Works studio. This is an important measure as we seek to spread the opportunities for the creative industries right across the United Kingdom.
We published a sector vision setting out our ambition to grow the creative industries by £50 billion and to create 1 million extra jobs in the creative sectors. This sector vision set out not warm words or platitudes, but a real plan backed by real investment. Our plan included a £28 million investment in the Create Growth programme to support high-growth creative businesses across the UK; an additional £50 million for the second wave of the creative industries clusters programme, building on the £56 million announced in 2018; and £3.2 million for the music export growth scheme to enable emerging artists to break into new international markets. It was a real plan backed by real investment to grow our creative industries by £50 billion.
Personally, I do not doubt any of the Ministers’ personal ambitions for the creative sectors. Where the Government are ambitious, we will always seek to be a constructive Opposition, because the potential to grow is huge and the UK has such a great reputation. Equally, we will do our job by highlighting the impact when choices made by the Government pose a significant risk to the sector, because that is the right thing to do.
In opposition, Labour Members promised to
“fire up the engines of our creative economy”,
and said that they would make the creative industries
“central to a decade of national renewal”.
That was a great ambition, which makes it even more confusing that Labour failed to support every single tax relief the Conservatives introduced for these industries after 2010. I am afraid to say that the reality so far is that significant harm is being done by the Government. In the Chancellor’s Budget of broken promises, Labour drove the tax burden up to its highest level, surpassing the amount after the second world war. Far from firing up the economy, they have extinguished growth by introducing a national insurance jobs tax that will cost employers in DCMS sectors £2.8 billion.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am enjoying the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, but while he is talking about the last Government’s record, could he tell me how their plan to defund dozens of creative BTecs and their denigration of creative subjects as Mickey Mouse degrees gives people seeking to study those subjects any confidence that they can go into the pipeline of talent he has talked about?
Stuart Andrew
I think we have absolutely shown our commitment, as I have just illustrated, to the creative industries and to wanting to grow them. Equally, we want to make sure that the courses people are doing equip them well for the opportunities of the future, and I do not see that there is anything wrong in always raising such questions.
Chris Bryant
The shadow Minister said that we—Labour Members in opposition—voted against every single tax relief for the creative industries, but he knows perfectly well that we supported every single one of them and that we originally initiated them. Can I just suggest that we stop this silliness? I am guessing that at some point Conservative Members will vote against the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, which will have a tax relief in it, and if that means that we start saying that they vote against every tax relief, it will be a nonsense. It would be better if we all just grew up, and started saying that we all support tax reliefs for the creative industries.
Stuart Andrew
Given that the Minister has just been going on about 14 years of the last Conservative Government, I find that a bit hypocritical, but that does not surprise me.
The Government have also slashed retail, hospitality and leisure relief, and set out plans to burden businesses with more than 70 radical 1970s-style regulations, imposing £4.5 billion of additional costs on business. I am worried that there seems to have been a failure to protect the creative industries from the Chancellor’s growth-killing Budget, just as the Department failed to protect them from the Deputy Prime Minister’s radical Employment Rights Bill.
I welcome the £60 million support package, but will it touch the sides when measured against the impact of the Budget? Do not take it from me—take it from Arts Council England, which warned that the Government’s national insurance jobs tax will have
“significant implications for cultural organisations.”
Take it from the Music Venue Trust, which has warned that changes to retail, hospitality and leisure relief will put more than 350 grassroots music venues at
“imminent risk of closure, representing the potential loss of more than 12,000 jobs, over £250 million in economic activity and the loss of over 75,000 live music events.”
Pete Wishart
I am sure that, like me, the right hon. Gentleman has received a whole series of briefs from sectors across the creative industries. Their main concern is the possibility of a copyright exception and the watering down of our copyright regime. That is the thing that unites them in anger against this Government, yet the Minister did not even think to mention it in his half an hour or so of peroration. What is the Conservative party’s view on that issue, and will it work with us to try to oppose it?
Stuart Andrew
From the meetings I have had with the sector, I can say that the hon. Gentleman is right that that is one of the main issues that people are concerned about, but equally, they are very worried about the impact that national insurance contributions will have on them. I recognise that these are difficult and challenging issues, and we obviously want to work as constructively as we can on them, but we will hold the Government to account.
It is not just me that is saying all this. Take it from the chief executive of the Curve theatre, who warned that the Employment Rights Bill will have a financial knock-on for all theatres. The changes to business property relief will have a significant impact on historic houses—the settings for many iconic dramas and films such as “Downton Abbey”. The impact of those changes is significant.
I regret to say that the bad news for our creative industries does not end there, because unfortunately it is clear that Labour does not have a plan. It scrapped the Conservative Government’s review of Arts Council England, then launched a new review starting from square one. It spent more than five months in government before making any announcements on AI and the creative industries, quietly sneaking out a consultation eight days before Christmas, hoping no one would notice. To top it all off, they published a press release boasting about confirming the Conservative Government’s independent film tax credit.
As I said, I will work constructively with the Government, but they must take their fingers out of their ears and recognise that the choices they have made are potentially crushing our world-leading creative industries from being even greater successes. We want to build on the great success by people who over the years have done so much to build up the amazing creative industries we have in this country. Our creative industries are world leading, but they need stability and certainty to survive. There are lots of opportunities, but also a host of challenges, including the Budget implications, AI and copyright. We stand to work constructively with the Government where they seek to be ambitious, but equally, when we hear concerns, as we have over and over again in our meetings with the sector, we will push and challenge.
In conclusion, the UK can be proud of our amazing creative industries. Whether it is our fashion designers, film, TV, radio, photography, museums, galleries, libraries, music or performing arts, they offer real opportunities to this country’s economy and are something that we can be proud of. Yes, they provide a great deal of soft power, but if we are not careful, we are in danger of damaging them beyond belief. I ask the Department to press the Treasury to think again about the impact of the Budget choices that it made on the sector.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
As well as a rich industrial and political heritage, Newport has a vibrant community of creatives and creative industries, so it is good to have the opportunity to highlight them in Government time and, later on, to shamelessly plug some of the local bands that I like.
Creative businesses in Newport generate a not insignificant turnover of around £400 million annually. Those 555 businesses employ more than 5,000 people locally, and that does not even account for the number of talented freelancers. Many of these enterprises are microbusinesses—small but mighty, much like Newport—and together they form the lifeblood of our grassroots arts and culture scene and give future performers the space and opportunity to develop.
Newport is home to an extraordinary wealth of talent, from theatre practitioners and visual artists to community connectors—people who dedicate themselves to bringing arts and culture to life in our city. We have local champions such as John Hallam from Maindee Unlimited, Loren Henry of Urban Circle, George Harris of Tin Shed Theatre, and Juls Benson of Reality Theatre, among many others. For years, they have worked to ensure that access to the creative industries in Newport is inclusive. An example of that is the brilliant Operasonic, which is supporting a band formed by the city’s Roma community called Newport Boys.
It is not just about live performance. Thanks to our striking industrial and natural landscapes, and our distinctive architecture, Newport has become a veritable filming hotspot in the UK. For more than two decades, it has been a familiar backdrop for “Doctor Who”, and Newport was recently showcased in the new S4C series “Ar y Ffin”. Newport is prominently featured in ITV’s “Out There” and Netflix’s “Sex Education”. Supporting those productions are state-of-the-art studios such as Urban Myth and Studio Arth, both located in my constituency, where global streaming projects are being created all the time. The Minister mentioned the talent pipeline, and much work is being done to develop and find the many skills we need locally in this industry.
Any contribution about Newport’s creative industries would not be complete without celebrating our music scene, which has seen a remarkable renaissance. That fact was recently recognised by the NME. I was delighted to join Sam Dabb and the team at Le Pub to celebrate the building’s purchase, with help from the UK Government, by Music Venue Properties. That was set up by the Music Venue Trust, which launched its annual report here last week. For more than three decades, Le Pub has stood as the cornerstone of Newport’s music culture, and it is great that it has been safeguarded for future generations as a space to grow new bands. Bands that have emerged from Le Pub recently include the brilliant Bug Club, hailing from Monmouthshire, alongside Newport’s own Murder Club, The Rogues, Joe Kelly & the Royal Pharmacy, Failstate, Jack Perrett and many others. There is also a new generation of artists, such as a new band called Hairdye, who are getting much attention. Newport is fortunate to have many other grassroots venues, including McCann’s, The Cab and the volunteer-led Corn Exchange, all of which will be part of the upcoming Newport music trail, a free two-day festival in the city centre in March.
Newport is, indeed, a cultural powerhouse, but to ensure that it continues to thrive, we must ensure that this cultural renaissance in our city is not just celebrated, but supported. I am therefore pleased that the Government, along with the Welsh Government and Newport city council, recognise the importance of the creative industries as a driver of economic growth and social wellbeing. In the draft budget this year, the Welsh Government are committed to supporting the hospitality sector with 40% non-domestic rates relief. That builds on the £1 billion of support allocated to retail, hospitality and leisure rates relief schemes since 2020. We also should not forget the additional 25% rates relief that Newport council offers to help eligible small venues and businesses.
Increased funding opportunities to support grassroots organisations and venues will only help them flourish further. The £1 ticket levy for arena and big gig events to support small music venues will have a big impact, and I welcome the Minister’s commitment to making that mandatory if the live events industry does not do it voluntarily. Working to tear down the barriers to touring will also be crucial for the continued success not just of British performers and their art, but of our talented sound engineers and the haulage industry. An update on that work was much welcome.
With the right investment and a Government who truly understand the untapped potential of our world-leading creative industries, we can continue to build on that success and secure Newport’s creative legacy for generations to come. I look forward to welcoming the Minister to Newport whenever he can come.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Minister referred to his greatest creative output, which apparently is hitting bookshelves soon. I am afraid I cannot match that—a Jaffa Cake haiku, which was cruelly overlooked by the McVitie’s marketing department, and a local news story about gnomes being banned from the graveyard in Wrington in north Somerset are as good as I can muster.
The creative industries are the lifeblood of our nation’s cultural wellbeing, and we neglect them at our peril. We must never ignore the voices of creators themselves. This weekend, many of us will have been disturbed to see the interview given by Paul McCartney about the challenge that AI poses to the creative industries and to creators.
The Government are correct to pursue artificial intelligence as a route to solving problems in our public services, boosting economic growth and creating new jobs. Nobody would argue with suggestions for speeding up and improving NHS treatment, removing pointless interactions with local councils or smoothing out bureaucracy for businesses in their interactions with Government Departments. In the creative arts, however, we have a very different challenge, and the Government must not put at risk the value of human creativity.
I will make no luddite arguments in this House—as the MP for the constituency that is home to the most influential cyber-cluster outside London, that would be daft. I am pro-business and pro-technology, as are the Liberal Democrats. I regard myself as a techno-optimist. Innovation is not just desirable but necessary. However, it is not an absolute, particularly when we are discussing threats to human creativity. I know that because my constituency is home not just to a cyber-cluster, but to a creative powerhouse. Cheltenham festivals bring visitors from around the world.
Because we are a creative powerhouse, I receive plenty of communication from creatives in Cheltenham. Robin, a composer, told me that he could no longer advise young creatives to rely on a job in the industry, because it simply will not pay. He told me that things will get worse if the changes to copyright go through. Let us consider for a moment the ability of the human mind to compose a tear-jerking piece of music, or of the delicate human hand to paint an evocative landscape or write prose to persuade, inspire, or move the reader. That is innately human. Such creative endeavour can and does change the world. It brings us growth, and so much more besides.
There is no doubt that technology has an important and positive role to play in this process, and it is already doing so. Technology and creative content must work side by side, but if original human creators are not compensated by default, we risk a future not of glorious, creative technicolour but of many shades of pale grey. Some have already warned that we risk a future of infinite pale grey, in which there is no incentive for humans to initiate any creative process whatsoever. It would be a dereliction of duty by Members of this House if they failed to engage with that risk as part of this discussion and the ongoing discussion about AI.
Last week, along with other MPs, some of whom are in the Chamber this evening, I joined a meeting with a tech company and one of its social media creators. I will not name the company or the creator; that would not be fair and would not add much to the debate. We were told of the huge growth potential for creators that the online and social media world presented. We were told that creators are employing teams of people to produce their content—a big jobs boost. During the discussion, they were asked what happens to jobs growth when a creator’s work is crawled by AI to the extent that it is reproduced hundreds, thousands or even an infinite number of times. If an answer came, however, it was not comprehensive or persuasive.
The mood music suggests that the Government and big tech firms favour an opt-out approach for creators, placing burdens on individual musicians, artists and writers to protect their work. I asked an expert about the potential risks of an opt-out approach and received an illuminating answer. The expert told me:
“For human creators, an opt-in model generally offers stronger protection.”
The first reason for that was control, as
“creators retain explicit control over how their work is used by AI”.
The second was compensation, as
“An opt-in system could be linked to licensing agreements, allowing creators to receive compensation for the use of their work in AI training”.
Pete Wishart
I am listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and he is spot on about some of the dangers and threats posed to the sector by generative AI. Does he agree that there is a way to do this that could benefit and serve both AI and the creative industries, but that it will not involve a clearly unworkable opt-out approach? Indeed, it has never been explained how exactly that would work. Will he encourage other colleagues to look at working together to ensure we get a solution for both sectors?
Max Wilkinson
The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. I agree that the concepts of opt-out and opt-in need to be pursued at greater length.
Thirdly, the expert told me that the preservation of value offered stronger protection:
“By requiring explicit permission, an opt-in model helps maintain the value of original creative works.”
The expert did point out two drawbacks. First, an opt-in approach has potential drawbacks in the form of an extra administrative burden on creators. Interestingly, this expert’s second listed drawback was that an opt-in model would place limits on AI’s ability to gather data for training and development, which does not seem to me like much of a drawback for creators.
I asked that very same expert what would happen if creators lost their intellectual property rights to AI. The expert told me there was a risk of
“a loss of income and motivation, a devaluation of creative work, ethical concerns, legal uncertainty”
and, intriguingly, “domination by AI operators.” I use the word “intriguingly” because this expert seems aware of its own power—the expert was Google Gemini.
At this stage, those considerations are unknowns, and there is much uncertainty. Google Gemini is pulling information produced mostly thanks to human endeavour and discussion sourced from across the internet, but the fact that this view is being presented by AI itself surely suggests there is cause for some concern. Our role as parliamentarians must be to protect the interests of humans, not big tech companies; to scrutinise the proposals of big tech companies; to avoid the luddite tendency, crucially; and to build in suitable safeguards.
Chris Bryant
As the Minister, I do not want to intervene too much. I sympathise with a great deal of what the hon. Gentleman has said. One of my concerns, however, is that if this country legislates in a particular direction, in order to reinforce copyright in the way that several hon. Members have suggested, the danger is that companies would simply train overseas, using the UK’s creative talent and intellectual property without any form of remuneration whatsoever. That is why I think it is really important that we get to a place where we have both sides working together.
Max Wilkinson
Of course. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I will be moving on to that in a moment.
If, against the will of the creative industry, the Government are to proceed with an opt-out approach—I hope they do not—it seems logical that such an approach must come with strong safeguards, which may come in the form of automatic attribution, in order to identify the creative inspiration for any work that has been crawled and reproduced. However, more importantly, we need suitable levels of compensation to be automatically awarded. In short, if the big tech companies want default access to our creators’ work, they must expect the default to be that they pay for it. Tech firms will argue that an opt-in approach, or one that places the burden on them, would place us out of step with other nations, and I accept that that might be the case. However, let us look at it from another perspective. Is the suggestion that we might give our creative industry more respect really such a terrible idea? I do not think so. Given the widespread threat to the UK’s creative industries from this and other economic circumstances, I would suggest not.
Having touched on AI, I will now address a few other subjects more briefly. First, I turn to the unfashionable topic of Brexit. The previous Conservative Government’s disastrous Brexit deal excluded artistic provisions, and the effect of that is reflected in a shocking statistic: between 2017 and 2023, we suffered a 23% drop in the number of British artists touring the EU. The Liberal Democrats backed free and simple short-term travel arrangements for UK artists to perform in the European Union.
Secondly, I turn to education. It is well known that changes to policy in the past decade or so have diminished arts education in state schools, with more than 40% of schools now no longer entering students for GCSE music or drama, and almost 90% not offering GCSE dance. Universities are also scaling back their arts offerings. The Liberal Democrats would restore arts subjects to the core of the curriculum, ensuring that every child has the opportunity to study music, dance, drama and the visual arts.
Finally, I turn to local government. Local councils are historically the single biggest funders of culture in their areas, but their spending powers have been much reduced. There is a risk that as part of the devolution process, and as local government reorganisation happens, additional pressure will be placed on social care and children’s services. Although those things need attention, we must not allow the arts to be forced further to the fringes of public spending debates.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
On the funding of local arts and theatres, my constituency has a wonderful local theatre called The Capitol, which is owned and managed by the district council. However, our council is likely to be merged with some debt-laden neighbouring councils, with some of the responsibilities my hon. Friend has outlined, and that poses a severe threat to the theatre’s long-term survival. Does he agree that the Government need to look at inventive ways to reverse the decline in local funding? One option would be to emulate France’s patronage law, which provides for 60% tax relief on donations to art organisations.
Max Wilkinson
That sounds like a good idea. I think there are some really logical ways we could do this by ringfencing some assets for local value—attaching them to car parks, which are already producing revenue in local areas. There are creative ways that different local areas could do that. However, it is a concern, and I do not think that discussion on this matter has been had as part of the discussion on devolution and local government reorganisation.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I want to go back slightly to the point about health and social care spend by local authorities. Is there a good argument to be made that as more and more people require social care and support, particularly in care homes, there may be advantages in investing in the arts and culture in order to take them to people who would otherwise find them difficult to access?
Max Wilkinson
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Older people in care homes can benefit from such creative outlets—both from having people bring arts and culture to them, and from days out at our local cultural institutions.
As some of the challenges we face are global, I will finish with a look at how other Governments are supporting their creative sectors. Since 2010, Germany, France and Finland have all increased their budgets. In the same period, the UK reduced its budget for arts and culture provision by 6%. More recently, Governments of EU nations and others around the world have begun spending more on their creative sectors, with the cultural centres of China, Russia, Portugal, France and Spain all increasing their budgets. This year, we cut the British Council budget by £12 million.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
The British Council may have to sell half of its art in order to pay back a £200 million debt from covid. Surely it is an example of knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing if we cannot reschedule that debt to enable the British Council to retain its valuable pieces of art, 4,500 pieces of which are under threat.
Max Wilkinson
The hon. Lady makes a very good point. That does sound like a potentially devastating blow to our nation.
Britain has gifted the world the likes of Charles Dickens’s literature, the music of The Beatles and the best film of all time, “Paddington 2”. By amending our education system, protecting cultural spend locally, securing a fairer deal with the EU and protecting creatives from exploitation by AI, we can properly support our creative industry and ensure we continue to make a similar contribution for many years to come.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I want to focus on three areas: our potential in Norwich, education and supporting freelancers. The creative industries are something that I am passionate about. I grew up in Norfolk, and for much of my childhood my mother ran the local arts centre in King’s Lynn. Particularly in rural areas, we sometimes forget the value of arts and culture. As a councillor in Southwark, I held the culture portfolio, and I saw at first hand the many systemic challenges facing our creative industry.
I want to pause briefly on the rosy picture painted by the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew). As the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) just alluded to, local government faced huge cuts under the Conservative Government, and we saw a reduction in council spending on arts and culture. I think it is important to recognise the huge impact that austerity has had on our creative industries.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I am sure the hon. Lady would also recognise that there will be sites in her constituency and beyond that were saved during the pandemic by the actions of the then Government. Some £1.57 billion in the culture recovery fund protected cultural venues up and down the country from what was potentially an existential crisis.
Alice Macdonald
I recognise that point, but as a culture portfolio holder I saw that we increasingly had to bid for small pots of money, without overall systemic funding. We were able to keep all our libraries open, but many local authorities were forced to make difficult decisions. I recognise that there were some decisions during covid, but they were against a backdrop of long-term cuts to our cultural sector which we also need to recognise.
Let me move on to some of the brilliant places I have in my constituency and in Norfolk. Data from the Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre shows that clusters of creative businesses support positive economic, social and cultural change across the UK, not just in major cities. My own city of Norwich has been identified as an emerging creative cluster. It is a world-class UNESCO city of literature, home to the National Centre for Writing and the wonderful creative writing course at the University of East Anglia, which counts Ian McEwan, Rose Tremain and, more recently, Emma Healey, as graduates. Norwich was even the first city to adopt the Public Libraries 1850 Act. Today, it is home to the wonderful Millennium library—it is also a library of sanctuary, which is very important at the moment—and the Sainsbury Centre for visual arts. I particularly want to highlight the “pay what you can” model it has just introduced to ensure that culture is accessible to all. Before Christmas, I saw the world premiere of Carlos Acosta’s “Nutcracker in Havana” in Norwich, which has now come to London. As well as investing in opportunities outside London, we can also learn a lot from what we see in those areas.
On skills, we have a great ecosystem in Norwich. We have: the University of East Anglia, which I mentioned; the Norwich University of the Arts, supported by the Arts and Humanities Research Council to invest in a new immersive screen facility in Mile Cross in my constituency, which will help to create good quality jobs for the future; and City College Norwich, with cutting-edge digital teaching facilities. We are also home to many entrepreneurs and start-ups. I really welcome what the Minister said about ensuring access to finance. I visited Akcela, a start-up incubator, which highlighted that that is one of the biggest barriers to SMEs in our area.
We have a huge amount of potential in Norwich, a lot of which is not known about. In my role as one of the Members of Parliament for that city, I want Norwich to be recognised for what it is: a centre of innovation and creativity, as well as a very historic and beautiful city to visit. We have a huge amount to be proud of, but we need joined-up action at all levels to unlock it. As I have heard from many in the sector, we need stability and certainty, which I know the Government are determined to bring.
I want to ask the Minister about a few specific areas. I welcome the £40 million funding he referenced for the Create Growth programme, the UK Games Fund and the UK Global Screen Fund. It would be good to understand how businesses in my area can benefit from that funding. The UK Research and Innovation’s creative clusters programme, delivered via the Arts and Humanities Research Council, has been shown to boost regional economic growth. Norwich has yet to benefit from creative cluster investment. Will the Minister update us on that programme, so that more regions can benefit?
We have touched on devolution, which is a big topic of conversation in Norfolk right now, as it is in many areas across the country. I welcome the ambition to give local areas more control over growth and skills, which is a big barrier in this area. Can the Minister also assure me that the creative industries will play a key part in devolution and that for areas such as Norfolk, where we do not yet have a devolution deal or a mayoral combined authority, we will not lose out on investment while that goes through its journey? I welcome the recently published Norfolk growth strategy from our county council and the local business board, which lays out a pathway to how we can maximise the creative industries.
Let me turn now to education. We have seen, and data shows, that there has been a decline in people studying creative subjects at further education and higher education level. We saw the value of creative education talked down under the previous Government, even though we know it is important to invest in it as well as subjects such as science. I hope the Government’s curriculum review will restore creative education to the heart of our schools and ensure that all pupils can benefit from studying music, theatre, creative writing and more. If creative education is not central to the school curriculum, we know it becomes the domain of the wealthy and more privileged. We must open up opportunity to all children irrespective of their background or which school they go to.
When I was a child, I was able—as I am sure many Members were—to benefit from free music lessons. Although the cello does not get much of an outing any more, I note the importance of music lessons in school. Too often, music provision is not stable across the country and can be insufficient. Will the Government commit to improving and expanding music teaching in schools, and ensure that the workforce is valued and treated with respect? I also want to make a point raised by one of my constituents regarding the need for young people with special educational needs and disabilities to get extra support, in particular the need for people with autism to get into arts and the broader creative sector.
Finally, a note on freelancers. As I mentioned, I was the cabinet member for culture as we came out of the pandemic. I heard from many freelancers about the very difficult impact the covid pandemic had on them, and a feeling that too often, and not just in that period, their voice is not heard in the sector. Freelancers comprise a large proportion—about 28%—of the creative sector workforce. Freelancing comes with many benefits such as flexibility, but many risks too, such as low pay and a lack of entitlement to a range of workplace rights. I hope the Minister, in his closing remarks, will update us on support for freelancers, including any conversations with the Department for Business and Trade pertaining to the Employment Rights Bill.
There are many areas that could be discussed in this debate and I have touched on a few of them. We have discussed AI at length, but my constituents have also raised with me the importance of getting the balance right in that area. Overall, it is clear that the Government recognise the benefit of the creative sectors and will invest in them. I think the Minister will be invited to every single place in the country, but I hope he might come to the east of England to see how much there is to offer. I look forward to working with him and his team to maximise that benefit.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I am delighted to have the opportunity to talk about our world-leading creative industries. I listened very carefully to everything the Minister said, and there was a lot of it. I love his undoubted passion for these sectors, and I love the understanding he has for them and the really strong rhetoric he puts into his support for them. I just hope and pray that it is contagious, and that he has the energy to ensure that it delivers a real, meaningful and robust commitment from the Government that turns into action on behalf of these sectors.
There is so much we can be proud of. In the past couple of weeks we have seen Oscar nominations for Felicity Jones, Cynthia Erivo, Ralph Fiennes and everyone’s favourite, “Wallace and Gromit”. I am sure the Minister was not impervious to the brat summer that we all went through last year, reflected in Charli XCX’s five Brit award nominations. This year, we will have the inaugural South by Southwest London event and the World Design Congress, which will be taking place here for the first time in more than 50 years.
Our creative industries are remarkable and they have an immense soft power value. I welcome the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office working together to increase the UK’s influence abroad. As ever, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee is a trailblazer, working with the Foreign Affairs Committee and the International Development Committee last year to look at the BBC World Service and its future. Ministers can expect to see the results very soon.
The launch of the Soft Power Council, as a collaboration between DCMS and the FCDO, has been welcomed by the creative industries. I say welcomed, but I should say tentatively welcomed. Alongside warm words, the sector also needs to see the Government walk the walk if they are really to harness the global super power of our creative industries, whether by cutting red tape, establishing bilateral cultural agreements that enable our creatives to tour the world, or looking at how we pitch Government intervention to ensure the world continues to invest here. With that in mind, I am concerned that the breadth of the creative industries is under-represented on the council. Fashion, design, video games and, apart from music, most of the performing arts are missing, despite their immense popularity and international influence. I wonder whether the Minister could look at that.
Chris Bryant
It might be easier to answer that immediately. I have been very keen to try to make the council a bit smaller, but it will have lots of separate working groups that will include all the creative industries the hon. Lady talked about. In the end it is about deliverables—it is not just about having another talking shop—and that is what I am very keen to deliver.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
We may be here for a long time if the Minister answers every question that I am going to ask over the next few minutes, but let us have a go.
We in the Select Committee are very excited, because tomorrow the Minister will be appearing before us for the final episode of a very long-running inquiry into film and high-end television. I do not want to give away too much—no spoilers, Madam Deputy Speaker—but I would like to share with the House evidence that we received recently. Everyone will have had a different TV highlight over Christmas, but two massive hits were undoubtedly “The Mirror and the Light” on the BBC and “Black Doves” on Netflix. Peter Kosminsky, the director of “The Mirror and the Light”, told us that every streamer turned down the option to take up the show, despite the awards, the critical success and the acclaim for that first series of “Wolf Hall”. In fact, the only possible way to make it was for the producer, the writer, the director and the leading star to give up a significant proportion of their fees. It is unimaginable—is it not?—but it is not unique.
The Producers Alliance for Cinema and Television, charmingly known as PACT, has warned that 15 green-lit dramas are stuck unmade because the financial contribution that a public service broadcaster can offer, together with sales advance and UK tax breaks, simply is not enough to compete with the current inflated cost environment. Jane Featherstone, the producer of “Black Doves” and other massive hits such as “Broadchurch” and “Chernobyl”, told our Committee that the PSBs were being “priced out” of making high-end drama, which means that British stories for British audiences are at risk, as are the training grounds for the next generation of talent. We talk so much about the importance of creative education, but if we do not have the jobs for those young people to come into when they leave school, we are selling the next generation a dream. I know that the Minister and the Secretary of State value the telling of British stories, so the Minister can expect us to press him on that tomorrow.
When it comes to British stories from across our isles, we cannot overlook the value of our PSBs and the challenges that they face owing to competition from international streamers and changing audience behaviour. The uniquely British flavour of PSB productions such as “Fleabag”, “Derry Girls” and “Peaky Blinders” makes them some of our most popular and enduring exports, but it is no exaggeration to say that they are facing an existential challenge. Over the coming months we will hear from the leadership of the BBC, Channel 4 and Ofcom about the BBC charter review, the implementation of the Media Act 2024, and the wider challenges that they face. We will also want to discuss advertising with them and with other broadcasters. The shift from broadcast to online advertising is not new, but we must ensure that broadcasters are not left disadvantaged by outdated competition rules.
I want to make sure that the creative industries are delivering for their employers and contractors. CIISA, the Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority, under the brilliant stewardship of Jen Smith and Baroness Kennedy, is at a critical point as it concludes its consultation on standards today. It concerns me that while some parts of the creative industries make positive noises about CIISA, in reality they do not lean in, and other organisations —especially those with headquarters abroad—are reluctant to engage at all. I know that the Minister cares about this, but if we are to recruit and, critically, retain talented people, there must be no hiding place for bad behaviour.
I am delighted by the Minister’s commitment to our grassroots music venues levy, and for the signal that he will be willing to act if a voluntary solution is not working out. The establishment of the LIVE Trust is a step in the right direction, and I hope that more will be done to include artists and independent promoters in the conversations about where the money will go and how it is distributed. May I ask the Minister to give us an update in his closing speech?
Let me continue my whistlestop tour of the creative industries and the performing arts. Last week, the National Theatre launched its “Scene Change” report, which highlights the willingness of the performing arts to innovate in their business models. I am sure that the Minister will look carefully at its recommendations, but I want to pull out two key points. First, as he said, our creative industries generate more for our economy than aerospace, oil and gas and renewables combined, and they need a robust industrial strategy to match their firepower. Without investment, there is no innovation. The National Theatre, for example, is as much a totemic British export as BAE or Rolls-Royce. “National Theatre at Home” has brought productions to new audiences across the United Kingdom and, indeed, the world. However, few in the sector have the funds for such projects, and I hope that the Minister will consider the report’s recommendation of an innovation fund, which could drive growth. Secondly, UK Research and Innovation, which the Minister also mentioned, exists to foster research and innovation, yet the creative arts are wildly under-represented, given their gross valued added.
I know that the Minister enjoys a bit of theatrics, so while I was at the National Theatre, I wondered which of its productions reflected him best. There is “The Importance of Being Earnest”; one review of the current production noted
“just the right amount of delightful mischief.”
There is “Nye”, the story of a hugely influential Welsh politician taking policies through against enormous opposition. But then I realised that we needed to go back a bit further, to the smash hit “One Man, Two Guvnors”, because the Minister finds himself working for both the Science Secretary and the Culture Secretary. Our story begins as he tries to justify the Government’s proposals on artificial intelligence and copyright.
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has claimed that I do not understand the idea of consultations, and the Minister has claimed that I do not understand the detail of this consultation. I am beginning to feel a bit gaslit by it all, but I know that the Science Secretary is not saying the same thing to the creative industries, because I am told that he is refusing to meet them at all. I wonder whether the Minister is telling the creative industries that they do not understand the detail—because everyone I have spoken to in the sector seems to understand the detail perfectly, and they do not like it.
This is not about pitting the creative industries against Al. This is not a luddite sector; the creative industries use Al to great effect, and are always at the forefront of embracing innovation. The Minister said so himself: he said that they never abide by the straitjacket of conformity. The aim is a system that is transparent, as he said, but with licensing arrangements that protect intellectual property. The Government’s consultation paper says there is a “lack of clarity” in the regime, but the people I speak to tell me that the situation is perfectly clear, and that the large Al developers cannot legally use it to their advantage. Instead, the Government’s proposals move the onus on to creators to protect their work, rather than Al developers having to seek permission to use it. This is known as the opt-out. We have the opt-in, the opt-out, the opt-in, the opt-out—it is the legislative equivalent of the hokey-cokey.
The fact that unscrupulous developers are not seeking permission from rights holders does not mean that we should bend the system in their favour. Our world-leading creative industries have made it clear that the European Union’s opt-out model, which the Government’s consultation favours, does not work. They say that there is no existing technical protection measure that allows rights holders to easily protect their content from scraping, and web bots take advantage of that unworkable system to copy protected works, bypassing inadequate technology and the unclear copyright exception. Put simply, the EU opt-out system creates an even greyer area.
I know the Minister does not agree with me on that, but may I ask him to agree with me on just two points? First, if the Government are determined to go down the opt-out route, any opt-out must be tightly defined and enforced, so that developers cannot wilfully disapply it or plead ignorance. Secondly, any technical solution that protects rights must be adequately future-proofed, so that creators and developers do not simply end up in an arms race to find new ways to stop those who are hoovering up copyrighted works.
May I also ask the Minister to address two questions? I have always said that AI should provide the solution to AI, and that is what we all hope will happen, but what if a suitable technical solution that protects rights is not found? Do we stick to the status quo, and keep the onus on AI developers to follow the law? It is notable that the creative industries are not represented on the Science and Technology Cabinet Committee. Can the Minister confirm that they will have a voice when the final decisions are made? If they are not, as he says, to be the cherry on the cake, they will need that seat at the table.
I do not want to end my speech on a pessimistic note. There is much to be optimistic about for our creative industries; they are the envy of the world on virtually every front. The Minister loves a song quotation, and it is almost as if the top three songs of all time, according to Rolling Stone magazine, could provide the backdrop for him and his role right now. Do you know what they are, Madam Deputy Speaker? “A Change is Gonna Come”, but the Minister needs to “Fight the Power” and give our creative industries what they deserve: “Respect”.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), who is an excellent chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, even when she is telling me off for going over my allotted time.
Growing up in Manchester in the ’90s, I saw at first hand how culture can breathe new life into a city struggling with the aftermath of deindustrialisation. In the face of economic decline, it was community cinemas, street art and independent venues that became the beating heart of Manchester city centre. Spaces like Canal Street flourished, not just as a hub for Manchester’s LGBT community, but as part of a vibrant city centre that reflected the city’s cultural and inclusive spirit—all powered by the music, creativity and diversity that defined our nightlife scene. I am giving away my age.
That scene was accessible to me, as I grew up in Salford, right in the area that MediaCity now calls home. The BBC’s move marked the largest relocation of any public sector organisation outside London this century. Since then, Salford has seen a remarkable 142% growth in employment in the creative and digital sectors, along with a 70% increase in the number of digital and creative businesses. MediaCity stands as a powerful example of how the creative industries can deliver both economic and social benefits to local communities. That experience shaped my belief in the transformative power of culture to regenerate communities and drive economic revival. Culture turned the tide for Manchester, and I believe that today’s generation deserves that same opportunity.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
South Side Studios in Leighton Buzzard repurposes vacant spaces on the high street, which brings people to the high street. We also have the Peppercorn team, who want a cultural and heritage centre, which would bring people into the town centre. Does my hon. Friend agree that cultural industries can bring growth to not just cities, but our market towns as well?
Jo Platt
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point on an issue that I will come to. I think the Government will be focused on that change. For the Labour Government, this is a pivotal moment—a chance to make culture truly accessible for all, and to ensure that communities like mine in Leigh and Atherton experience culture as a driving force for positive change.
I have spoken many times in the Chamber about my previous role at Leigh Spinners Mill—I am sick of sending it copies of Hansard, as it costs me a fortune in postage—but by revitalising a once dormant 100-year-old cotton mill, we created a thriving creative hub where artists, musicians and creative businesses could set themselves up. It proves that towns like mine are full of rich, creative talent. That effort mirrors the important work done by the Music Venue Trust, which is dedicated to creating spaces where grassroots music can flourish. One such example is the Snug in Atherton, which has become a cornerstone of the town’s nightlife, playing a crucial role in revitalising the town centre over the years. We see there a model of local ownership and community-driven success, which aligns perfectly with Labour’s vision and the values of co-operatives. It fosters local empowerment and ensures that communities can take ownership of their spaces and their futures.
However, as much as we celebrate these successes, we must acknowledge the challenges facing the creative industries. Grassroots creative artists—particularly in towns like Leigh—have often felt left behind, and too many talented individuals feel overlooked by the larger cultural institutions, and excluded from the opportunities that they deserve.
I welcome the Minister’s comments, and his focus on the creative industries. He is putting them at the heart of the forthcoming industrial strategy, which will play a key role in the Government’s plan for change. I am not under the illusion that we will get some huge financial institution investing in Leigh, creating thousands of jobs—that is not going to happen. What we need is growth in our existing industries, and the many creative industries that keep our small towns working. We need to reassess funding models, rethink policy frameworks and build stronger educational pipelines to ensure that everyone, regardless of background or postcode, can access careers in culture, media and sport.
I would like to ask the Minister about the introduction of a well-publicised proposal that could be a game changer for visual artists: the smart fund. That initiative, backed by creative industry organisations, could unlock the economic potential of the sector by creating new support mechanisms for freelance artists and the wider visual arts sector. That would be a vital step towards bringing the UK into line with other countries, and ensuring that creators from all backgrounds have the support that they need to thrive.
It is essential that any funding reaches grassroots artists and organisations—those working in town centres and local communities. I am passionate about creating the physical and financial space for the creative industries to flourish, not just in cities, but in smaller towns like Leigh and Atherton. The impact of nurturing local talent cannot be overstated. It brings people together, creates jobs and builds stronger communities. I am sure that the Government are working hard to address the challenges facing the creative industries, including funding issues, the threat of AI and skills shortages. This is about more than just jobs or culture; it is about building stronger, more connected and more vibrant communities across our country.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
We have heard from many hon. Members about the power of art and the impact that culture can have on lives. From Shakespeare to The Smiths and from Hockney to Hitchcock, the UK has a proud cultural heritage that has touched all corners of the globe and continues to inspire millions. I am proud that my constituency of Wimbledon has played its part, hosting everything from the filming of the first “Carry On” film at Merton Park studios to the world premiere of Lionel Bart’s “Oliver!”. The University of the Arts London and countless creative businesses, not to mention three theatres and two cinemas, call Wimbledon home. However, it is clear that many challenges face the industry. The growth in generative AI and streaming platforms is changing and threatening many. Meanwhile, the pandemic and the cost of living crisis have left many creative businesses facing huge financial pressures. The debate is therefore welcome and could not come at a more important time.
Before I proceed further, I must declare my interest in the industry: I am the owner of a small cabaret bar in Covent Garden and chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the night time economy, and as such I am greatly concerned about what is happening at the grassroots. Somewhat more embarrassingly, I must confess that I am a failed creative. In my youth, I was the lead singer of an obscure new wave outfit, the Gotham City Swing Band. Although my motley crew and I made little impression on the music scene, we still have a small place in history: we were the final band to play the Roxy—the infamous birthplace of British punk—before it closed its doors for the final time that night.
Mr Kohler
The Minister has anticipated my joke. I will leave Madam Deputy Speaker to decide whether it was my performance that ended it all.
That brings me to the first issue that I would like to highlight: the crisis facing grassroots music venues. The Roxy played a crucial role in shaping British musical history; it provided a shared space for creatives, leading to the formation of bands and genres that are still loved today. The Roxy was critical to the development of punk and so much that followed in its wake. Grassroots music venues fulfil that purpose, and help keep Britain at the forefront of music. Furthermore, in the age of streaming, when artists struggle to make a living from recordings, live performances are more crucial than ever in providing the essential income that fledgling musicians need. Grassroots venues are the backbone of the industry and provide millions of people with access to affordable live music. Without them acting as a pipeline for the music industry, there is no industry. However, they are disappearing at an alarming rate. The Music Venue Trust estimates that over a third of grassroots venues have closed over the past 20 years, and soaring rents, rising utility bills and the cost of living crisis are putting the remaining ones at risk. In 2023 alone, 125 of them—one in six—closed or stopped hosting live music.
Club music venues are also at risk. Britain’s leading role in electronic and dance music is well documented, and nightclubs such as Fabric and Ministry of Sound are more than just places to dance; they are cultural institutions. However, due to increasing economic pressure, 10 clubs close every month. That is clearly not sustainable. How can we expect to produce the next generation’s David Bowie, Norman Cook or Amy Winehouse if we have nowhere for them to play? If Britain wants to retain its position in the vanguard of popular culture, the closures must end.
It is disappointing, therefore, that the Government’s recent decisions have only made the situation worse. Their first Budget brought the industry even closer to the brink. The Chancellor’s decision in October to reduce business rates relief from 75% to 40% will put 350 grassroots music venues at immediate risk, with the potential loss of 12,000 jobs, as it will mean a more than doubling of their business rates. The Government must urgently rethink that measure. If they are serious about supporting our music industry, they must quickly take steps to ensure that venues can survive, including by recognising them as cultural, heritage and community assets in the same way that other cultural spaces, such as theatres and galleries, are protected.
It is not just music venues feeling the pinch. Local museums and galleries provide millions of people with access to inspiration and history on their doorstep, and a sense of place and community in an age of increasing division and isolation. We are lucky in Wimbledon. Merton Arts Space, based in Wimbledon library, provides a vital venue for exhibitions and community performances, while the Wimbledon museum and Wimbledon windmill provide residents and visitors alike with an important perspective on the past. The Polka theatre’s award-winning productions inspire and entertain children from across south London and beyond, while the New Wimbledon theatre is the sixth largest in London and home to the wonderful Studio theatre.
However, in many places, such venues have long gone or are at risk. The Museums Association says that the civic museum sector faces an existential crisis, as local authority budgets are under increasing pressure and, with the cost of living crisis, many venues cannot rely on community donations to keep them going. The Government must take steps to provide local authorities with the funding they need to help keep these institutions going. Without them, our communities will suffer.
It is not just the decline of venues that is denying people access to the arts. Over the past decade, the Conservatives cut access to the arts in schools, with consistent deprioritisation of creative arts in the curriculum, and budget cuts. Access to arts education is not a luxury; it should be viewed as a right. Every child, regardless of background, deserves the chance to explore their creative potential. Currently, however, that is simply not the case.
There are fewer specialist teachers than ever before—since 2010, the number of creative arts teachers in the UK has fallen by 14%—and fewer and fewer students are studying the expressive arts to later stages of their education. In 2010, 40% of all GCSE entries were in such subjects; by 2023, that figure had halved. That is not due to a lack of demand—one just has to be around children and young people to see that they crave creativity—but due to the previous Government, for years, not taking seriously the task of creating the next generation of creatives.
The loss of teachers and decline in students not only deprives individuals of enriching experiences, but depletes the talent pipeline. Studies have repeatedly proved the positive impact that arts education can have on young people by boosting mental health, enhancing memory and increasing cultural awareness. Arts education is an investment worth making.
The lack of provision in schools is making creative education and therefore many careers in the arts increasingly the preserve of the wealthy, depriving our culture of different views, voices and perspectives. Although I appreciate that the Government have pledged to include arts and creative subjects provision in the curriculum review, they must take further steps. Schools’ budgets are tighter than ever, and extra funding must be provided to ensure that they can provide a full, well-rounded educational offering.
We cannot afford to view the creative arts as a luxury. They are central to our economy, history and cultural identity. Creative industries contribute £125 billion to the UK economy and entertain, engage and employ millions of people across the country and the world. It is clear that if we want to maintain our place as a global cultural leader, we must invest in the future. The Government must act to support our musicians, artists and actors of the future. Without intervention, what was once a source of immense national pride will be just another footnote in an avoidable tale of national decline.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
It has been heartening to hear colleagues underscore the significance of the creative industries. The Chancellor of the Exchequer identified them as one of the eight drivers of economic growth, and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and the Minister here today have spoken passionately about their being our cultural and economic superpower. As representatives of the immense talent in Greater Manchester, the Secretary of State and I know well the enormous value brought by film, TV, gaming, publishing and, of course, music—a sector particularly close to my heart as a former musician, and singer of the only Manchester band nobody has heard of.
Across the UK, our creative industries are an ecosystem. Mutually supportive and interdependent, they are among the fastest-growing industries and have extraordinary potential to drive our nation’s No. 1 mission: economic growth. But the ecosystem is fragile and needs to be nurtured and supported in order to flourish, so we must take seriously, and respond to, the creative sector’s reaction to the Government’s consultation on AI in the sector.
Those in the sector are confused, alarmed and deeply concerned. Central to their fears is the framing of “rights reservations”—an opt-out system that threatens to rip the rug from under our prized sector, with sweeping changes proposed to copyright law. What is “rights reservations”? That which we call an opt-out system by any other name will still sound the alarm. Creators see it for what it is: an upheaval of the copyright protections they depend on, which threatens to do lasting damage to the sector. Copyright does not inspire hit songs, smash-hit movies or classical texts, but it is the lifeblood of our creative industries. It is what feeds investment, enabling musicians, writers, actors, designers, and businesses large and small, to earn a living from their work. Copyright is the foundation of what makes our creative industries what they are and could become.
Creativity is not an easy, anodyne process, and we should not outsource it to a method that reduces it to such. It takes blood, sweat, tears and countless hours. It does not just carry the creator’s joys or perceptions, their struggles or vulnerabilities, but often speaks to our own. What connects us to our creative industries is the human emotion they embody. Yes, AI can, will and already does assist creators. Musicians and artists have embraced technological innovation throughout history, and AI holds exciting potential to help consumers discover and engage with creative works. But to forfeit the humanity it takes to create, and suggest that AI can replace it, insults and will ultimately cost those who pour their lives into their craft, as well as those of us who love to soak it all up.
Proposals for new, broad exceptions to copyright, and the burden of opting out of having one’s life’s work taken without permission, undermine the very principles of copyright and, frankly, of trade and commerce. The proposals are a threat to the livelihoods of creators, especially smaller rights holders who lack the resources to navigate complex systems or enforce protections against unauthorised AI use. Those smaller, independent creators form the bedrock of our creative ecosystem. Without them, the intricate web that sustains the sector will unravel. The richness of our cultural landscape depends not only on headline acts, but on the countless independent creators who bring diversity and depth to this sharing industry.
Proponents of unfettered AI access to copyrighted works, who say that denying it will stifle progress, leaving us behind other territories, describe a false choice and present a regressive argument that suggests we should sacrifice creators’ rights for tech advances. What advance are we willing on, if it undermines the position of strength we start from? We already have divergence between territories on copyright, and the UK leads with strength here. Innovation should uplift us, not exploit. We do not need to weaken our cultural integrity and creative capital for a technological right of way.
All of us can find a space to love produced by our creative industries. In affirming this view, I wish also to distinguish between consumers and creators. Consumers engage with creations at the finish line; they need not understand the hours of labour behind their creation or the securities on which they are created. That is absolutely fine, but legislators, policymakers and industry leaders must heed the creator’s voice and recognise the existential threat that AI poses to their livelihoods if we forfeit copyright as we know it.
We must protect, cherish and celebrate the human spirit behind every brushstroke, investigation, edition, publication, note, verse and chorus, for they carry the joy, the struggle, the love and the loss, the hit and the miss. They express and emote. They relate and reflect to us our human condition: this human creativity—authentic, irreplaceable, deeply connected, often nebulous—defying the precise definition of AI. Artificial cannot replace authentic. Learned behaviour cannot replicate the human condition.
I hope this debate will amplify the voices of AI leaders who are advocating for the transparency and copyright frameworks that favour creators. The Government’s consultation is absolutely right to highlight the need for transparency. AI firms should have to disclose what they are using in their training datasets. This will enable fair licensing arrangements, with the burden on the purchaser of creativity and not on the producers of it.
This is a pivotal moment for our creative sector. It comes down to this: will we protect copyright and creators’ rights, or will we defer entirely to AI? We must not let proposals such as opt-out systems dismantle the protections that allow creativity to flourish. Let AI revolutionise our public services, productivity, precision and efficiency, but let the creative sector remain the authentic space that we all enjoy, as one of human expression. Creativity is not just a process; it profoundly connects us to one another and provides us with a shared humanity—not of just moments and movements but of memories that we live with forever. It falls to us to protect the muse, the struggle and the joys that define these marvellous creative industries. Let us ensure that creators, not algorithms, remain the first and last word in determining our cultural, economic and human advances.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and indeed to echo what has been said by many Members on both sides of the House. I think this debate will produce pretty much unanimity on the importance of our creative industries. It is a particular pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage)—my successor but three, I believe, as Chairman of the Select Committee—and I am going to concentrate on one or two of the things she said.
It is happily now recognised how important the creative industries are to the UK’s economy. There has been a growing awareness of this over a long period, ever since a separate Department was founded in the form of the Department of National Heritage, which became the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The creative industries are something that the UK is extraordinarily good at. It is still the case that the best-selling music artists of all time, the Beatles, are British, as is the best-selling author of all time, Agatha Christie. And now, today, when we go to a Hollywood movie, the chances are that it will have been made in Pinewood, even though that is not immediately obvious from what we see on the screen. Advertisements also originate in this country, as does publishing, as the Minister and many other Members have highlighted.
As the Minister said, there is an ecosystem whereby our most successful commercial creative enterprises rely on the subsidised sector, and vice versa. Let us take David Tennant as an example. He started life in “Hamlet” with the Royal Shakespeare Company, went on to “Doctor Who” and ended up in “Rivals”. I have seen all three, and they were all highly enjoyable. The subsidised sector has also benefited over the years from a Conservative invention, the national lottery. It has produced an enormous amount of money, which the taxpayer probably could not have afforded to invest, and many enterprises have benefited from that.
I echo what has been said about the importance of education and the need to ensure that arts are at the core of our curriculum, and also about the importance of grassroots music venues. I went to a Music Venue Trust reception last week, as a number of Members did. I was really interested to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler). I did not quite get to the Roxy, but I did go regularly to the Marquee club in Wardour Street, with its sweaty atmosphere, where I heard people such as Buzzcocks and the Clash, and great bands such as Iron Maiden, who started off life in those small venues. It is a shame that the Marquee club is no longer with us and that so many venues still struggle, but I must say that had it not been for the culture recovery fund, which my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport oversaw as Minister in the Department during the covid pandemic, there would be virtually no small venues, or indeed large venues, left in this country. The culture recovery fund kept venues from the Hot Box in Chelmsford all the way up to the Royal Albert Hall going. They were looking over the precipice until the Government stepped in.
The creative industries also bring enormous benefits to this country internationally. I, too, welcome the Government’s creation of the Soft Power Council. Having served as Chairman of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, I now sit on the Foreign Affairs Committee, and we continue to collaborate between Committees in looking at the importance of soft power. About two weeks ago, we heard from the British Council, which was mentioned earlier in the debate. The British Council does an extremely important job, and it is ridiculous that it has to go to the Government every year and ask to have the loan rolled over, and that it is staring at insolvency until an agreement is reached. I hope that is something that the Government will now address.
The British Council does many worthy things, but I have a soft spot for one thing in particular that it administers—I hope that both Ministers on the Front Bench share this—and that is the cultural protection fund. That is another initiative from this country in which we use our world-beating expertise from places such as the British Museum to help to ensure that some of the world’s greatest heritage is preserved, particularly when it is at risk from conflict.
We need to recognise that there is an increasingly competitive environment across the creative industries. British music is still extraordinarily successful, but 2023 was the first year when there was no British artist among the top 10 best-selling artists across the world. Four of the best-selling artists in the world in 2023 were Korean. That shows where the markets are developing. They are developing in south America, too. It is important that we continue to support creative industries such as the music industry through, for instance, the music export growth scheme, which was set up by the last Government and which I know this Government are continuing. I welcome that and hope that it will be maintained.
I also want to say a word about copyright, as almost every other speaker in this debate has done. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on intellectual property, and we recently had a meeting with the chairs of all the APPGs representing music, publishing, the visual arts and the media, who came together to listen to representatives of those creative industries express their deep concern about the Government’s suggestion that they might introduce an exception to the copyright protection, which would benefit AI.
There are good things about AI. It is not a threat to be beaten off; it can be of real value to the creative industries. Companies such as Universal Music are using AI, and it is a new technology that consumers and those industries will benefit from. At the same time, protection is needed to ensure that intellectual property rights are not abused. The Minister says that there is legal uncertainty, but the fact that intellectual property rights owners are defending their rights by going to court does not mean that the law is wrong. They are using the law, but that does not necessarily mean that the law is not perfectly clear.
We welcome elements of the Government’s proposals, and transparency is vital. If rights owners are to be able to protect their property, they first need to know where their property is being used. Transparency is the first essential requirement for that to happen, so I very much welcome the Government’s proposal to ensure transparency where AI large language models use content from across the internet to generate their own content.
The consultation highlights the alarm about a text and data mining exception. On one hand, the Government say they are consulting on that, but on the other hand, when the Secretary of State made his statement in the House just a couple of weeks ago, he said that the Government were accepting all of Matt Clifford’s recommendations. One of those recommendations is to introduce a text and data mining exception, so I hope the Minister can say something about that.
Chris Bryant
Matt Clifford made that recommendation —recommendation 24—and, in response, we have said that we are consulting. We have not decided; we are consulting. It is a consultation, not the Second Reading of a Bill.
Sir John Whittingdale
I am extremely grateful to the Minister, and it is of some reassurance that the Government’s mind is still open. I hope they will listen to the voices across the Chamber expressing concern.
There is an objection in principle to option 3, which is the idea that rights holders have to opt out. It reverses what has long been the case—that people can rely on the protection of their rights unless they choose to give them up. They should not have to ask for their rights to be protected, and that is what an opt-out system entails. There would no longer be automatic protection under an opt-out system, and it would put a huge burden on many small rights holders. There is a suggestion that photographers might have to seek an opt-out for every picture they have ever taken. Now, I hope that is not the case, but a lot of uncertainty has been created.
Each creative industry is different. As the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society told us last week, writers may want their works to be used for some purposes but not for others, but it appears that this will be a binary system in which they either opt in or opt out.
This is also incredibly difficult to enforce. If somebody takes a picture of a painting on their phone and puts it on social media, how can the rights owner prevent it from being used by a large language model that goes out and absorbs all this content? As has already been said, there is no workable system in existence that allows for opting out. The EU has tried to introduce one and, as I am sure the Minister is fully aware, the robots.txt standard is supposed to identify—
Sir John Whittingdale
The Minister is entirely right—it is useless.
The problem, therefore, is that there is no workable solution at the moment. The Minister and the Government have said that they will not introduce this option until there is a workable system in existence. That is reassuring, but how will the Minister decide whether a proposed system is indeed workable? If it is workable, how will it be enforced? Will individual rights holders have to go to court if they believe they have opted out but find that their works are still being used? There is a whole host of questions.
I recognise the Minister’s commitment and wish to find a way to protect rights, but there are an awful lot of questions at the moment, and there do not appear to be any answers. I hope he can address some of those questions.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I rise not just as a member of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee or as co-chair of the APPG on artificial intelligence, but as an academic with first-hand experience of building AI models. I will try to make a case—go with me on this one—that protecting our creative industry and the high-quality output it produces is vital not just to our vibrant creative sector, but to our rapidly evolving AI sector.
Back in the mists of time, when I was building a model for my PhD, I resisted the temptation to build a large dataset from any relevant data I could find. Instead, I chose to produce a smaller, high-quality dataset, which was risky, as it might not have been enough to create a reliable model and I might not have passed my PhD. My risk paid off. My model worked better than expected and, ever since, I have adhered to the principle that it is the quality of our data, not its quantity, that matters.
To mangle a metaphor, some say that data is the new oil or gold. Taking that metaphor forward, let us do a thought experiment. Let us say that the UK discovered vast reserves of gold, making us the second biggest provider globally. What should we do? Would we look at gold-hungry organisations and give them the gold for free, in the hope that they will invest in the UK? I should hope not.
By some estimates, the UK creative industry is the second largest globally. It is our gold. Should we give away this valuable asset for free? I hope not, for the sake of our creatives, but also for our new AI industry, in which this Government are rightly investing. The unlicensed and illegal use of copyrighted content for generative AI development has been equated by some with a form of theft. Not only is it unfair to make such acquisition legal via an opt-out system, but it risks creating a future of fool’s gold data as our creative industry loses control of its work and moves elsewhere, or simply gives up.
High-quality data is essential for the success of generative AI, but, as with gold—to overkill the metaphor—its reserves may be finite. Researchers predict that at the current rate, generative AI developers will have used all the publicly available stock of human-created text data between 2026 and 2032. In other words, we could run out next year. This means that, with limited new high-quality data, innovation and AI growth will be hindered, inviting model collapse.
Model collapse happens when generative AI models start training on their own lower-quality data. This is the fool’s gold of AI. If we wish to be competitive, both in the creative and AI industries, we as a country need to set ourselves above our competitors, not below them. We do this not by giving away our most valuable assets for free, but by protecting them so that we can keep generating more and more new high-quality data.
Generative AI developers, like all AI developers, are extremely data-hungry and keen to mine, mine, mine. If all we have left to offer them is fool’s gold—if our world-class British artists have to look elsewhere to make a living—the AI developers will likewise look elsewhere. Protecting our creative industry by not allowing the free use of data for model training purposes is therefore the right thing to do not only for our creative industry, but for our AI industry.
I therefore ask the Government to consider a longer-term view and retain the UK’s current copyright framework, to place the onus on generative AI developers to seek a licence for our creatives’ data—with a possible caveat for academic research—and to expand it to cover all generative AI models marketed in the UK. In conjunction, we must require meaningful transparency on data usage in a form that is accessible to artists and regulators. That would allow for enforceable regulation and enable the actual data creators, our creatives, to seek redress. I resist, as I always do, claims that that would inhibit innovation and growth. Based on my experience as a researcher and AI ethicist, I reject the notion that regulation inhibits innovation. It simply does not. Transparency of model development and data sources plus enforceable regulations are vital to encourage high standards and good quality AI.
By retaining our copyright framework and pioneering a licensing approach, we would guarantee that rights holders have control over their own creative output. Such an approach would give confidence to our creatives, allowing them to pursue sustainable, well-paid and productive careers, and provide enjoyment to us all, income and growth for the country and the high-quality output that is so valuable to generative AI developers. By taking that approach, we will remain what we are today—the gold standard of the creative industries—and that will enable us to rise up as the gold standard for AI development.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
In Wales, we have had an incredibly rich creative inheritance, and we still have that today. Even our rousing national anthem honours the Welsh poets and singers who came before us. One example of that is the Urdd Eisteddfod, where around 15,000 young people compete in creative competitions, spanning from singing to poetry to dancing, and anything in between. Young people in Wales have the ability to participate creatively in our society, but their talent is often extracted from our local communities.
Professor Michael Woods from Aberystwyth University highlights that the creative industries could be an antidote to outward migration from Wales. He suggests that creative hubs in rural areas could retain young people in Wales, especially as his research showed that the creative arts were the main reason most would stay in my constituency of Caerfyrddin. A fabulous example of one of those creative hubs is Yr Egin in Carmarthen. It houses the S4C headquarters, provides employment and boosts the local economy. Recent research shows it contributed £7.6 million to Carmarthenshire’s economy alone between 2022 and 2023. Yr Egin plays a vital role in promoting our language and culture in Wales. It is not alone in that. Other creative organisations across Wales, including Cwmni Da, Fran Wen, and Aria Studios in Llangefni, also amplify the voice of our land and culture on both local and international stages.
Individuals need access to opportunities and upskilling to participate in the creative industries. Teledwyr Annibynnol Cymru does great work in providing essential training for TV, film, radio and new media. Some 1,800 people have been trained over the past few years at over 125 different courses. The courses are Welsh medium or bilingual, thus providing specialist staff for the industry.
I was really disappointed to hear about cuts at two prominent Welsh institutions: the Royal Welsh College of Music and Drama has cut its junior department and National Theatre Wales is closing due to financial constraints. Despite ongoing training efforts, those cuts, as well as others elsewhere in the sector, leave Welsh creatives at a disadvantage compared with others across the UK. We are very fortunate and appreciate that the wonderful Mr Michael Sheen is establishing a Welsh National Theatre, but the future of our creative industries should not lie solely on the shoulders of one individual. We have a collective responsibility to protect those industries.
Creative industries in Wales generated a £3.8 billion turnover across 2022 and 2023, which accounted for 5.3% of the total Welsh GDP. A cornerstone of that success is S4C, which directly employed 1,900 people and generated £136 million for the Welsh economy. It is crucial that S4C is given equal standing with other British broadcasters during the royal charter review, ensuring that the voices of people across Wales are heard, our culture is represented and Wales does not miss out on financial opportunities.
The current tax relief system disadvantages S4C, because according to current rules, only TV projects with production costs of at least £1 million per broadcast hour are eligible for a tax rebate of up to 25%. As S4C is very efficient, it spends less than £250,000 per broadcast hour so it does not meet the threshold to qualify for the support. I call on the Government to reconsider that to ensure our creative industries continue to thrive.
Our Government must lead on protecting our creative industries, from local to global, because they drive the economy, employ millions of people and contribute in Wales to our culture, Welsh language and overall wellbeing. The creative arts are Wales. As a former peripatetic music teacher and as a singer—not in any big bands, as some hon. Members have been—I would like to read the first verse of “In Passing” by Brian Harris.
“To be born in Wales,
Not with a silver spoon in your mouth,
But, with music in your blood
And with poetry in your soul,
Is a privilege indeed.”
Indeed it is a privilege.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I do not intend to put a formal time limit on speeches yet, but there are lots of Members standing, so it would be helpful if Members could restrict themselves to between six and seven minutes.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Madam Deputy Speaker, if I were to ask you to name a city in the UK that is a hotbed of creativity—
Gareth Snell
The Minister has stolen my thunder! As always, he has pre-empted what I was going to say. I was going to say that Stoke-on-Trent is a city that is steeped in history, but fizzing for the future of creativity. We are home to nine Arts Council England national portfolio organisations; we have a burgeoning CreaTech cluster in the Spode building; and we have some of the best performances of theatre-in-the-round at the New Vic theatre, which although not in Stoke-on-Trent is so close to the border it might as well be.
I highlight these points not for the flippant response I should have pre-empted from the Minister, but because all too often when we think about places where creativity happens and where arts and culture thrive, we do not think about places such as Stoke-on-Trent or other historical industrial cities. All too often, those places are written up as wastelands, with derelict buildings shown in articles in The Guardian, rather than the focus being on the things that make them special and strong: our heritage and our future.
Stoke-on-Trent is the only city in the UK that has world craft city status for our industrial history in the potteries. Some of the great creatives of our past are intrinsically linked to Stoke-on-Trent: Wedgwood, Spode, William Moorcroft, Clarice Cliff and Susie Cooper. They are people who had creativity not only in their artistry, but in their industry. They pioneered new methods of working so that we could have the finest bone china, and came up with new techniques for design; the illustrations on the plates, cups and tiles that we all enjoy were at the cutting edge of new methods, technologies, pigments and materials. The creativity that they drew upon as part of their industrial heritage remains, and we have the same skills and burning ambition to demonstrate who we are and what we do in Stoke-on-Trent today.
Some 4,000 jobs in Stoke-on-Trent are linked directly to the creative sector; if the supply chain is included, it would easily be two or three times that number. Some 638 artists and artist organisations are recognised by the Stoke-on-Trent and North Staffordshire Cultural Education Partnership. In 2019, there were 5.5 million tourist visits to Stoke-on-Trent—a narrative that we do not often hear from those who seek to denigrate the city I am proud to call home and represent in this place. Sadly, some of that snobbish approach to my city comes from our nearest neighbours, who seek to use the challenges that our city faces for their own short-term political gain. I doubt that will stop any time soon. However, we are home to “The Great Pottery Throw Down”, which is on Channel 4 on Sunday evenings; Keith Brymer Jones and the team have made pottery glamorous Sunday night TV viewing. It demonstrates that the history of who we are is still very much part of the society and city that we want to be.
Dr Gardner
I recently visited the impressive and very funky 1882 ceramics firm based in the World of Wedgwood in my Stoke-on-Trent South constituency, home of “The Great Pottery Throw Down”. The firm impressed upon me its challenges in attracting young apprentices, risking the loss of important creative heritage skills. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must remember the value of pottery and sculpture in our education curriculum review to protect this vibrant industry?
Gareth Snell
I agree with my hon. Friend. Our city has children in school who are unaware of our cultural heritage, which is their cultural heritage, and who do not play with clay in the way they should. We have schools that decommissioned their kilns, despite the fact that the children’s parents and grandparents would have trained in those schools, gone into the industry and made good lives for themselves from honest, hard work in what was essentially one of the country’s earliest creative industries.
My hon. Friend is also right about the pipeline of talent. The big creative companies in Stoke-on-Trent tell me that the University of Staffordshire is generating some of the highest quality, most talented graduates in the country. When it comes to computer games, technical productions and animations, the courses at the University of Staffordshire are rated as some of the best, if not the best, in the country. Only this week, three of the big digital creative bodies in Stoke-on-Trent—i-Creation, Lesniak Swann and VCCP—announced their new summer internship. That programme lines young graduates up with professionals working in the creative industry, and shows them what their job and career could be—a job and a career that has value, pride and potential economic benefits for my city, because of the nature of the work that we can bring in.
The Minister will know about the litany of success stories in our city from a Westminster Hall debate that he kindly responded to a few weeks ago. I will not bore the House by repeating that list this evening. Let me simply say that when the Government consider the future of the creative industries and where the talent pool should be—I know that the Minister agrees, so I hope that he reiterates it when he winds up—we should bear in mind that if we can make it work in places such as Stoke-on-Trent, we can make it work anywhere. Young people in my city who enjoy creative education and want to go on to do wonderful things, whether in music, drama, dance, tech or ceramics and pottery, deserve the same opportunities as a child from London or any metropolitan city in the north of England. I hope that, as the new Government foster a new partnership with places such as Stoke-on-Trent, the creative industries can be central to it, so that the names we speak of in 20 or 30 years’ time, when we undoubtedly have this debate again, will be the names of those young people.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I regret that I do not have the extensive music lyric knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage). Neither did I have a career in a rock band like the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), who, from what he said, seems to have been single-handedly responsible for shutting down a favourite music venue. I have a constituency with a small but growing and thriving creative sector on the Isle of Wight. I am grateful to the Minister for taking my earlier intervention.
I will say something about my constituency in a moment, but I will briefly reflect on the national picture. Clearly, there is a consensus across the House that the creative sector is hugely important and needs continuing support from the Government. From 2010 to 2022, it was one of the fastest growing sectors in the UK economy, growing by 50%. I was encouraged by the Minister’s warm words from the Dispatch Box, but clearly support for the creative industries has to go further than warm words. I have no doubt that he is sincere about backing them up with action, but we cannot take that for granted. Neither can we ignore the damaging effects of decisions in the Budget. It was entirely right that the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), raised the negative impact of the increases to national insurance employer contributions on the creative sector.
We have rightly heard much in the last few months about the negative impact of national insurance contribution rises on businesses, large companies, and the health sector, and I will continue to make those arguments, but I worry that the negative impact on the creative industries has not fully been recognised. Other Opposition Members mentioned it. I hope that the Minister has done this already, but I urge him to ensure that the Treasury does something to compensate the creative industries for the money that this rise will take. He might distribute £60 million, but it will mean little if some, or most, of it is taken back by the Treasury in taxes.
The Isle of Wight is well known for lots of things, and is increasingly known as a location for films. That is helped by Osborne House, the former home of Her Majesty Queen Victoria. Films based on her life are often shot on location there, though I have to say that it is not in my constituency but the neighbouring constituency of Isle of Wight West. We have small creative organisations such as Ventnor Exchange, Monkton Arts, and Department in Ryde, which is due to open next month with money from the National Lottery Heritage Fund and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. We also have historical buildings that are kept alive only by the creative industries that operate in and around them, such as Shanklin theatre, which could not survive without all the volunteer work that is done. In small and large towns across the country, fantastic buildings are kept alive only because of the creative industries that make use of them.
I thank the Minister for the offer of a meeting with him or his Department about a film studio on the Isle of Wight. Allow me to make a correction: sadly, the location for the film studio is in the neighbouring constituency of Isle of Wight West. I have already notified the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) that he has received an offer of a meeting through me, which I am sure he will be delighted about. I would like to join him if I can be of assistance, because clearly it will benefit both constituencies on the Isle of Wight to realise that studio. The issue is that while micro-organisations benefit from pots of funding that are suitable for small-scale projects, and clearly national projects of national interest can access money, medium-sized projects such as rural film studios possibly struggle. I look forward to a conversation about that another time.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
The creative industries are rightly a priority for our Government, and I warmly welcome the Minister’s speech, as will our creatives in the coastal communities of Scarborough and Whitby. Having been a screenwriter by trade, I declare my membership of the Writers’ Guild of Great Britain. This has been a fascinating debate, and I rise to ask whether, in our headlong rush to embrace the white heat of scientific revolution, we are at risk of extinguishing the spark of original human creativity. Sparks were indeed flying in the 1982 cult sci-fi film “Blade Runner”; Ridley Scott drew upon the landscape where he grew up—the flaring oil stacks of the refineries in the north-east, sending up big fireballs of gas—to create a dystopian future world where humans battle synthetic humans known as replicants.
As we move into a future where artificial intelligence is no longer the stuff of sci-fi films but the tool that will revolutionise our lives, we should pause to ensure that we safeguard our original content creators, because unless we tighten copyright laws around intellectual property to protect creators, AI data mining will stem the flow of creative content. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) mentioned, the AI systems that mine content to gain artificial intelligence could run out of new material in the next few years—this is known as model collapse—and generative AI models could start training on their own low-quality outputs. To return to “Blade Runner”, the replicants would be breeding with the replicants.
To enjoy a future that protects human creativity, we should reform the UK text and data mining regime to place the onus on GAI firms to seek permission from rights holders to use their original published work. Amendments tabled by Baroness Kidron to the Data (Use and Access) Bill, which will be discussed shortly in the other place, offer meaningful transparency provisions that would make the UK’s gold-standard copyright regime enforceable and counter the widespread theft of intellectual copyright by AI companies. The amendments chime with public opinion, and I ask the Minister to reflect on whether the Government will support them.
I finish with dialogue from “Blade Runner”—words spoken by the replicant Roy Batty:
“I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.”
We must act to protect our creative talent in the UK—the screenwriters who wrote those unforgettable lines, and all future writers. In the fight to win the battle for intellectual copyright, surely we must be on the side of the human, not the replicant.
Zöe Franklin (Guildford) (LD)
I declare an interest, as I have received donations from Stellar Entertainment.
My constituency of Guildford is a fantastic and varied creative hub for the south-east, and I could speak on the subject at length, but today I want to champion one of our great success stories and advocate for a fair deal for the UK’s fantastic creative industries. Guildford is often described as the Hollywood of the UK gaming industry. It is a hub of innovation and creativity that has put our town on the global map. While Guildford’s gaming studios continue to achieve extraordinary success with games such as “LittleBigPlanet”, “Baldur’s Gate 3” and “No Man’s Sky” to name just a few, there is much more that we can do to support the sector, and the creative arts industry more widely, and ensure their continued growth.
We would not have the talent we have today without strong education and skills. Our young people deserve the tools to thrive in the industries of tomorrow, and that includes the computer games industry. That is why I back calls for the introduction of a digital creativity GCSE. The qualification would equip students with the skills they need for a career in video game development, visual effects and other digital creative fields. It would also signal that the UK values those industries and is serious about nurturing home-grown talent, but this issue goes beyond skills; it is also about who gets to be part of the industry’s success. Women, people from economically disadvantaged backgrounds and ethnic minorities remain under-represented in the gaming industry. The lack of diversity not just perpetuates inequality, but holds the industry back. Creative content thrives when it draws from a wide range of perspectives and cultures. If we recruit from only one demographic, gender or economic group, the result is a duller, less innovative industry. That is yet another reason to enable access to high-quality, industry-supported training, and to the creative arts, in every state school in the UK.
Liberal Democrats believe that nurturing the creative arts is crucial. We believe in investing in education, acknowledging diversity and creating opportunities for everyone to succeed. The UK’s creative industries are an economic powerhouse and source of inspiration for people around the world. Where we lead, others enthusiastically follow. One aspect of that global leadership is our copyright laws, which are widely considered to be some of the best in the world. They not only give strong protection to creators but make reasonable allowance for legitimate use in research, criticism and news reporting. In the light of the growing use of AI, and the Government’s recent announcements on the subject, creators from across the industry have spoken to me, and clearly to other Members, about their concerns that proposed changes will put the rights of creators at risk.
I want to be clear: creators I speak to are generally optimistic about the potential benefits of AI for their work. Creators are not fearful of AI; they are fearful that their intellectual property will no longer be protected, and that their livelihoods will be put at risk. The opt-out model the Government are championing on AI and copyright has been shown, through its European equivalent, not to work. My hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) set that out in great detail, and I am grateful to him for that.
I ask the Minister to ensure that he engages thoroughly with the creative industries on this issue to find alternatives that work for creatives. We need to take the lead globally on it. Other nations are watching the approach we take, and will follow suit, as they do in many other areas relating to the creative industries. The creative arts are a lifelong passion of mine, and I am pleased that one of my sons is training for a career in the performing arts, but I am worried that his future will be in jeopardy, just as many worry about their future, if we continue on this path when it comes to copyright and intellectual property.
We do not spend enough time in this Chamber in conversation about the UK’s world-leading creative industries and creativity, which is fundamental to what it means to be human. I am grateful for the opportunity for this debate, and I hope that the Government will take on board the sensible points raised across the House, so that together we can ensure that the UK continues to be a global leader in the creative industries.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
I am glad to contribute to the debate, and while I may not have any books with film options, or be a former rockstar, I have family and friends who work in the creative industries, be it in film, music or magazines. Our creative industries are one of the most valuable growth sectors in the UK, generating £125 billion for the economy in 2023 and accounting for one in seven jobs across the country. Perhaps most importantly, the creative industries embedded in our towns and cities have intrinsic cultural value. They provide shared social experiences that contribute to a sense of place, build on local heritage and contribute to our health and wellbeing.
Luton has a rich history of artistic innovation, creativity and design. For over 200 years, we were the primary place in the UK for the production of ladies’ hats. The industry peaked in the 1930s, when we produced over 70 million hats annually. Of course, that is why our beloved Luton Town FC are known as the Hatters. Artistry has been at the heart of our town’s economy across three centuries, and we hold on to that with pride today. We are a place of making—historically, hats and cars; now, computer systems, games, films and music.
We are lucky enough to have several independent music venues in Luton, including the Hat Factory arts centre, the Bear Club, and the Castle, one of Luton’s oldest and most beloved pubs, which is supporting Independent Venue Week this week. It is putting on six nights of live music and supporting the independent arts, alongside the 200 other venues taking part across the country. We cannot overestimate the value of our grassroots music venues and the platform they give to new and emerging artists, offering them their first opportunities to perform and develop their craft and providing the essential pipeline for tomorrow’s megastars and household names. Indeed, when Luton hosted Radio 1’s Big Weekend in May 2024, one of our town’s very own, Myles Smith, featured on BBC Music’s Introducing stage, and he has since performed on Jools Holland’s show. He broke the United States on tour and won the rising star Brit award, and this year he has been nominated for three Brit awards. That success highlights the value of exposure for independent artists.
I was somewhat surprised by the comments from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson earlier about supporting arts and culture. I accept the points made by others about the culture recovery fund, but our creative industries were held back under the Tories. Arts funding fell by almost 50% per person in real terms, and local government revenue funding for culture and related services decreased by 48% in England, alongside rising costs and demand pressures on statutory services. Those funding cuts have enacted enormous damage to the pipeline of talent in the industry, to the provision of local arts and to the availability of work in the performing arts. In 2012, university grants delivering courses such as music, drama and other arts subjects were cut by 50%, which was particularly detrimental for disabled, black, Asian and minority ethnic students and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. That created an additional obstacle for students who already faced multiple barriers to studying subjects such as music in higher education.
If we really want to break down barriers to opportunity, we must ensure that there is adequate access to a dedicated arts and music curriculum for students at every point in their education, and I very much welcome the Minister’s earlier comments on that issue. Such access is fundamental not only to support talent to thrive, but to ensure that children develop. Studies have found that children exposed to music tuition display better cognitive performance in their reading and comprehension skills.
I thank Luton Music Service and all the volunteer parents for the great work they do with children and young people in my constituency. I would also like to say how much I enjoyed the Christmas performances by the show choir, the senior guitars, the junior strings, the funk band and the rock band, among the many other groups that performed that weekend, who displayed immense talent.
I am glad that this Labour Government have recognised the value of our creative industries and that we are working to reverse the damage done under the previous Conservative Government. I welcome the £60 million package of support announced this month to drive growth, including the £40 million investment for start-up video game studios, British music and film exports, and creative businesses outside London. I also welcome the launch of the Soft Power Council, which brings together experts from across culture, sport, the creative industries and geopolitics to showcase the best of Britain around the world.
Our creative industries have been underfunded and undervalued for too long, but I am confident that as we prioritise the arts and creative industries within our industrial strategy, the UK will have a firm standing on the world stage, boosting economic growth, unlocking opportunities and leading as industry innovators.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It has been a long time since we have had the Floor of the House of Commons for a debate on the creative industries, and it is always a fantastic debate.
Pete Wishart
I see the Minister nodding along. We find out about all the dynamic enterprises and cultural activity in Members’ constituencies but, more than that, we find out about our colleagues’ hidden talents. I was as surprised as anybody to hear that we have a veteran of the punk days at the Roxy, as well as singers and film writers. We have an abundance of talent in the House, so I feel a bit more confident now: I lost my colleagues in MP4 when they stood down at the last election, so I am actively recruiting, and my door is open to any aspiring musician who wants to perform in MP4.
As usual in these debates, there has been a chorus of approval, support and satisfaction—as there should be—when it comes to the quality of the UK creative industries. We just do these things so well, and that quality has been ingrained in our cultural output. There is something that we do across the whole of these isles that just produces this conveyor belt of talent, imagination and creativity. We have successful creative industries because of the imagination of the people of this country. Is it not great that we can turn around and say that we could power our economy based on the creativity, invention and imagination of the people who inhabit these isles? But we need more than that to be successful. These things are mostly down to the creativity of the people who work in our creative industries, but we also need the right conditions: we need to provide the context and the environment for these creative industries to survive, develop and thrive.
For the last 60 years, we have been quite good at doing that. We have intervened when necessary. We have had conversations and debates about investment, what sort of support should go into the creative industries and whether we get the balance right. Of course, there have been political debates about Budgets and national insurance contributions, but we have basically had the right conditions for art and creativity, and the industry that comes with them, to develop and thrive. We have those things because we have an IP system embedded in UK law that is the envy of the world. It is the bedrock of our creative industries and the foundation of our success. Part of that is our wonderful copyright regime, which, again, is the envy of the world. It makes sure that artists are properly compensated for the wonderful works they produce, and ensures that they get recognised for the works they deliver.
We tamper with all of that at our peril. We have been here before. Back in the 2010s, when copyright exceptions were quite the fashion, the threat to so many of our creative industries was not from AI companies; it was from the internet service providers, the pirates and digitisation. Isn’t it funny that it is always the creative industries that are on the frontline when there are technical innovations? It is always the creative industries that seem to have to suffer because of what we are trying to achieve through technological innovation.
Looking around the Chamber, I think that only the Minister and the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) are veterans of the Digital Economy Act 2017. That was probably the high point of the interest in copyright exceptions. Then, of course, the general philosophical debate was all around an unfettered internet that was to be free at the point of use for everybody. There was this absurd business model that we could somehow have all this high-quality content, and we would not have to pay for any of it. Of course, that was quickly knocked on its head, but we have its legacy with the arrival of the huge tech platforms, with tech brothers getting together and developing their own companies. We have massive tech companies that provide nothing other than platforms and that create very little of the content, and they are growing rich and fat off the creativity and invention of the people who actually provide that content—the artists and musicians themselves. The value gap between the musician, or the artist, and these big platforms and companies is something that we will have to address.
However, I do not think that we have ever had such a threat as generative AI; that is what we are looking at now. It says in my notes that I should have a go at the Minister now for having already made up his mind, but I am actually a bit reassured by what he said, and I think all of us should be encouraged. I really did think that the Government had made up their mind; I thought that they were going to go down the opt-out route without qualification. All the things they have said up to this point certainly seemed to confirm that, and the Minister’s grumpy tone during the statement on these issues did not help matters much, particularly when he had a go at the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. It is good to have that reassurance, but what we now have to do—I am looking at colleagues who have contributed to the debate and expressed their concerns—is encourage the Minister gently, through persuasion. He knows the view of the industry and the sector, and I think he knows that it is overwhelmingly negative. He will not be able to find anybody in any creative sector who is telling him that what he proposes with the opt-out will work or is good for the creative industries or even for AI.
We have heard from several colleagues about this idea of a model breakdown, where AI starts to feed on itself. That is what we can expect, and I think the analogy with “Blade Runner” was fantastic. That is exactly where we will be going if we allow unfettered AI development to continue along the same lines. We have reached a really interesting point tonight. I think the Government are probably going to reconsider their position. They are going to take on board what Members have said—
Pete Wishart
I see the Minister shaking his head, but perhaps he will clarify all this when he gets to his feet. I know that the Government think they have a solution that somehow supports both the AI sector and the creative industries sector, but nobody actually believes that. I am sorry, Minister, but no one could go along with the idea that somehow, opening up the nation’s creative works to be scraped and mined would ever get us to a situation that could possibly be useful for the creative industries. I do not think it would be useful for the AI sector, either. That is a really important point when it comes to all of this, and we need to look at it properly.
Lastly, we have heard a few myths, including the idea that there is somehow unclarity about the laws that embed our copyright regime. That is just nonsense—nobody actually believes that. I do not think that even AI companies would say that there is any question about the legality of the copyright regime; it is just something that Ministers trawl out to try to create uncertainty in the sector, and it does not work. The one thing that is absolutely certain is that if we do allow AI companies to engage in unfettered text and data mining, there will be real difficulties. Some of the scenarios that have been painted by other Members who have spoken will be realised, and that will be very damaging for this Government.
We know that the Government are invested in AI. They are in an economic mess, and they are looking to grab at anything that will give them some sort of comfort. AI is obviously one of the areas they have identified that might bring this promised growth, giving them some sort of confidence and reassurance that what they are trying to do with the economy might get it to where they are seeking to take it, but we cannot be obsessively fixated on AI at the cost of so much of our heritage and culture. Where it is right that this Government proceed with AI, they have to take a balanced approach, one that looks after the interests of our nation’s creators, inventors and artists. So far, they have not been able to do so, but there are encouraging signs, so I am looking forward to the Minister’s response this evening. I hope that what he says will encourage us further.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
It has been a pleasure to listen to speeches from Members right across the Chamber, and particularly to hear—as others have said—insights rooted in the particular musical and literary talents of Members. Sadly, I have zero contribution to make in terms of talent; I can inform Members that I have regularly enjoyed the outputs of music on many a dance floor, particularly during my student days, but that is as far as my talents will take me. I also want to acknowledge the powerful points made about AI—it is a complicated picture, and will be an important continuing debate.
That will be incredibly important as we consider the creative industries as one of Britain’s success stories. They are some of our most successful exports and biggest growth opportunities—a way of projecting our soft power across the world, as other Members have said. The creative industries add £120 billion in value to our economy, and have grown by 35% since 2010. Economically, those industries are an important area for debate, accounting for one in seven jobs in the country.
That success has taken place despite inaction from the Government of the past. In recent years, the investment per person that allows people to access those creative cultural experiences has fallen by 50% in real terms, and funding for the arts and cultural organisations has fallen by 18% in the past 14 years. As my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) referenced, £1 billion was cut from local authorities. Those cuts have undoubtedly had a generational impact on the young people who lost out on opportunities to experience cultural activities.
As a London MP and an ex-London council leader, I can tell the House that even in the cultural hub that is London—the best city in the world for cultural activity, some might say—many communities, including those I represent in Barking and Dagenham, do not have access to creativity, be that dance or music lessons, going to the theatre or cinema trips. That is why access programmes, including for my constituents in Barking, are so important —access to jobs and opportunities within the industry, and to enjoy more forms of art and culture, the art and culture that my communities in Barking and Dagenham so often refer to as their inspiration.
Local authorities are leading the way in establishing and supporting creative industries to help to grow their local economy, provide new opportunities for those who need them and encourage more access to the arts. It is important to welcome the activities that local authorities up and down the country have engaged in even when they have been under so much pressure. When I was a council leader, I worked towards the transformation of an industrial site from a poorly used employment space to a film studio owned by the local authority and leased to a film company based in Hollywood, used for films featuring actors from across the world. That was not unique to the area I represented at the time; as I say, councils across the country are doing such things.
As the Member of Parliament for Barking, I am so proud that in Barking and Dagenham, Welbeck Wharf—originally a steel distribution site, bought by the local authority and leased to The Wharf Studios—is home to the largest new film studio in 25 years. Since 2022, the council has worked with the studios to tackle the skills gap in the borough, which is significant, and the diversity gap in the film industry. The studios have engaged with local schools and colleges and provided new training and job opportunities. More than 1,000 pupils have been given hands-on experience in skills such as lighting, camera work, production and make-up, and many local people have been employed in filming in the borough. More than 1,000 residents have attended free screening events, providing access to new culture and arts in a way that simply would not have been possible before.
I am particularly excited that the world-famous Tate gallery and the borough of Barking and Dagenham have reached agreement on a new memorandum of understanding that could see a new Tate collection open in Barking Riverside, and I put on record my support for that proposal. Such investment in the area I represent will make a huge contribution to Barking and Dagenham. In many instances, success is the result of private and public partnerships. I know that the sector welcomes the Government’s £60 million investment in the creative industries, as well as its core part in the new industrial strategy.
I am concerned about reports that most tax relief—around half for film production and 75% for TV production —goes to those that make the very largest claims. In fact, according to HMRC data, half of the total film relief claimed went to just 15 companies. That is why I welcome the new relief that the Government have announced for smaller, independent film productions. I think it will make a real difference to areas that want more films to be made, and that want the cultural industries to contribute to the local economy. The growth of creative industries in the UK will contribute to our economy, in part because of the international investment they attract. As that investment takes place and as the creative industries benefit from tax breaks, however, local communities such as those I represent in Barking and Dagenham must benefit from that economic vibrancy. They must benefit from jobs and skills opportunities, and we should hold the creative industries to account for that.
In 2017, my constituency featured heavily in the music charts, thanks to rapper Ramz’s debut single “Barking”—I am not going to sing it—which included the lyrics
“I might link my ting from Barking.”
That was one of the things that made me instantly slightly cooler when I was selected to be the candidate for Barking at the general election. I hope that as the Government, business and local authorities continue to foster creative industries, Barking will feature not only in the music charts, but in award-winning cinema and other outputs from those industries. They make an incredible contribution to our economy, and residents in Barking and Dagenham can benefit from a Government who are supportive of the creative industries.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
I want to add my voice to those of hon. Members who have spoken about the crucial role of the creative industries in the UK economy. The Minister may be relieved that I will not be taking him to task tonight for the broadband and mobile coverage in rural parts of my constituency.
The creative industries are among the UK’s most dynamic and fastest-growing sectors. In the 12 years between 2010 and 2022, the sector grew by more than 50%, compared with growth in the rest of the economy of some 22%. In 2022 alone, the creative industries contributed a staggering £125 billion to the UK economy and employed 2.4 million people. This is a great British success story.
Despite the sector’s impressive contribution to the economy, it faces significant challenges following the autumn Budget. The increases in national insurance contributions pose a significant financial burden for many creative businesses, and despite Labour Members’ protestations about so-called Conservative cuts, they seem unaware that the DCMS budget for next year will be lower than that for this year. As is the case for SMEs in sectors right across the country, this Budget has punished many of those who serve as our growth engine. It is estimated that more than 350 grassroots music venues are at immediate risk of closure, potentially leading to a loss of more than 12,000 jobs and £250 million across the overall economy. The Music Venue Trust outlines in its response to the Budget a clear threat to both the live music industry and the many jobs it supports.
For an example of how the creative industries are trying to weather these challenges, we need look no further than Somerset Film, which is based in my constituency of Bridgwater. Somerset Film has been at the forefront of nurturing local talent and providing access to the creative industries since 1997. The Engine Room, located right on Bridgwater’s High Street, serves as a vital community hub. It is here that young people and local residents receive training in media production from film making to digital storytelling.
This is not just about creating films; it is about creating opportunities. The charity has helped thousands of individuals from all walks of life to access hands-on training. Its training, community engagement and career development programmes are essential in making sure that the next generation of talent has the skills, knowledge and connections to succeed. Thanks to recent investments such as £500,000 of town deal funding from the previous Government, Somerset Film has been able to expand its facilities, improve equipment and reach more young people. The expansion also allows for new creative events, including public film exhibitions and more training opportunities for people in the region. All this would not be possible without the work of its creative director, Deb Richardson, and her fantastic team.
Thanks to programmes such as Screen Somerset and collaboration with organisations such as Creative England, the region has become a key player in the UK’s film production network. The creative industries also have an important role in revitalising local economies, and as the film and TV sector grows, the economic benefits extend far beyond the screen. Local hotels, hospitality and service industries all see significant boosts from the influx of film production teams. In fact, the Screen Somerset project has already contributed millions to the local economy.
For all the potential, however, there is a recognition that challenges are ahead. The British Film Institute skills review this month has highlighted critical crew shortages in the UK film industry that have put stress on production schedules and workspaces. To address those gaps, the review calls for greater investment and training, and a more localised approach to production. This is where organisations such as Somerset Film play a pivotal role. As we look to the future, let us continue to support the creative industries through thoughtful investment, and ensure that those in the sector have the resources and opportunities they need to thrive.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate on an incredibly important issue. We have heard throughout the debate, not least from the Minister, about the astonishing economic impact of our creative industries, with a £125 billion contribution to our economy—almost 5% of our total economic output—and more than 2.4 million people employed in the creative industries, making up 7% of all the jobs in the UK.
Here is the challenge, however: despite these remarkable contributions, the benefits are not evenly distributed. Indeed, more than half the economic output from the creative industries in this country is concentrated in London alone. In contrast, our post-industrial heartlands —and especially their towns, such as Hartlepool—have often been overlooked in favour of places where wealth and opportunity already exist. Time and again, decisions seem to focus on the cost of everything, but the value of nothing, because it is easier to grow where the ground is already fertile, rather than investing in places where it could have the greatest impact in lifting communities, unlocking talent and transforming lives.
I believe we have an opportunity as a Government to change that narrative, with towns such as Hartlepool at the heart of the change. We have the people, and we have the talent. Nothing symbolises that better than the Northern School of Art. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) mentioned Sir Ridley Scott, and it was at a precursor to the Northern School of Art—the West Hartlepool College of Art—that he filmed his very first movie, “Boy and Bicycle”, which was shot exclusively with Hartlepool as its background. He famously described the town as
“a very visual place, a very beautiful place”,
and he was not wrong.
Today the Northern School of Art operates from both its historic site and a brand-new campus, which is more than just a collection of buildings. It is a symbol of opportunity. It houses cutting-edge facilities, including sound stages for film and television production, serving both educational and commercial needs. Hartlepool is becoming a hub for education and production in the screen industries, giving students and professionals alike a place to learn, innovate and thrive. It is a vision of what is possible if we spread investment to every part of our country.
The creative industries are not confined to the traditional realms of art, film and music. Let us not forget the often overlooked but equally vital roles played by designers, planners and graphic artists. Hartlepool College of Further Education provides students with skills in the design-focused careers that are essential to every sector from technology to business and healthcare. These skills are the backbone of industries across the country, ensuring that organisations innovate and function smoothly.
Hartlepool’s creative spirit goes beyond design and the arts. It extends into areas such as health and social care. The health and social care academy at our hospital in Hartlepool is a shining example of how creative industries can drive innovation in unexpected places. During a recent visit, I was deeply impressed by its approach to scenario-based training. The ability to create safe, realistic environments for NHS and social care trainees—from handling knife crime incidents to assisting patients with physical impairments—is nothing short of inspiring. This is living proof that creative training can support vital industries and ultimately save lives.
Hartlepool is also making its mark globally through businesses such as Tanglewood Games, and I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Tanglewood is part of a rapidly growing video game sector, creating jobs and training opportunities in an industry that is now a global economic powerhouse. With blockbuster games such as “Fortnite” and “Hogwarts Legacy”, Tanglewood Games is helping to put Hartlepool on the map, contributing to the success of some of the world’s highest-grossing games.
Looking ahead, Hartlepool’s ambitions continue to soar with plans for a production village. This initiative will not only strengthen our position in the screen industries, but complement similar projects across the north-east, creating opportunities for collaboration rather than competition. That will ensure that our region is recognised as a vital part of the UK’s creative economy, and that investment flows to where it can make the most difference.
However, these efforts and transformative investments are about more than just bricks and mortar; they are about people. They are about giving Hartlepool residents the skills, jobs and opportunities they need to secure their futures, and they are about combining the creativity of today with the strength of our traditional industries to create a more prosperous, more resilient economy. This is the future I want to see for Hartlepool, but we must take tough actions. We should perhaps ditch the traditional orthodoxy of chasing GDP growth in favour of a longer-term project for parts of the country that have too often been left behind, investing in people, communities and creative potential, and ensuring that no one is left behind and that the UK’s creative industries continue to grow. Let us not just talk about equality and opportunity; let us act on it.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
It is a privilege to stand here to talk about our creative industries. At a time when Britain’s international influence has been waning, those industries remain a powerful testament to what we can achieve, shaping our global reputation for innovation and cultural strength. Beyond the enormous economic value of more than £100 billion contributed to our economy each year, our creative sector exerts a profound soft power that showcases British excellence, from Venice to Osaka and in every corner of the world. Much of the spending in this area is devolved, but the principle and opportunities extend UK wide. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) mentioned David Tennant, who started out in Scotland.
We are seeing the important role that the arts play in young people’s academic development in the move from a STEM approach, to one of science, technology, engineering and maths education also including the arts. Creative subjects foster development that enhances the learning of science and technology, producing innovation in industry as well as in the creative industries.
The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) mentioned how the creative industries have a broader influence in our social care sector, and I want to highlight how creative industries at the grassroots benefit our communities and reduce costs to the NHS and social care. My constituency contains numerous examples, such as the Kirkintilloch Players, the Antonine theatre group, and Creative Spark Theatre Arts. They connect young people, developing their confidence, creativity and social skills, using the power of the arts. Programmes such as the East Dunbartonshire initiative for creative therapy—EDICT—demonstrate the social benefits of arts funding, providing services to help people manage mental health challenges, and supporting those on the autism spectrum. By offering a creative outlet and constructive ways to cope, those organisations reduce the strain on our already stretched NHS and transform the lives of those who need it.
However clear the social and cultural benefits provided by our creative industries are, serious challenges persist. Since 2010, funding for local arts and culture has fallen by £2.3 billion in real terms. While the UK cut its arts and culture provision by around 6%, other OECD countries such as Germany, France and Finland increased theirs in the same period by 22%, 25%, and 70% respectively. The loss of grassroots support threatens the stability and future growth of community-based arts organisations and the wellbeing of our communities. EDICT in my community experienced a 70% funding reduction at the end of last year. As Liberal Democrats we believe in funding the creative arts, including fine art, music, theatre, literature, film, digital and media, which are crucial to maintaining a talented skilled workforce and a healthy and vibrant economy.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
I have worked in the creative industries all my working life, from helping my father to sell radios and televisions when I was a teenager, to presenting radio shows on stations across Scotland and supporting businesses by creating content for websites. Today, I want to address the disconnect between creativity and cost, and say why we must all support the creative industries with good reviews, warm wishes, and—most importantly—with money.
How many of us use Wikipedia daily but ignore its annual appeals for donations? How many say that we value local journalism yet resent paywalls? In most areas we accept the principle of a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work, but the creative industries often face a double standard, as many who wouldn’t pocket a bookie’s pencil think nothing of using content without the necessary permissions. Such behaviour is regrettable in individuals, but it is unforgivable in organisations. We can all do better.
For example, if local authorities can pay millions annually for software licences, why not pay a fair rate, not the minimum rate, for creative content? Teachers using streaming services in classrooms, or pupils relying on Wikipedia, could be supported by institutional subscriptions or donations that go to the people or organisations providing the content. Let the public sector lead by example, change how we value and pay for creative content, and strengthen the relationship we have with the creative sector. We should set the example and introduce the legislation that we need AI software providers to follow. In our personal lives, if someone is a podcast listener, they should not always ignore the request for that proverbial cup of coffee or an upgrade to a monthly subscription. If someone sees an article they want to read in a newspaper, they should buy the newspaper, not try to find a pal who will take a picture of it and WhatsApp it to them.
In my career I have seen creative contributions undervalued. Businesses often pay a high proportion of their budget for the technical process of building websites, but neglect the content—the very part that engages users. Too often creators hear, “I can do it myself”, when what is really needed is professional skill. We will struggle to find an artist or artisan who does not have multiple stories of offers of “exposure” or “experience” rather than money as payment for services. Exposure does not pay the bills. If someone would expect to be paid fairly for their work, they should extend the same respect to artists, artisans, writers and designers.
AI offers exciting possibilities for productivity and innovation, much like the smartphone revolution, which is now in its 17th year. AI can help creators clean up poor audio recordings or automate repetitive tasks, allowing them to focus on what they do best. However, we have seen the unintended consequences of the smartphone era, for example on mental health and social development, and we must learn from that. AI is a tool, not a replacement for human creativity, and like any tool it needs oversight and ethical guidance. It needs an instruction manual, preferably not one written by the tool itself.
Before I conclude my remarks I want to highlight a place where we can all go to be creative—a place that can sometimes struggle to be high on our agenda when we are focused on the big, the exciting or the new. I am talking about the local library. Libraries are the NHS for the soul. They are funded by our taxes, and free at the point of delivery and point of need. Libraries offer more than books; they offer a helping hand and a supportive friend, often when people need it most. Libraries improve us, enrich us, and inspire us. A library can make the difference: to a child discovering their love of reading, to an adult learning new skills, or to someone finding the support that they need to change their life. Yet many libraries today focus on surviving rather than thriving, and years of underfunding have left them struggling to provide their essential services. Not everybody has the space, the time, the skills or the hardware to engage with AI, but they will find all that help in the local library, provided by our wonderful librarians and library support staff.
In my constituency, local people are organising against the proposed closure of Auchterarder library in the coming financial year, and in Stirling the music tuition service is facing sweeping cuts. It is difficult to measure inspiration and joy, but it is easy to undervalue them. If we lose music tuition from our schools and libraries from our communities, we will lose parts of our civic soul.
The creators and the industry that supports them add colour and joy to our lives. By valuing creators, compensating them fairly and safeguarding the space and framework in which they operate, we can ensure we have a creative sector that thrives, is valued and adds value to our lives and our economy. We should start from the principle that creative output is linked to its creator and ensure that our laws reflect that, because when creativity flourishes, so does society.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
As we mark Holocaust Memorial Day and the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, it seems appropriate that we are debating the creative industries. I say that because the Holocaust was a brutal attempt by the Nazis to wipe out people and their cultures, and it is creative industries that are at the heart of growing and protecting our culture and helping wider society to thrive, rather than just survive.
What is culture? On a lighter note, was it me when I was at university many years ago, busking with an accordion in Sauchiehall Street in Glasgow? That might be stretching it a bit. Hunted Cow Studios in Elgin perhaps has a better shout. It produces a range of massively multiplayer online role-playing games, and its game graphics have included a 3D-rendered Elgin cathedral. Is it Fèis Spè or any of the other fèis across Scotland that promote Gaelic culture through poetry, music and song, particularly with primary schoolchildren and secondary schoolchildren, bringing new generations to connect with that wider culture and making the traditional artists of the future? Is it those involved in making the critically acclaimed “Outlander” TV series, which has been filmed in the heart of my constituency in the Cairngorms at Newtonmore? Is it even my wife’s aunt Margaret, who is a master kiltmaker in Grantown-on-Spey? Is it the luxury designer brand, Johnstons of Elgin, a family business that has been producing designer cashmere and tweed products for more than 200 years and employs around 650 incredibly highly skilled craftsmen and women? Could it be my tenuous link to creative genius? That is not my great-grandmother, who was a midwife in the valleys of Wales, but Richard Burton, whom she delivered.
I have not even touched on museums, touring dance groups, orchestras, Scottish Opera or amateur dramatic groups, which employ writers, set designers and sound and lighting engineers. We have music venues, from a function room above a pub to the OVO Hydro in Glasgow and Murrayfield in Edinburgh. In music, my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) has a past life as the keyboardist in a well-known Celtic rock band, Runrig. Being a shrinking violet, he does not tell anybody about that. They were the first band to get in the UK top 40 with a song entirely in Gaelic, “An Ubhal as Àirde”. That underlines the vital links between the creative industries and a thriving society and culture.
I recently attended a book launch in Elgin by Iain MacLachlain, a local writer who has written many books and struggled to get them published, as niche writers often do, however well they write. He has written it in Scots, and traditional language publishing is even harder to do. His book has been published by the small specialist publisher Rymour, with the support of a grant from the Scottish Government to support Scots language development.
Despite all these incredible creatives, it is not all positive. Some of the most creative people create their best work in the beauty and splendour of the north of Scotland, across the highlands and islands, Moray and Aberdeenshire. Where I live, the Government’s closest priority region for funding is the Edinburgh-Dundee corridor, which is well over 100 miles and a two-and-a-half-hour drive away. That is considerably further than the distance from the constituency of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). The most fragile rural economies, especially those at the heart of Scotland’s Gaelic culture, run the risk of being sidelined, despite the sterling efforts with productions such as “An t-Eilean”.
Another area of concern is the BBC’s regional spend. The funding allocated to regional spend could be used to pay for production and editorial work much further away from that region. We need to be careful about that and scrutinise regional spend carefully to ensure that it is being spent in the region it is meant for.
On AI, many others in the Chamber have said things that I would have said, so I will not go deeply into the subject; I agree with pretty much everything that has been said. We have to be incredibly careful with AI. The creative industries are an economic growth success throughout these islands, so we should not try to put artificial regions or boxes around them. We should support those industries to grow and thrive wherever our creatives are living and working, and we should not tie them up in copyright changes that reduce their output and force them to chase the protection they rightly expect for their creative work.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
From murals on beachside walks to a thriving Cornish film industry, and from a town-council-owned art gallery, theatre and library, to live music, including the biggest international shanty festival in the world, during which the population of Falmouth triples, we are blessed with the creative arts in Truro and Falmouth. They are all around us, all the time, but none of that would exist and impact our lives in such a positive or poignant way were it not for education in the creative arts. The world-class Falmouth University grew out of a 100-year-old art school with a strategic focus on creativity and technology. The campus on Woodlane is historic. Alumni include visual artist Tacita Dean and British sculptor Hew Locke. It leads the world in digital games design—I thought it did, although it seems that so do Guildford and Hartlepool —as well as fashion design, film, costumes and many other things. Art is all around us in Falmouth, and we should celebrate the role it plays in our lives and our economy.
I welcome the inclusion of the creative industries among the UK’s eight growth sectors in the Government’s recent industrial strategy. It is brilliant that the creative industries are recognised for the economic driver that they are. In 2022, as many have said—it bears repeating—Britain’s creative industries generated £125 billion, which accounts for almost 6% of the UK economy and represents nearly 2.5 million jobs. They contribute more than £8 billion to the UK economy every year.
Our globally loved art scene has a huge impact on the tourism economy. One in 10 tourists to the UK visited a theatre, for example, and theatres sell 34 million tickets a year across the UK. As well as the recently beautifully renovated Hall for Cornwall and the Princess Pavilion, which is also owned by Falmouth town council, in Cornwall we have the Minack, a famous open-air theatre carved into the granite cliffs overlooking Porthcurno bay. In the summer months, it is not uncommon for the dolphins to interrupt Shakespeare.
None of those things would be possible were it not for creative arts education at school, and in higher education institutions such as Falmouth University. A creative education has many positives for students. Not only does it allow them to create, but the long-term skills gained from an arts education, such as critical thinking and problem-solving, impact on other industries, such as tech and digital media. That drives economic growth. Falmouth leads the way in AI; Engineered Arts is building increasingly complex robots by the sea, and it is trying to grow, despite the lack of industrial space in the area.
As we see in Cornwall, creative arts are a regional growth driver. Cornwall is teeming with small and medium-sized enterprises and one-man bands that stimulate the independent sector and the growth of the whole area. That can be a vital lifeline for areas that struggle with deprivation, as Cornwall does. As we see in Truro and Falmouth, creativity hubs revitalise regions, bringing in the visitors that we need so much. Take the example of the growth of the Hall for Cornwall: our theatre has spread tentacles across the rest of the Duchy, attracting would-be actors and writers who want to get involved in the creative arts, but do not often have the opportunity.
In my constituency, we have the Poly, the Princess Pavilion and brilliant grassroots venues such as the Cornish Bank, the Old Bakery Studios and the Chintz, where musicians who are learning go to practice their art. The Minister has mentioned the venue levy; that will be vital for them. We are also building premises for a community radio station in the park with shared prosperity funding. That shows just how important the arts are to Falmouth. People come to us for the arts. However, that funding is not guaranteed and is no longer directed at plugging the gaps in local authority and national funding for arts and culture in our area.
I would love creativity to become a bigger part of the national curriculum, so that the arts have the prominent place that they should for students of all ages. STEAM—science, technology, engineering, arts and maths—puts the creativity of the arts alongside science and tech, where it belongs. Art is everywhere, but it does not come from thin air. Like all other endeavours, creative endeavours require financial support, and that funding should not be piecemeal and only urban, but must be integrated into the wider industrial strategy, and form part of a long-term regional art strategy that reaches all the way to places like Cornwall. The arts also require universal enthusiasm and long-term education. As we see in Falmouth, it is well worth the investment.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
When we talk about clusters of excellence, Wales must be at the forefront of the discussion. It is the birthplace of many famous musicians, actors and actresses, and the House can be assured that a steady flow of talent is in pipeline. I know that because last night I took my two sons to their first panto in Brecon, where we saw the Westenders’ performance of “Robin Hood”—a community show, like many across the country, that brings people together as only the arts can.
Whenever I go to these shows, I notice the volunteers who sacrifice endless hours to make sure that the show goes ahead. People spend a whole month washing all the costumes that people wear during the performances. As far as I am aware, washing a whole cast’s kit is something that AI cannot yet do. That is why it is so important that we listen to the people at the grassroots of our creative industries, who face similar challenges across the country.
We have heard that small towns across the UK—Brecon is certainly up there—can provide a big stage for upcoming talent. It is important to keep developing that talent pipeline. Sadly, the Welsh Government have proposed a 9% cut to the Arts Council’s revenue budget for 2024-25, which would come on top of a 10.5% cut the year before, leaving the revenue budget at its lowest since 2007-08. That reduction will put further strain on an already vulnerable sector.
As we heard from the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies), the creative industries are a powerful force in Wales, contributing more than 5% to our GDP and growing faster than the overall economy. With more than 35,000 people employed in the sector and a turnover of £1.5 billion in 2023-24, it is clear how vital the creative industries are to the Welsh economy. Film and television have been a massive success story. Wales is a global powerhouse in the UK’s media landscape, with shows such as “Gavin & Stacey” showcasing our talent to millions; over 19 million people watched the final this Christmas. Rob Brydon and Ruth Jones, we commend you. It is time for my humblebrag: my mum went to Porthcawl comprehensive school with them both.
The time for action to improve the arts is now. I am glad that the Government are talking about their plans for a better deal for the arts across the UK. We must make sure that includes Wales. The Welsh creative industries, especially our music and arts sector, must receive the support and investment that they need to survive and thrive. Clearly, we have the talent and the potential, but we need meaningful long-term policies and investment to ensure that the sector continues to grow and flourish for future generations.
As we have heard, the creative industries are a vital growth mechanism for the rural economy. That is why I am calling for a creative enterprise zone to be established in Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe, to give a platform and all the help we can to the creative artists and musicians across my constituency.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
At the weekend, the innovation, energy and entrepreneurship of the creative community in my constituency was on full display. Off Season Margate—part of our shared commitment to developing a year-round economy—was a weekend-long, town-wide exhibition of art created by a wide range of skilled creators, initiated by the award-winning artist Lindsey Mendick. From oil paints to embroidery, sculpture to ceramics and photography to screen prints, a whole range of skills were on display in the form of incredible art.
This was a democratic exercise in the power of creativity, involving world-renowned artist Tracey Emin and raw artists—people displaying their work in front rooms and cafés, as well as galleries, telling their stories, and reflecting their experience of the world through art. The weather played its part, because the sun was shining. Margate was buzzing. It was a clear demonstration of my three key arguments today: first, creativity is valuable not just because it is enjoyed by the consumers, but because it benefits the creators. They must be appreciated. Secondly, the creative industries have a crucial role to play in revitalising our coastal communities, where so many creatives choose to live. Thirdly, if this fundamental element of our society and economy is to thrive, we must develop the pipeline—the next generation of artists—by enshrining creativity in our national curriculum.
However, if we think of creativity simply as an industry, we lose something that makes it special. Creativity is fundamental to the human condition. It is woven into our daily lives and our history. The first example of civilisation is carvings on the walls of caves. Those people chose to record the world around them. They chose to leave a mark. They expressed themselves and the lives they lived. The need to express ourselves flows through human history and exists in every single one of us, but the ability to tap into it is artificially limited by an inequality of access to the arts. That is a failure of previous Governments, and because of it, we have fewer skilled creators and less well-rounded individuals, and society is depleted.
Talent is found everywhere in our country, but as so many hon. Members have pointed out, opportunity is not. If we do not allow every child the right to an arts education, we will miss out on the next Tracey Emin or Bob and Roberta Smith. The damage done to creative education by the introduction of the English baccalaureate and Progress 8, which led to a dramatic fall in the number of students taking up arts-based subjects, must be reversed at the earliest opportunity. I support that campaign, alongside Members from across the House who share my concern about the impact of those changes on our children, our society and our economy. How can we expect the creative industries to come anywhere close to their potential when the education system is actively dissuading children from studying creative subjects? Every arts subject is important, and every child deserves an arts education. As my badge from the Royal Academy of Arts says,
“Art is a serious subject.”
Art is never more serious than for children with special educational needs, for whom creative education is a vital tool allowing them to access learning and live their fullest lives. Sammy’s Foundation was set up by my constituent Patricia Alban after the tragic death of her son. Sammy had a rare genetic disease and autism and was unable to attend mainstream schools, but he found his passion and skill in craft. The foundation now helps other children with disabilities to learn heritage crafts as a way of uncovering their talents and to lead meaningful, connected lives with a sense of purpose. Considering we have a huge skills gap in our heritage crafts sector, it feels to me that it is a win-win to invest in arts education that harnesses the aptitudes of neurodivergent children, preparing them for purposeful and rewarding work creating beautiful things and contributing to the economy, rather than seeing them as a problem to be managed.
As well as inequality of access to the arts, there is inequality of reward. According to research from the University of Glasgow, the median income for visual artists is £12,500 a year—a 40% decrease in earnings since 2010. That is almost 50% lower than the income of a full-time minimum wage worker. On top of that, one in three creative industry workers is freelance.
When discussing the rise of AI and the challenges it poses for artists, my constituents are far from the luddites that some would like to dismiss them as. Polling from the Design and Artists Copyright Society shows that 84% of artists would agree to license their work for AI training so long as they received fair pay for it. However, they know that the fundamental act of creation is something that will always differentiate that which a machine has learned from what a human has made. Their right to have that work protected, and their freedom to engage with AI on their terms, is something on which I and many others will continue to seek reassurances from the Government.
This is not about resisting change; it is about bringing in change in a fair and equitable way. This is already a sector with low pay and a lack of security. If we do not put in proper safeguards, we will end up making jobs in this sector even more unappealing for those whose passion is to work in it. Data from the Creators’ Rights Alliance shows that 30% of photographers have already lost clients due to generative AI, while 26% of illustrators and 36% of translators have reported losing work. Two thirds of writers believe generative AI will cost them future earnings. We cannot afford to lose the ideas and imagination of these people—they are the people building the amazing heritage of Thanet, to shape an economy that thrives all year round and creates a pipeline of art and skilled creatives for the whole country. They also project our soft power into the world.
The benefits of investment in the creative sector in coastal communities is demonstrated by the Turner Contemporary in my constituency, which has contributed to a lively ecosystem around the visual arts, among many other things—all without a university to support it. I look forward to there being a coastal dimension to the creative industrial strategy that can engender similar vibrancy and sustain such initiatives for the long term.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I, too, represent a coastal seat, and I, too, know how coastal seats have been forgotten as part of the national story about our creativity. Bournemouth is the resting place of Mary Shelley and was home to Robert Louis Stevenson, and it is also home to many institutions such as Bournemouth University, the Arts University Bournemouth, the Russell-Cotes art museum and gallery and the Boscombe Arts Depot. The list could really go on—but I will not go on. Does my hon. Friend agree that coastal communities such as ours, which have voted Labour for the first time in a very long time—perhaps even for the first time—need their Labour Government to focus on their creative possibilities and to support the jobs and skills of the future?
Ms Billington
Coastal communities across the country are often places people escape to in order to find a place where they can really thrive. That is why coastal areas will be so important in developing a proper creative industry strategy.
East Thanet has long been an engine room for our country’s creative industries. If its future is to be as glorious as its past, and if we are to continue to use our soft power globally through our internationally famous artists and creators, creativity needs to be valued in and of itself. Creators need to be able to create with dignity and security, and all generations should be able to access art education to enhance their lives and society as a whole.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I am late in the debate, and we have a bit of a time limit already, so I will struggle to make all the points I would like to make. I will write to the Minister with any I fail to make—I think he knows what I will be chasing him up on.
I want to follow the hon. Members for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) and for Bury North (Mr Frith) in being a little philosophical with my points today. I believe that participation and enjoyment of the arts is a human right, as article 27 of the universal declaration of human rights says. It forms part of our post-Holocaust legacy of putting together a strong framework to recognise and protect the purpose and value of humanity after we saw just how bad things can get. As a Green, I spend a lot of time working hard to ensure the continuation of our ecological and physical environment which is necessary for our civilisation, but the reasons for our civilisation are just as much what gets me out of bed in the morning to come and do this job. I would argue for the arts and creativity, regardless of their impact on our GDP, any day of the week.
Last week, I had the very great honour of speaking at the Music Venue Trust’s annual report launch here on the parliamentary estate. I was absolutely delighted to do so because my constituency is home to so many amazing grassroots music and performance venues. We have the Green Door Store, Alphabet, Rossi Bar, the Prince Albert, Hope and Ruin, the Folklore Rooms, Komedia—I could go on and on. Since I was elected, I have been shocked at the amount of work venues and their allies still have to do to fight off damaging developments. In 2023, as other Members have mentioned, the Music Venue Trust reported that we lost 125 trading grassroots music venues. That trend has now reduced, but it is still not zero. The Music Venue Trust’s emergency response service—it has a huge caseload, with more than 200 cases last year—has a very good success rate in fighting off terrible planning applications, but it does so alongside music venues that are putting a lot of time and effort into that work. We are still seeing far too many appeals taken forward, some of which are successful.
I recognise that the adoption of the agent of change principle guidance in the NPPF has made a difference, but we need to go further. What remains to be done is to put the agent of change principle into a statutory framework. I raised that in this House with the Minister in November. As well as being excited that the Secretary of State and Ed Sheeran had a chat last week, the Minister told me that that chat involved talking about that precise issue. I have chased it up since, but I am still looking for a timetable, so I hope the Minister can today provide more details.
It is not just music that is fantastic in Brighton and Hove. We have a huge number of artisans, artists, makers, designers, restorers and creative businesses too. They depend on an infrastructure of studios, workshops and gallery spaces to not only make their work, but to show it and sell it to Brighton Pavilion residents and visitors alike. Those spaces are facing threats, including the need for refurbishment. The amazing Phoenix Art Space needs to refurbish. It is looking for space to move into and expand into later, but it is really struggling to find it. New England House, the first ever high-rise industrial business centre, is a light industrial space that many makers use. It needs urgent fire safety work. People are facing either refurbishment over an incredibly long time or possibly moving out in the meantime. We need the Government to support those kinds of venues.
My constituency is also packed full of inspiring theatre, comedy, dance and cabaret, and people working as writers and in media production and digital creativity. Many of those creatives have written to me with their serious concerns about the Government’s consultation on AI and copyright. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) mentioned the Digital Economy Act. Although not in this place, I was a campaigner on those issues at that time. In my last minute, I want to reflect very briefly on whether we as a society failed at that time, in those debates on digital impacts on creativity and copyright, to look at copyright terms—the amount of time for which copyright extends. It is very, very long, and we find now that copyright is being held in many older works not by the original creators but by rights holders.
I wrote something for a national magazine which, ironically, is now behind a paywall, so I cannot see exactly what I wrote, but I remember that I suggested that a copyright term of 10 or 20 years might be reasonable so that the young man who sat down and wrote “Yesterday” yesterday is protected for a reasonable period. Then we could start to build up public domain works and provide useful AI tools to train in ways that do not rip off creators. If we had thought about that earlier, there would probably be a simpler answer to the knotty question with which Ministers are grappling today.
I welcome the debate, and hope that we can continue to discuss this subject in the interesting way in which Members have discussed it today—Members who are genuine experts in their fields, and genuinely creative as well. However, it worries me that we are facing a bit of a watershed whereby today’s creators will not be rewarded, and we may get the law very slightly wrong once again when we look at the interaction of the modern world with the oldest part of our civilisation that exists, which is art.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I should begin by declaring an interest: my constituency office is in the Queen’s Hall community arts centre, so I can not only speak about the impact of the creative economy locally, but recommend the cheese scones.
Representing, as I do, a large and sprawling rural constituency, I am frequently reminded of the value of our creative economy—not just in the arts clubs in places such as Corbridge and Haltwhistle or centres such as Allendale Forge Studios, but in the community facilities that they provide and the community spirit that they foster, and in the events put on by organisations such as Throckley Community Hall. All those play a fundamental role in building up our local communities and supporting our local creative economy, but they also support the wider economies. For instance, they support our local hospitality businesses. The Queen’s Hall hosts some of the large acts at the Hexham book festival—the now Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), came to plug his own book during the last general election campaign, and went down very well on the doorsteps of Elvaston—and such events provide a massive boost for our local shops and cafés, as well as putting towns such as Hexham and the Tyne valley on the map.
When I speak to young people in my constituency, they often say that they want to pursue a career in the creative economy. It concerns me that what holds them back is not just a lack of access to a specialised education, but a lack of access to the infrastructure that would offer them some job opportunities. As we are coming up to the watershed, I should say that the Tyne Valley line is often subject to some creative language from my constituents owing to the delays. I arrived late for this debate, and had not been sure that I would make it because of those delays. Ensuring that our constituents have access to job and education opportunities and experiences should be at the heart of the Government’s policy, and I urge the Minister, as he speaks to colleagues, to ensure that we look not just at the outputs of the creative economy but at the inputs, and at what those young people can get out of it.
I am also privileged to represent some of the most stunning landscapes in England, including Hadrian’s Wall and the much-missed Sycamore Gap. At present, people will be hard pressed to visit a community arts fair in Northumberland without pictures of the Sycamore Gap being thrust at them from all corners. It is a tremendous loss, and I only hope that its frequent presence on screen, in documentaries and other films, will lead to more tourists coming to Northumberland and more investment in the creative arts in our area. Once “Vera” stops running, we shall need another series to step in and take its place. Once when I was being interviewed, someone thought that there had been a flash-forward episode in the market square, which scared me no end.
As we consider what the creative economy can do for not just our urban centres but our more rural constituencies, let me urge the Minister to consider the investments in infrastructure that could be fundamental to giving young people access to the highly paid, high-skill jobs that they need. I have badgered him about broadband connectivity before, in Westminster Hall, but those jobs do not necessarily have to be based in the urban centres; they can be based in the Hexhams, the Riding Mills and the Stocksfields of the world. If there is one thing that I like to speak about in this place more than anything, it is the need for younger people to be able to live where they grew up, should they wish to do so. It is a tremendous privilege to be the MP for where I grew up, but sadly on the street I am much more likely to bump into not those I grew up with, but their parents or grandparents.
As I finish, I return to the community halls, community theatres, parish halls and church halls. Those community assets are usually the places where I hold my surgeries. They define our communities, and they are the first to step up during major crises and major events that require the community to come together. In a rural environment, the creative industry is not just an industry; it is about the entirety of the community and what defines Northumberland and the north-east.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The creative industries undoubtedly make a significant contribution to our economy, but they are about much more than that. They make a broad and deep contribution to who we are, to our culture and to our nation. When it comes to economic contribution, in Northern Ireland we have a thriving creative industry in a number of spheres. Under the guidance of Northern Ireland Screen, which has as its honorary president the redoubtable Sir Kenneth Branagh, we have seen significant success in the screen industry and many successful productions, none more so than “Game of Thrones”. Happily, quite a bit of it was filmed in my constituency of North Antrim, at the famous dark hedges—where, sadly, on Friday we lost four of the large trees in the storm—and at Ballintoy harbour, among other places.
We are appreciative of that economic contribution, which does not end with the creative industries but creates, in the very names I mentioned, an advantageous spin-off in tourism. Many tourists come to North Antrim to see the dark hedges, and many tourists visit various filming locations. We are happy to have had that benefit in Northern Ireland. Of course, we also have the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is, in a manner of speaking, a creative industry in himself. There is no more creative Member of this House when it comes to finding an intervention in each and every debate.
Jim Allister
He is suddenly silent, thankfully.
That is all very good, but the thrust of what I want to say relates to a niche sector of the creative industries: the craft sector as it applies in Northern Ireland. The sector is often made up of one-man or one-person operations, or those involving a couple of people, but cumulatively it is quite important. However, in Northern Ireland it has had a huge and debilitating problem in recent months. Historically, it has, unsurprisingly, secured much of its raw materials from Great Britain, but because Northern Ireland was left behind in the EU single market, we are now subject to the general product safety regulation. Under that regulation, there are inhibitions on imports of the raw materials and goods necessary for the craft industry, as well as others. Bigger sectors can more easily withstand that, but smaller sectors cannot.
What is happening is that suppliers in GB are simply stopping supplying, because the bureaucracy of the GPSR is such that a business cannot supply into the EU market—and therefore, sadly, into a part of the United Kingdom, namely Northern Ireland—unless it has a person living within that perceived EU territory who is its “responsible person”. A business in Great Britain that wants to supply basic elements into the craft sector or some other sector in Northern Ireland has to pay to have someone in place in Northern Ireland. More than that, among the other requirements of the GPSR, that seller from GB needs to put labels on every product with the contact information of the responsible person and the contact information of the manufacturer—this is all about the internal market of our own country—and the responsible person’s name and contact details, including their postal and electronic addresses, need to be displayed in online listings. With that burden on suppliers, it is no surprise that, where the market for the product is small, they simply say, “It’s not worth the effort. We will stop supplying.” The loser in that is the Northern Ireland craft sector.
It has got to the ridiculous stage where some online retailers, such as Folksy, advise sellers that
“the UK now excludes Northern Ireland”.
That is a quote—the United Kingdom “now excludes Northern Ireland”. “Europe,” it says,
“has become EU & Northern Ireland”.
Amazon states on its seller website that “from December 13, 2024”—that is when the regulation came in—
“Responsible Person requirements will apply to most non-food consumer products offered for sale in the EU and Northern Ireland, under the…GPSR”,
and it tells its GB sellers that they must meet all the requirements I have just cited, including the labels saying who the responsible person is, how they can be contacted, who the product came from, and so on.
Unsurprisingly, that is crippling the craft market in Northern Ireland. Bizarrely, it has got to the point where we are told that it includes digital downloads. A lady called Alison Evans, who runs Zanycraftsuk, has been told that even digital downloads of knitting patterns are covered by the new regulations of the Irish sea border. Think of it: the EU single market is so fragile that it cannot withstand the downloading of a knitting pattern from Doncaster to Downpatrick. How ridiculous is that? Yet that is where we are with these regulations. The Minister told us that this Government would bulldoze barriers. Well, here is a barrier for him to bulldoze with all his might, in protection of the craft sector and other sectors in Northern Ireland.
That takes me to the AI controversy. [Interruption.] I will be very quick. I share many of the concerns, but I want to make this point clear to the House. The Government have said that they are going to be adventurous on AI, but not for Northern Ireland, because Northern Ireland is going to be subject to the EU’s regulations of AI, which are much more restrictive. So once more, divergence is leaving us behind and a separate regime is going to be the order of the day. That is another to barrier to bulldoze, Minister.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Here’s to a vibrant performance art sector in every community across the UK. Whether we are talking about school plays, choirs or theatre, in pubs, nightclubs or concert halls, the opportunities that they provide for enjoyment and life-enriching moments cannot be underestimated, and they must be valued and supported. I will give some examples of the successes and challenges in my constituency of Bath, and they will be mirrored in other towns and cities. I hope this debate will help to make the case for more Government funding of the performing arts, a sector where more is needed.
The creative world is very diverse. Many organisations have always existed entirely within the private sector. Others are supported locally by council funding or nationally by the Arts Council. Patrons and sponsors have always existed in this space, but for the last decade they have been expected to replace public funding almost entirely. In Bath, this has narrowed the offer and put enormous strain on organisers to balance the books. The finances of far too many organisations have become hand to mouth. Even in Bath, with its strong network of patrons and supporters of the creative industries, the pressure to balance the books and keep the show on the road makes for a long hard struggle.
According to the Campaign for the Arts, DCMS core funding of arts and cultural organisations has fallen by 18% since 2010. Equity’s analysis shows a 16% real-terms cuts in funding by arts councils nationwide, and that is further compounded by nearly £1 billion of cuts to arts and culture funding by local government across the UK. A decade ago, the big events in Bath received core funding from the council and sometimes the Arts Council, but no more. What is the result? Moles, the famous performance space for emerging talent in the centre of Bath, has closed, and despite the best efforts of local campaigners and the new Music Venue Trust, it is unlikely to open again.
The Bath Festival has amalgamated its musical and literary festivals into one and tries to de-risk its musical offer, but each year it gets harder. The Mission theatre successfully turned its buildings into a community asset and hopes to separate the finances of the building from all the experimental and small performances that take place in it, but each time the roof leaks or a window needs replacing, it entirely depends on local donors. The Bath Philharmonia came to Parliament to highlight the work it does with young carers, but none of that could happen without long-term financial backing. These are just some examples of the great efforts made by the creatives in Bath. Some will come through, but others will not survive the retirement of one or two key people or the loss of core funding. How can trusts and patrons be expected to keep these events and community venues alive single-handedly with so little Government support?
The Secretary of State’s recent announcement of £60 million for the creative industries is welcome, but it will do little to reverse the deep cuts of the last two decades. More importantly, funding must not be provided on a piece-by-piece basis. I reiterate what the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) said on this earlier. It should be devised as part of wider industrial strategy integrated with the reform of Arts Council England and a coherent and long-term growth strategy for regional arts. The Resolution Foundation’s state-of-the-nation report, “Ending Stagnation,” argues that the creative industries are a “rising British strength” that should form one part of
“the bedrock for a growth strategy”.
Theatres, for example, make a significant contribution to local economies. For every £1 spent on theatre, another £1.40 is generated in the local economy. If the Government are focused on growth, the creative industries should be at the core of their strategy.
I reiterate what my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) has already said: the UK now spends only 0.2% of GDP on arts and culture, compared with a European average of 0.5%. That puts us among the lowest public expenditure on arts and culture in Europe.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I know my hon. Friend has been to the cultural mecca of Taunton in Somerset, so will she credit the town council? She talks about long-term funding, and Taunton town council is putting £300,000 of funding into the arts over three years, including for the amazing Gaumont project to restore the Mecca bingo hall as a theatre.
Wera Hobhouse
I congratulate Taunton town council on putting that money into the arts. That is absolutely what is needed, but many councils struggle to balance the books and have to make very difficult decisions.
To deliver on the full potential of the UK’s competitive advantage in the arts and entertainment, additional public investment is required. We need to understand why we are so far behind the rest of Europe in terms of funding and take urgent action to correct that. Core funding is key to the resurgence of Bath’s creative sector, and of creative industries across the country. I hope this new Government can turn the page on the constant cuts to our creative industries and ensure that every community has a vibrant creative sector for all to enjoy.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was expecting to be tail-end Charlie again.
The creative industry has many facets from practical to digital and, as I mentioned in my intervention on the Minister, Northern Ireland excels in all of them. The Minister kindly responded in a very positive fashion, realising that each region of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland contributes to the creative industry.
My Strangford constituents are incredibly gifted, including those who carved the lion, the witch and the wardrobe into the trail at Rostrevor. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) mentioned his favourite film, “Paddington 2”. Well, Ards and North Down borough council has a statue of Paddington sitting on a bench and eating a sandwich in Conway Square, Newtownards, and people come from all over the place to take photographs, including me with my grandchildren. It has become one of the many tourist attractions in Strangford. It is a new one; Paddington has been instrumental in that.
From those encouraging nature walks, family time and tourism to the home crafters who sell through Etsy—or should I say used to sell through Etsy—the insidious Northern Ireland protocol has curtailed supplies to the extent that many of these small creative workers are trying to throw in the towel, but they cannot even source the material to make the towel. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) is right to make that point. I will not dwell on it, but I wanted to put it on the record. From those who upcycle defunct trombones into beautiful lamps to those who bake and sell their wares UK-wide through TikTok, the creative industry has the ability to thrive, yet it is being curtailed. Although I understand that this is not a debate on the damage done by the protocol, the protocol is intrinsically linked to the creative industry in Northern Ireland. Again, will the Minister please discuss this with the Cabinet and repeat the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, which I have also made to a lesser extent?
Before the full extent of the postal implications of the protocol came into force, our creative industry in Northern Ireland was going from strength to strength. The creative industry employs over 5% of the entire workforce and contributes nearly £1 billion of gross value added. The Department for Communities estimates that to be 29,000 jobs, or 3.4% of total employment in Northern Ireland. This is not a niche sector. It is a real sector that deserves real support.
The Minister should be greatly encouraged—as I am, and we all should be—by each Member who has spoken about the culture and creative industry in their constituency. When we add together the massive wealth of creative industry across each and every constituency, it augurs well for the future.
New and emergent technologies are a fast-growing market, and incorporating them into the creation and delivery of arts experiences can open up valuable new ways of generating income for arts organisations and individuals. Film NI and the promotion of film opportunities have grown massively, and we now see blockbusters filmed on our shores, which lifts and encourages us all. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim referred to the film sector, which is represented in my constituency as well.
Movie and screen productions filmed in Northern Ireland directly boosted the local economy by £330 million between 2018 and 2022. That period includes the covid years, which means the potential is even greater. The Minister referred to the comedy programme “Derry Girls”, which every one of us loves. It does not matter if people are Unionists or nationalists; humour is the same, whichever side it comes from. I know my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) is particularly enthralled by “Derry Girls” and he is of a very, very different tradition.
I have focused on the great jobs that are being done within our creative industries, but the purpose of the debate is to ensure that we retain the facility and ability to produce. Concerns have been highlighted to me that the talented people who make up our world-class creative industries, such as publishing, music and visual arts, will have to go to great lengths to opt out of their work being used to train the AI models. We must set our minds to that issue. In response to earlier queries, the Minister referred to how that will be done, so I am keen to hear from him just what that means. It has been said that the system is hugely burdensome and unworkable, especially for smaller rights holders. In companies with few employees, the opt-out system will create new costs and administrative burdens that will not be feasible for a great many in our creative sectors. We cannot lose that sector because of issues that could be stopped and changed.
The proposed exception would also jeopardise future potential growth in the UK’s world-leading creative sector, disincentivise the creation of new works, and weaken the property rights of creators and businesses of all sizes across the UK. We need truly to celebrate our creative industries. To do that, we must protect the current copyright framework—that is the big ask for the Minister, from me and many others.
In conclusion—I am conscious of time—our creative industries, both practically and digitally, need protection. We must prioritise that enterprise when we are considering innovation, so I look to the Minister to do that. He is enthusiastic and wants us to succeed, and I think we want to support him and help him to make that happen, so how can we protect and enhance this sector, which has so much potential?
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate, not least because I spent many years working in publishing before I came to this place. I have the honour of serving on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee and I am a former ambassador for Xbox, which is possibly the only time my son thought I was cool.
Recently, I visited Barton Peveril, a consistently successful local sixth-form college in my constituency, where many students have a keen interest in the creative industries. For all those students and the thousands of young people across the UK who want to pursue careers in film, music, video games, TV, fashion, architecture, design and, of course, publishing, it is vital that those sectors are supported. Yet over the past 14 years, there has been a 47% drop in students taking arts-related GCSEs and a 29% decline at A-level. Universities are also slashing creative courses; at least 14 institutions are cutting arts funding or merging departments. That is hugely concerning. Arts education fosters ingenuity, critical thinking and innovation, which are skills that benefit all industries. We must protect arts education and funding.
For those talented performers who want to share their work, Brexit red tape continues to make it unnecessarily difficult for performers and artists to tour in Europe. The complex visa and permit requirements stifle opportunities for British talent to showcase their work abroad, and independent musicians are among those hardest hit. Touring has become increasingly hard because of the mountain of bureaucracy now involved. Musicians face navigating different visa rules for each EU country and financial burdens that make tours unviable for many. I sincerely hope that will be addressed.
As we have heard, AI poses a growing threat, and Sir Paul McCartney and Sir Elton John are right to have concerns about that issue. While AI offers exciting opportunities, it must not come at the expense of our talent. Recent reports that The Guardian used AI to produce stories during industrial action are concerning. Can the Minister outline what steps the Government will take to ensure that AI serves and enhances the creative industries, rather than undermines them? The Association for UK Interactive Entertainment has highlighted the need for better support to ensure that the gaming industry, which is growing rapidly, can continue to thrive. Sector-wide job losses and the rise of AI replacing creative roles are putting studios under immense pressure. As a global leader in video game creation, it is vital that we protect this sector.
To ensure that Britain remains a global leader in creativity, we need continued safeguarding of copyright, investment in arts education, and more support for grassroots venues. We should be proud of our creative industries, so let us work together to ensure that they continue to be world class. I hope that the Government will provide the ambition, investment and vision needed to ensure that the creative industries continue to thrive.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It is a privilege to wind up the debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Official Opposition. There have been impressive contributions from across the House, and many Members have highlighted how their constituencies deliver for the UK’s creative industries. We heard from the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), who participated in a punk rock band—the last one to perform at The Roxy, he said, although I think the jury is out on that. We also heard from the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), who I believe performed at Glastonbury. I do not think he talks about that enough; he should do so more in the future.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) highlighted the places that made him the man he is today. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) secured a meeting for not just himself but his Labour colleague, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley)—a great example of cross-party working. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) made a very serious point about the impact of the Budget on the creative industries. The Chair of the DCMS Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), gave a tour of the power of the creative industries across the country. She is doing an excellent job of holding the Government to account.
As we have heard, the UK’s creative sectors are world-leading. They provide opportunities for young people up and down the country to gain employment and skills that can transform their lives. I welcome the fact that so many Members across the House recognise the potential of the creative industries to grow the economy. The UK’s creative industries are truly formidable. In both cultural and economic terms, they are absolute titans. In 2023 alone, it is estimated that the creative industries contributed around £124 billion to the UK economy—in other words, about 5% of our overall economic output. There has been a steady rise in the value of the creative industries to the UK, from accounting for 4.7% of economic output in 2010 to over 5.2% in 2023. It is important that we in this place recognise their growing importance in economic terms.
Our creative industries are also immense in terms of jobs. Around 2.4 million people work in the sector, which totals around 7.1% of all UK jobs. Although the creative industries are still quite heavily London-based, we see diversification of the sector and clusters of creative industry right across the UK, from the leading video game development hubs in Stoke-on-Trent to the beating heart of Northern Ireland, where the creative industries sector employs 29,000 people. Huge swathes of the UK benefit from our creative industries. I know that at first hand, as a west midlands MP. The remarkable director Steven Knight, who created “Peaky Blinders”, runs an incredible project in Birmingham where he recruits 20% of people from the most deprived neighbourhoods. Steven’s record shows that we must continue to champion our creative industries sector, because it has real potential to drive social mobility and generate economic growth. As “Peaky Blinders” is a huge international success, our creative industries ensure that Brand Britain rules on the international stage.
We cannot measure the value and importance of our creative industries just in economic terms, because their reach is impossible to estimate truly. Government statistics show that between July and September 2023 there were 12.5 million visits to DCMS-sponsored museums and galleries. Given the Government’s desire to ensure that 50 million people come to the UK each year, allowing these cultural hubs to thrive will bring more people to the UK to visit some of our great cultural attractions. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) set out, the Conservatives have a proud record of supporting the creative industries. Between 2010 and 2022, the creative industries grew at more than double the rate of UK gross value added, expanding by over 50%. During that period, over one million new jobs were created in the sector. Rather than burdening the creative industries with tax hikes, we introduced over £1 billion of tax reliefs, including the UK independent film tax credit and business rates relief for theatres and cultural venues.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon set out, during the pandemic we introduced unprecedented support for the creative industries, including the £1.57 billion culture recovery fund, the £500 million film and TV production restart scheme and the £800 million live events reinsurance scheme. That support protected over 5,000 organisations and safeguarded 220,000 jobs, ensuring that our creative industries could bounce back and continue to offer opportunities for young people.
As we have heard, our ambition did not end there. In government, the Conservatives published a sector vision setting out our plan to grow the creative industries by £50 billion and create one million new jobs. These were jobs for young designers, artists, writers, creatives and others who wanted to bring joy, inspiration and opportunities to the lives of others. In this debate, the Government claimed to have similar aspirations for the creative industries and the young people eager to build careers in them, but we know that is simply not true.
Labour Members have spoken warmly about the creative industries, their impact on the economy and the many opportunities that they bring to young people, but the Government’s actions speak louder than their words. The Government know that one in eight young people are not in education, employment or training, and that many lack the essential skills and confidence to progress in work. How did Labour rise to that challenge? It scrapped the National Citizen Service.
The NCS, introduced by the previous Government, was designed to support young people during a crucial time in their life, connecting them to peers from many walks of life. It gave them opportunities to build their skills and confidence, and empowered them to make a difference in their communities. Having delivered over a million experiences to young people, who took part in over 18 million hours of volunteering, the NCS made a real difference. Does the Minister recognise that Labour’s decision to scrap the NCS will mean that fewer young people take up the opportunities presented by the creative sectors? UK Youth has warned that scrapping the National Citizen Service and the youth investment fund, along with other cuts, could lead to a net reduction in central Government funding for youth services in 2025-26, possibly by tens of millions of pounds. That will inevitably hurt the creative sector.
Many Labour Members spoke warmly about the creative sector, but their Government are doing irreparable harm to its industries. The truth is that the Chancellor’s Budget of broken promises raised taxes to the highest level ever and introduced a national insurance jobs tax. Labour slashed retail, hospitality and leisure relief. There is nothing to protect the creative industries from the Deputy Prime Minister’s radical Employment Rights Bill—a ill-thought-through piece of legislation that will bolster the power of the trade unions and take the country back to the 1970s.
Gareth Snell
The hon. Gentleman’s point about the trade unions is absolute nonsense, but that aside, he was first elected in 2019. He is on record as publicly supporting former Prime Minister Liz Truss and, according to Hansard, voted for the health and social care levy, which was a larger increase in national insurance across a much broader spectrum. At no point did he raise concerns about the creative industry then, so would he like to take this opportunity to apologise for that, or is this just naked political point scoring?
Saqib Bhatti
The hon. Member makes an interesting point. I can see the Whip furiously making notes: “Give the man a job.” He was reading that off the Whip’s handout, and that is all I will say.
Our creative industry sector, and especially the young people within it, will pay the price of the Chancellor’s growth-killing Budget and the Deputy Prime Minister’s radical Employment Rights Bill. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that Labour’s national insurance jobs tax could lead to fewer opportunities. The sad truth is that under this Labour Government, many businesses in the creative sector will not survive. Don’t just take it from me; take it from Sir Nicholas Hytner, the former artistic director of the National Theatre, who warned that Labour’s jobs tax will force businesses to close, or from UK Theatre, which warned that 40% of venues could close in the next five years due to Labour’s autumn Budget. The inevitable truth is that this Labour Government are a threat to the entire creative industry sector.
But it is not just the Government’s rampant socialism that poses a huge threat to the creative industries. [Interruption.] I am glad Government Members are cheering the demise of the creative sector; people in them will be listening. Alongside the catastrophic impact of Labour’s increase in national insurance, there is the Government’s copyright and AI consultation, which is causing deep concern for the creative industries, but also for many Labour Members. The Minister’s preference for a data mining opt-out for the creative industries will place extra burdens on creators, who are rightly concerned that their work is under threat. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) and many others made a compelling argument about how damaging the Government’s proposal is.
Given the magnitude of the potential changes to copyright and AI, one would think that the Minister would have allocated significant time for creative industry sectors to raise their views. Instead, during the Christmas break, he rolled out a consultation that finishes just next month. He left the creative industries scrambling to raise their concerns with a Government who refuse to listen.
The Minister also works in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, so can he tell me why, as my hon. Friend for Gosport mentioned, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has refused to meet representatives from the creative sector? I have heard myself just how worried, angry and frustrated the creative industry sector is about this proposal. Does the Minister have any idea about its impact? Has he considered having a full and transparent impact assessment to properly understand how the sector will be harmed by these changes? My right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon put forward some really important points and challenges, and I look forward to hearing the answers to those.
In our last exchange at the Dispatch Box, I asked the Secretary of State questions about her national youth strategy, but my questions remain unanswered. I hope that the Minister, in his closing statement, can address the serious concerns we have raised about Labour’s Budget of broken promises and its radical Employment Rights Bill, as well as the serious issues we have highlighted around the Government’s AI and copyright consultation.
I repeat, slightly changed, the question I asked Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box less than two weeks ago: can the Minister guarantee that the Chancellor, in a desperate attempt to save her job, will not balance the books by putting the burden on the back of our creative industry sector? When I asked the Secretary of State that question, she said that it was tired. Well, I can tell the Minister that Conservative Members will not tire of standing up for our young people; we will not tire of standing up for our creative sectors; and we will not tire of holding the Government to account.
Chris Bryant
Siri, show me an example of political hyperbole. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am terribly sorry, but it is me again—I am winding up the debate tonight. It was a really good debate, and it was going exceedingly well, as Mr Kipling would say, until the last few moments. Given all the demonstrations of talent that we have had from around the Chamber, I feel that we should put on a show. In fact, I gather that while we have been debating these issues, Mr Speaker has appeared on television in the 10,000th episode of “Emmerdale”, so we are a talented House.
As I think everybody has said, the creative industries have enormous economic importance. If any Members have not yet seen the “Starring GREAT Britain” campaign, which we launched in the last few days for our tourism, I really hope that they will google it and have a watch—but not during the debate, obviously. It is hilarious and very clever. It is all about trying to get tourists, because somewhere between 60% and 70% of international visitors to this country want to see places where films and TV were made.
As has been mentioned many times, the creative industries have massive social importance. They are about shared experiences, walking in other people’s shoes, and having empathy for those with a different meaning of life. So many Members referred to the personal importance of discovering ourselves and discovering confidence. Several Members referred to young people who have never had the opportunity for of proper creative education, and who find it difficult to have confidence going into any line of work.
We have also heard quite a lot about the interconnectedness of all the different aspects of the creative industries. I went to a play last night at the King’s Head theatre in Islington called “Firebird”. It is based on a film that is based on a book. The Royal Shakespeare Company’s new video game, Lili, is based on Shakespeare’s play “Macbeth”. No film is made without costumes, design, make-up, hair and all the rest of it, and no industry in this country would last without design or marketing. It is a simple fact that the creative industries are woven into every part of our British economy. If I might steal a moment from the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies), she is quite right—the poem is a good one:
“To be born in Wales, not with a silver spoon in your mouth, but with music in your blood and with poetry in your soul, is a privilege indeed.”
I sort of agree, but it should not be a privilege. Songs, poems, books, plays, films and television stories—all those things are part of our birthright as British people. We should never sell that birthright for a mess of pottage, to quote the Old Testament. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) that we should always be on the side of the humans.
Chris Bryant
I have two Liberal Democrats wanting to intervene. It is very difficult to decide between them. I will give way to the one who has not taken part.
Clive Jones
Shinfield studios, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang), has created jobs for many people in my constituency of Wokingham and has been singled out in the Financial Times as having high ambitions for growth this year. It is using the UK’s tax credit scheme for film and TV production, and it is a great domestic skills base. Will the Minister visit Shinfield studios with me and the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley, and have a conversation with the owners?
Chris Bryant
I have already had several conversations with the owners. It is a brilliant facility. As I said in my first speech today, we have a large number of studios. Incidentally, I am delighted that we launched the Labour campaign for Earley and Woodley just outside those studios. That obviously brought us good luck. Of course, I am happy to visit when time allows.
I am not sure that I will be able to answer every single question that has been asked, but there was one subject that exercised quite a lot of Members: access for all to the arts and creative industries.
David Chadwick
I thank the Minister for giving way; it is very gracious of him. Many young farmers in Wales have told me that they would love to watch the output of the UK creative sector, particularly on Netflix, but they cannot. They are not able to download Netflix because their broadband is not good enough. What would the Minister advise them to do?
Chris Bryant
They should get in touch with the Telecoms Minister, but unfortunately he is rubbish. That is me. I am very happy to talk about the broadband issues in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency at any point, and if he wants a meeting with Building Digital UK, we can go through the specifics area by area. I have offered that to as many Members as I can.
Getting back to the creative industries, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) was channelling his inner Frank Sinatra; he basically said, “If we can make it here, we’ll make it anywhere.” He made a very good point: we need to make sure that creativity is perceived not as something that we see only in the big cities of this country, but as something that we need to exercise in every single part of the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan) made a very similar point about her constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) made precisely that point—that creativity is not just about cities, but towns—as did my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris).
The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) said, “If only we could recruit from not just one demographic.” I feel that so strongly. Perhaps the most famous actor from my constituency was Sir Stanley Baker from Ferndale, famous for “Zulu”, a film that every Welsh person has to watch about 52 times a year. Bringing people into the creative industries from every demographic is a really important part of what we need to do.
Chris Bryant
Well, my speech was meant to be brief. I will give way as long as Madam Deputy Speaker does not complain later.
Blair McDougall
I will be very brief, and I thank the Minister for giving way to a rampant socialist. In the light of the comments from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, does the Minister agree that just like people in all other sectors, the people who sell our programmes, build our sets and provide catering for our film sets deserve regular hours, and not to face zero-hours contracts that exploit them?
Chris Bryant
I completely agree. One of my colleagues—I cannot remember which—made a point about freelancers. One of the problems in the creative industries is that so many people today are freelancers, and it is very difficult for them to enjoy a regular income, take out a mortgage and so on. My mother was a make-up artist at the BBC in the 1950s—she looked after Shirley Bassey’s wigs, among other things—and in those days that was a full-time paid role, but hardly a single make-up artist is afforded that today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) made a point about the Hatters, but also about music and games in her constituency, and the importance of enabling emerging artists to prosper. My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) likewise made the point that we have to get beyond London and the south-east. That is sometimes a major issue in trying to attract commercial money into the creative industries, on which we are very focused.
My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) made a point about the importance of devolution, because we want to be able to make sure that this extends across the whole United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) made points—different cultural points—about books in Scots and the Gaelic song sung by Runrig. It is hardly ever mentioned that the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) used to play in Runrig. [Laughter.]
Another subject that was predominant in the debate was about creative education and skills. The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), who I think is in every debate I ever take part in, was absolutely right about the need to provide for greater skills in film. That is one of the things international companies come to the UK for, because we have such great film skills. In the past, such people were often trained by the BBC, but there is now very a different structure.
The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) told us about his musical past, but he clarified for us the difference between correlation and causation: I think the Roxy closed on the day he sang there or played there, not because he played there. My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) made a very important point about Falmouth School of Art, where Tacita Dean, among others, trained. Of course, being able to have those centres of excellence spread across the whole of the United Kingdom—whether down in Falmouth or in Margate in Thanet—is really important.
In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) made the point about the next generation and the inequality of access to the arts for many people. She also made a really important point about neurodivergent people. An interesting fact I came across when working with people in the jewellery industry is that more than 50% of people who work in jewellery are neurodivergent, and that is enabled by the Responsible Jewellery Council. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) made an important point about the drop in A-levels and other exams. We need those skills not just for the arts themselves, but for all other industries, because those skills are needed by everybody.
I will come back to the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), but I notice that they want to bulldoze barriers. The hon. and learned Member almost persuaded me that Brexit was not a very good idea—I am probably not meant to have said that.
On financial burdens—a couple of Conservative Members mentioned the issue of national insurance contributions—I understand the political points that are being made. However, I would just point out that 50% of businesses will pay less in national insurance contributions or the same under the new scheme. Considering that most businesses in the creative sector are smaller than in the wider economy, that probably means there is a higher percentage in the creative industries. I do not want to diminish the concerns of many in this sector, but I do want to get this right.
I think my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) referred to the problem of people not paying for content and, for that matter, not paying artists when they come and perform. How often is it that everybody says, “Oh, we’ll get a singer along—I’m sure they’ll do it for free”? That is one of the things we need to put an end to, because in the end it should be possible for people to be able to make a living properly in the creative industries.
Several Members referred to the issue of music venues, including the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), who also spoke about financial backing in her own constituency, and the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), to whom I have to say that I was really not convinced by the idea of curtailing the period of copyright to 10 years. I think that would destroy the livelihoods of thousands and thousands of people in the creative industries in the UK, but if she wants to put it to the electorate, then good luck with that.
I do not know how to refer to them—the Waldorf and Statler over there—but it is great that the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) and the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) both talked about the Soft Power Council, and I am glad we have got that up and running. I would be interested to hear whether they have specific ideas about what we should do. Good points were made by several Members about the British Council. I thought it was an act of vandalism a few years ago when it was effectively cut into ribbons, and it is a job of work for us to put it back together.
The hon. Member for Gosport is right about the Creative Industries Independent Standards Authority. We are committed to that, and I do not think that work is yet completed. I praise Jen Smith and Baroness Helena Kennedy for the work they are doing, and anything that we can do to help, we will. The hon. Lady is also right about British stories. We want a mixed economy. We will talk about this more at the Select Committee tomorrow morning, but we want a mixed economy in film and for everybody to come and make their films here—American movies, Korean movies, Spanish movies, whatever—but we also want to make British stories in Britain that reflect the Britian that we live in, keeping some of that British IP in the UK so that the value remains here. The right hon. Member for Maldon rightly referred to the cultural protection fund, which of course we are committed to. That is important, not least in relation to our work in Ukraine.
Many Members mentioned artificial intelligence, and I fully understand the levels of concern, so let me say a few things. First, intellectual property is central to the viability of the creative industries, both individuals and the industries themselves. What are they selling, other than intellectual property?
Secondly, many creative industries of course use AI— my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) referred to this in his very good speech—including Paul McCartney in the last year. I do not for one minute suggest that the creative industries are luddites—people seem to think that I have said that, but I certainly have not and it is not what I believe.
Thirdly, good generative AI needs good quality data, and that means licensing—paying for and getting permission for good quality data that is embodied in creative intellectual property. Mike Gross of Data Conversion Laboratory has made that point, and he knows his stuff. I suspect that in future the really good successful generative AI companies will be ones that go down that route.
Fourthly, we seek more licensing—in other words, more remuneration—greater control of rights, and legal clarity for all, and we are seeking to achieve those three things combined. As I said earlier, this is a genuine consultation. All of us are listening. I am doing most of the meetings with the creative industries. I know my counterpart in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Feryal Clark) is doing lots of meetings with the creative industries and people in AI, but most meetings with the creative industries are my job.
Doing nothing is not an option for us, as that would simply mean that we would have to wait for the courts to do their work. In truth, several court cases are already going on. Some of them have come to mutually contradictory views in different jurisdictions, and they do not necessarily provide the clarity of precedent that we might want. It is surely wrong that the only people who can enforce their rights are those with the deepest pockets who can afford to go through long, protracted and expensive court cases. I do not think doing nothing is an option. I am very much in the business of listening to what people think we should do. I have heard quite a lot of the things that people think we should not do, but I would love to hear things that people think we should do.
Quite a lot of people from the creative industries have knocked on my door. We have had meetings. Indeed, we have had very open meetings, and people have expressed their concerns. They have expressed support for some elements, including some that have not even been mentioned in this debate. I am determined to keep on listening to the debate, and to try to find a solution that delivers for the creative industries and for artificial intelligence. It cannot be beyond the wit of humanity to be able to deliver that.
Pete Wishart
It is encouraging that there is real positivity to the Minister’s comments, and I understand that he is trying his hardest to resolve a tricky question. He has heard the creative industries, and he knows that this idea of an opt-out does not work for them. It is all good telling us what we are not supporting and what we would support, but what does he support? If the opt-out is not going to happen, what would he do?
Chris Bryant
I support securing more licensing, greater control of rights and legal clarity for all. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. As I said to the right hon. Member for Maldon, there is not a version of rights reservation that works at the moment and is simple and easy. As an author, I know that if someone wants to register for the public lending right, they have to go online and register each of their works. That is relatively simple and straightforward for someone who writes books, because they have only two or three or four. For a photographer, it is a completely different business. We have to come to a technical answer that works for everybody. If there is not a technical answer, we will have to think again. That is the sum total of where we are at. Everybody has supported the transparency measures that have been referred to. It might be that Members would also want to support some of the rights to a personality that have been exercised in some parts of the United States and other parts of Europe that have not been referred to.
I am sure everybody wants me to stop by now. The hon. Member for Gosport referred to several songs that she thought I should adopt as my motto. I think one was “Respect”. I am not sure whether she meant Aretha Franklin’s “R-E-S-P-E-C-T”, or Erasure’s “A Little Respect”, which I prefer:
I try to discover
A little something to make me sweeter.
I am not sure which of those two she prefers, but I think I will rely on Depeche Mode in the end. When it comes to the creative industries,
I just can’t get enough.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the creative industries.
Business without Debate
Procedure
Work and Pensions
Intensive Poultry Units
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I am honoured to have been asked to present this petition on behalf of more than 30,000 supporters of the Soil Association who are deeply concerned about the impact of intensive poultry production on river pollution. This issue is of particular concern to residents in my constituency of North Herefordshire, where the River Wye and its tributaries, such as the River Lugg, are deeply impacted by phosphate pollution, with troubling effects on wildlife and the wider economy. Indeed, the concern prompted me to establish the all-party parliamentary group on water pollution, of which I am co-chair.
The 30,543 petitioners
“therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to introduce a ban on new intensive poultry units, to support farmers to exit this industry and to take action to reduce chicken consumption to more sustainable levels.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that industrial chicken farming produces huge volumes of polluting chicken manure which, when spread as fertiliser on nearby fields, can cause phosphate from the manure to leech into rivers, causing algal blooms which starve the river of oxygen; further that the River Wye is close to complete ecological collapse, with damaging pollution from industrial chicken farming as a leading cause; notes that the Environment Agency reports ‘unacceptable levels’ of phosphate in over half of English rivers; and further that other rivers across the United Kingdom are also at serious risk from an increase in intensive poultry units; and further notes that a similar online petition by the Soil Association received over 30,000 signatures.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to introduce a ban on new intensive poultry units, to support farmers to exit this industry and to take action to reduce chicken consumption to more sustainable levels.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003035]
A&E Services: Solihull Borough
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
I stand today to make the case for accident and emergency services in Solihull borough. Ever since I was first elected in 2019, through covid to now in 2025, I have campaigned for better health resources in my constituency and across Solihull borough. Like many across the country, I am grateful for the national health service. Indeed, I owe my life to the NHS, having fallen seriously ill as a child at the age of three. It was an NHS doctor who saved my life after my parents had been told I had mere hours to live, and it was NHS nurses who cared for me. When my children were born, NHS nurses delivered them and NHS doctors cared for them and for my wife. Like many of my constituents, I am ever grateful for the NHS staff who were on the frontline during the pandemic, in the most difficult circumstances that one can imagine.
I am proud to stand up for the NHS in my constituency. I have been fortunate to have campaigned for a number of successful outcomes in the borough of Solihull, where we have a positive story to tell. I supported the introduction of integrated care systems in the Health and Care Act 2022. As I said to the then Health Secretary, it was clear to me that we needed an organisation that would be more accountable to the public. The Birmingham and Solihull integrated care board was born as a result of that legislation.
The Solihull Conservatives led a campaign to get a new urgent treatment centre, and our petition garnered more than 11,000 signatures. I am pleased that the UTC at Solihull hospital was opened in 2023. It has been vital in easing pressures on local services and for local residents, and I have used it for myself and my family. We also have new elective surgery units, built with start-of-the-art robotics. I am delighted that just a few weeks ago, they reached their 1,000th operation.
On top of that, the brand-new locality hub at Solihull hospital aims to provide early intervention and urgent response care for patients in the borough, and it will be vital in providing much-needed relief for local services. Alongside that, the brand-new community diagnostic centre that I secured for north Solihull is currently being built. I had the pleasure of visiting the new facility, which is forecast to deliver almost 116,000 diagnostic appointments, including MRIs, ultrasounds and much more.
As the Minister will see, we have a strong track record of delivering health services for our constituents in the borough of Solihull. However, one thing is lacking. It is clear when I talk to local residents that Solihull borough needs accident and emergency services. Solihull hospital used to have an A&E, but it closed in 2013. A recent write-up of my campaign by the Solihull Observer correctly identified that, stating:
“Historically Solihull did have an A&E department but in 2013 hospital bosses admitted there had not been a full and proper A&E at Solihull for many years – with A&E services dwindling bit by bit over two decades.”
The Minister will note that things have seriously changed. First of all, Solihull hospital is thriving. I am pleased that there has been a collective recognition that it must be nurtured and preserved. Silhillians who are in need of medical treatment for broken bones, sprains, cuts, stomach pains, rashes and minor burns can always book an appointment at the urgent treatment centre that I just mentioned at the Lode Lane hospital, but for anything more serious, residents are redirected to Heartlands hospital in Bordesley Green.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Member’s Financial Interests, given my background in the GMB trade union, which represents ambulance workers in the West Midlands ambulance service. Does he agree that during the difficult winter period, ambulance staff endured an extremely difficult time, and we should all pay tribute to their professionalism? Does he further agree with ambulance crews that if we had more community-based health services, pressure on those central accident and emergency centres would be reduced?
Saqib Bhatti
The hon. Member makes an important point. Every winter we see the strain on our health services. Our professionals in hospitals and ambulance services always make an important contribution. His second question is really for the Government. I will talk a little more about the future vision for my constituents and his.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member on securing this debate, and I share his concerns. In my constituency and the neighbouring one, units in North Down and Ards were closed and moved to Dundonald, putting pressure on that hospital. At the A&E at Dundonald—perhaps Solihull is the same—patients have to wait 14 hours to be seen for a heart attack. The A&E must be up to scratch. Travelling is one thing, but the A&E has to be able to respond. Does he agree that we need the right A&Es?
Saqib Bhatti
I cannot disagree with the hon. Gentleman. He makes a really valid point. Of course, it is about not just the travel time, but the time that is spent there. As I will come on to say, there is discussion about the A&E at Heartlands hospital, which has similar issues.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
On the point about time spent waiting in A&E, one issue we have found in Winchester is that a significant proportion of the caseload consists of people with mental health issues—sometimes suffering a mental health crisis. Many of them are already on a waiting list, but some mental health waiting lists are hitting 18 months or two years from the point of referral to the necessary specialist treatment. That is putting a huge amount of pressure on our A&E departments, as it takes a huge amount of resources to deal with mental health crises. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that investing heavily in mental health services will also help to reduce A&E waiting times?
Saqib Bhatti
Of course, investment will make a big difference. That is why I think integrated care boards play an important role, because there is accountability all the way up to the Minister. It is also about how resources are distributed locally for the needs of the community.
I spoke about the journey to Heartlands hospital. At any given time, it can take 40 minutes, and it quite regularly takes more than an hour. In a situation where every minute matters, I am afraid that is just not good enough for my constituents. It could quite literally be a matter of life or death.
Solihull borough has a population of approximately 216,000 people, and that is set only to grow.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and for bringing this debate to the Chamber. Being neighbouring MPs, he and I have worked very closely on this issue. He notes the size of Solihull borough; of course, with the Government’s housing plans, that is likely to increase significantly, almost touching a quarter of a million. Does he agree that in those circumstances, it is absolutely critical that we have an A&E provision within the borough to serve the community?
Saqib Bhatti
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution and for all the work he has done on the matter, including the petition he launched, which I will come on to later. He is absolutely right, and he leads me to my next point.
The Minister’s own Government have set out their planning reforms, which mean that valuable and precious green belt will now be built on as housing numbers are massively increased, putting our local infrastructure under strain. As we can see, that is a concern across the country, on a cross-party basis. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) has made significant progress talking to his constituents on this issue. I know they feel exactly the same way, and I look forward to working with him.
Significantly, more than 40% of our residents are reportedly over the age of 50. As we go through this especially cold winter, as the hon. Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) said, we must all remember that the winter is a challenging time not only for the NHS, but for our constituents. Cold and flu cases are at their peak and place additional pressures on the NHS. Every Christmas, we face a timely reminder that we are in desperate need of an A&E in Solihull, so I am grateful to have secured this debate early in the new year.
Although I will not focus on social care today, I can assure the Minister that I will return to this topic at some point. I simply make the point that kicking the can down the road on issues such as social care will cause further anxiety to my constituents and exacerbate the strain on our hospitals. All Governments, of all ilks, need to deal with social care.
The Government’s response does not deal with social care, nor does it deal with the problem of the country’s ageing population, especially in areas such as Meriden and Solihull East. The long-term social care issues faced by our NHS are made far worse by the fact that there is a national average of 14% more attendees at A&E than there were 10 years ago, which means that more people now face longer waiting times. As of August 2024, 65.4% of patients in Birmingham and Solihull ICB spent less than four hours in A&E departments, and that is markedly below the NHS target of 95%. I hope that the Minister might be able to comment on that and share any thinking on increasing that figure.
I believe I have already set this out adequately, but it is worth repeating that residents in my borough have to travel to different areas to access A&E services. Given the size of the local population and the likelihood that demand for emergency services will only increase further, it is obvious that Solihull residents need to be supported by dedicated A&E services. That is because a dedicated A&E in Solihull borough will take pressure off other A&E departments, lowering waiting times across the whole area to the benefit of thousands of people in the west midlands. Can the Minister give any indication as to whether she considered those arguments in the previous correspondence that my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley and I have had with her?
Moreover, my constituents and I are very concerned that this issue will become increasingly pressing because of the Government’s planning changes and their potential changes to the national policy planning framework. If the Government were to achieve the objective of removing consent from local people, the demand for local infrastructure—from schools to roads and health services—would go up and inevitably become unsustainable.
I launched my petition in May last year to restore A&E services to Solihull hospital. I can confirm to the Minister that I did not know a general election would be called a week later. Within a week, we had about 1,000 signatures. I have had about 1,600 and I think my hon. Friend has had a similar amount, so we are reaching more than 3,000 residents who support our campaign. The petition remains open on our websites for further support. I assure my constituents that I will not falter or waver in my resolve to see the campaign through.
Let me help the Minister. I understand that such projects do not happen overnight, but surely she will agree that a case such as this must be looked at. There has to be a long-term vision and plan to start to deal with issues, such as an increased population, which are clearly coming down the road. When my hon. Friend and I wrote to the Minister in November, we outlined the arguments for enhanced healthcare provision for Solihull borough. We were disappointed with the Minister’s response, which failed to cover some of the assertions we made, and that is why I put in for an Adjournment debate. I want to give the Minister another chance, because it cannot be possible that she does not have a view on long-term health provision for my constituents.
For clarity, the Minister argued that the NHS Birmingham and Solihull ICB was responsible for funding and implementation in the area. I am sure that is a matter of fact, but she must have a view, even though it will play a decisive role in decision making on these matters. It would be really helpful to my constituents and those of my hon. Friend if she agreed, at least in principle, to look at our plans, even if she does not quite support them. Will she agree to look at the long-term need of my constituents, especially in the light of the extra housing the Government are demanding be delivered on our greenbelt? It is a point worth making that as a result of the extra building, my constituents will be making huge sacrifices. The least the Government could do is to recognise that and provide the infrastructure to match.
The Minister confirmed that the Government were committed to delivering the new hospital plan. She said the Chancellor had confirmed that in the Budget there would be a £3.1 billion increase in the overall departmental capital budget over this year and the next. The Secretary of State committed, in his piece in the London Standard in June, to delivering the new hospitals programme, so I was disappointed that there was no mention of Solihull borough in his statement last week. I want to ask the Minister a very simple question. The Government set out plans that take hospital building to 2039. Does that mean that our constituents in Solihull borough will not get a look-in from the Labour Government until then? Will it be 15 years before we can even start to think about new plans to support Solihull borough? It would be really helpful to get clarity on that.
In our correspondence, my hon. Friend and I made the case for part of the £3.1 billion uplift in the NHS capital budget to be spent in our area. The Minister should be assured that we will take every opportunity in this House to make the case for an A&E in Solihull. Will she now instruct her officials to take a long, hard look at that and take a constructive view on the long-term plan? Indeed, just a few days ago—this is the point I wanted to come to when I was intervened on—it was reported in the Birmingham Mail that the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust is looking for a £200 million investment to create a new urgent and emergency care facility at Heartlands hospital, because the facilities are “disconnected and inefficient”, and that
“patient numbers continue to increase, being cared for in buildings which are dark, cramped and not fit for the current purpose”.
That could not be clearer. The report prompts the question: why should my constituents be subject to those conditions? They deserve better. They deserve the very best health facilities. I will not let up, and nor will my hon. Friend. We will keep coming back. With more than 3,000 people having signed our petitions, will the Minister do the right thing and back our campaign for a new A&E in Solihull?
When I raised this issue on the Floor of the House, the Health Secretary wanted to know where I would spend the money differently. Perhaps the Minister has a similar line in her speech. This is not a party political point, but we would have chosen not to spend billions on trade union sweetheart deals in return for nothing. We would probably not have spent billions on GB Energy, which will not deliver outcomes or reduce bills. That money could pay for an A&E in Solihull many times over. Politics is all about choices, so I ask the Minister: will she do the right thing and choose to engage constructively, so we can deliver the best outcomes for our constituents?
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) on securing the debate, and congratulate other Members who have taken part in it. Let me start by thanking the NHS staff at Solihull Hospital for their remarkable efforts, stamina and care in the most challenging circumstances. That point was well made by the hon. Gentleman, and I know he feels passionately that he owes his own life and the lives of many others to their care.
The hon. Gentleman said that he did not want to make political points and that politics was about choices, but we did inherit an NHS that was in the worst state in its history. I hope he agrees with Lord Darzi’s diagnosis; we have still not heard from his colleagues whether they agree with it. The condition of the capital estate, as well as NHS services, has shocked the country, notwithstanding the result of the election, but we are working at full scale to making that situation better. The hon. Gentleman is right that politics is about choices, and I think that the wrong choices were made in the past 14 years.
It is right to point to the increasing demand for emergency departments in Solihull and elsewhere over the past decade, part of which can be explained by the appalling neglect of GP and primary care services to manage demand, and the failure of all parties—to which the hon. Gentleman alluded—to build consensus on a long-term solution for social care and support the flow of people through those hospitals. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Solihull Borough is within the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust. In December, 58.2% of people were seen within four hours.
Let me set out some of the wider context. We need to remember that we have had one of the busiest flu seasons for a number of years, and although the number of cases is coming down, the number of Norovirus cases is still 80% higher than it was in the same period last year. We want to end the treatment of people in corridors, which has become normal and which it is completely unacceptable. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made clear, this is not the level of care that staff want for their patients, and it is not the level of care that the Government will ever accept for patients. It will take time to return to the standards that patients deserve, but it can be done. We did it before in government, and we will do it again. To mitigate pressures in Solihull and elsewhere, we are reforming the NHS to shift the focus of healthcare out of hospitals and into the community, freeing up beds for emergency patients and preventing so many people from having to call an ambulance or go to A&E in the first place. In the last two months, we have announced steps to begin rebuilding general practice and immediate long-term action on social care.
I understand that in November 2024, NHS Birmingham Solihull integrated care board had an average of 6.3 full-time GPs per 10,000 patients, just above the average in England, which stands at six. A few weeks after the election, we announced an extra £82 million of funding to increase access to GPs, and it is improving. Birmingham Solihull ICB area had 30 more GPs in November than in July, and I hope that that improvement has been felt by the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. In December we announced an extra £888 million in funding for GPs, the biggest funding uplift in years, alongside a package of reforms to bust bureaucracy, slash unnecessary targets, and give them more time to spend with patients as a first step towards bringing back the family doctor.
As well as considering demand, we know that there is no solution for accident and emergency activity that does not include fixing our broken social care system. Today there are about 12,000 patients in hospital beds who have no criteria to reside but cannot be discharged. The main reason for the delays is to do with capacity. More than 300 patients in that category are in the Birmingham Solihull ICB. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and, indeed, all Members will work with us to resolve the situation, but that is why the Government are making up to £3.7 billion of extra funding available for local authorities to provide social care, why we are delivering extra 7,800 adaptations through the disabled facilities grant this year and next year, why we have delivered the biggest increase in carer's allowance since the 1970s—worth an extra £2,300 to family carers—why we are introducing fair pay agreements to tackle the 131,000 vacancies for care workers that we inherited, and why we are appointing Louise Casey to develop a national consensus on that long-term solution for social care.
It is also clear that we can get our ambulance and A&E services working better, so before the spring we will set out the lessons learned from this winter and the improvements that we will put in place ahead of next winter. We are content to visit and hear from hon. Members from across the House about the situation in their areas.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the 2022 Act. I was on the Bill Committee and tabled a number of suggestions for better accountability of ICBs to local Members of Parliament, most of which were not accepted by the Government of the time. I agree with him that those organisations need to be more accountable to him and to other Members of Parliament representing their constituents.
We expect integrated care boards to ensure that the areas they run are safe, putting necessary care in the community, investing in technology and doing what is best for the people they are responsible for. The Government are investing an extra £26 billion in our health and care services while undertaking fundamental reform to help the ICB deliver the services that all our constituents expect. If the ICB intends to make substantial changes to the way it delivers services, it must conduct a public consultation and must meet the test to ensure that all proposals are proven to be in the interests of patients and the wider public.
I know that the hon. Gentleman will be meeting the ICB in a few weeks, and I am sure that he will continue to make his points to it; I suspect that it is watching or listening to our proceedings. I am sure that he would agree that it is for the people locally in Solihull to determine how their interests are best served. Ministers cannot impose views above the heads of the local ICB. Those decisions are best made in Solihull by people who live in Solihull and not in Westminster. Therefore, what I can do—what the Government are doing—is give ICBs the means to deliver services while undertaking fundamental reform of how those services are delivered. The hon. Gentleman is therefore doing exactly what he should do as an experienced Member of Parliament and making his case to the local ICB. I am sure that it will have heard him this evening and that his voice will be important in representing his constituents.
The hon. Gentleman was entirely right to raise population growth and planning, which was also mentioned by the hon. Gentleman’s neighbour, the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst). We are committed to house building, unlike his Government; it is important that that goes ahead. That does put pressure on services. Unfortunately, under the previous Government, developments were not going ahead because of the issue of infrastructure. That is something that we are addressing.
The disconnect between ICBs and local authorities must change—the situation with vital infrastructure such as schools and hospitals has gone on for far too long—which is why we are committed to working with colleagues at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that planning includes basic infrastructure. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has regular meetings with the Deputy Prime Minister to ensure that we are all pulling in the same direction on that.
Communities across the country, including the hon. Gentlemen’s constituents in Solihull, are struggling with poor services and crumbling estates. We are putting record capital funding into the NHS while reforming services to ensure that every penny of that money is spent well. We will return to 95% of patients being seen within four hours at A&E, we will get waiting lists back down to where they were in 2010, and we will fix the front door to the NHS with the GP services that all our constituents deserve. It will take time, but we will deliver an NHS and national care service that provide people with the care they need when they need it, and we will continue to work with all hon. Members across the House to ensure that that happens.
Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2025
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Kerry McCarthy)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2025.
It is, as always, a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Harris.
The draft order was laid before Parliament on 3 December 2024. I will set out some of the background. The UK emissions trading scheme was established under the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020 as a UK-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme, to contribute to the UK’s emissions reduction targets and net zero goal. The scheme is run by the UK ETS Authority, a joint body comprising the UK and devolved Governments. Our aim is to be predictable and responsible guardians of the scheme and its markets.
Under the UK ETS, operators are required to monitor, report on and surrender allowances in respect of their greenhouse gas emissions. Most allowances are purchased at regularly held auctions, but operators in certain sectors at risk of carbon leakage are given a number of allowances free, to manage their exposure to the carbon price and the risk that business decarbonisation efforts could be undermined by higher carbon imports. Under the UK ETS, an “operator” is the person who has control over an installation. An “installation” is a stationary unit at which regulated activities take place, and sub-installations represent operations carried out at an installation in respect of which free allocation operators are required to report activity levels for ETS purposes.
The draft statutory instrument introduces the final year rule. We introduced it to enable important changes and improvements to be made to the scheme. Under previous UK ETS policy, when a sub-installation ceased operation, the free allowances were no longer distributed in respect of that sub-installation in the year after the year in which it ceased operation, but the operator was entitled to retain the full amount of free allowances made available in respect of the sub-installation, without recalculation to account for the permanent cessation of the sub-installation within the scheme year. In other words, if it ceased operations during a year, it still got the free allowances for the whole year.
That had the potential to result in the over-allocation of free allowances beyond the volume required for carbon leakage mitigation, and in the distribution of free allowances that were no longer associated with an activity resulting in emissions. The draft order ensures that the volume of free allocation that an operator is entitled to in the final year in which operations are carried out at one or more sub-installations is calculated by reference to the level of activity at the relevant sub-installation in that year. That is the final year rule.
To facilitate this change, the draft statutory instrument will require the operators to prepare an activity level report in respect of the final year in which operations are carried out. That activity level report will be used to recalculate the volume of free allocation that the operator is entitled to in the final year. Any over-allocation will be recoverable in accordance with the existing scheme rules.
There is an exception to the final year rule in circumstances where the permanent cessation of operations at a sub-installation is part of a series of changes that has resulted in a material reduction in the specified emissions per unit of production of those pre-cessation products which continue to be produced at the installation. The exception will incentivise decarbonisation, as operators that can demonstrate that the relevant requirements are met will continue to be entitled to the free allocation calculated in accordance with existing UK ETS rules, which is calculated in advance on the basis of historical activity levels.
The draft instrument also amends the circumstances in which an installation or sub-installation has “ceased operation” for these purposes. The previous definition was: at the point in time when it became technically impossible to resume operation. That definition was difficult to apply consistently in practice, though. The updated definitions provide that an installation has ceased operation when: all regulated activities in the case of an installation, or the relevant operation in the case of a sub-installation, have permanently ceased to be carried out at the installation. That amendment increases certainty for the scheme regulators and the operators.
The draft instrument also introduces a requirement for operators to notify the relevant scheme regulator of circumstances in which all regulated activities cease to be carried out at an installation by the end of the scheme year in which the cessation occurs, or within one month of the date of cessation, whichever is later; and to confirm whether the operator intends one or more regulated activities to resume at the installation. Operators are similarly required to provide details of the cessation of operations in respect of a sub-installation in annual activity level reports prepared in relation to the 2025 scheme year and thereafter. Requiring those reports will facilitate the application of the new final year rule.
The statutory instrument introduces a new power for regulators to issue a notice to an operator that determines that an installation or sub-installation has ceased operation for the purposes of UK ETS legislation. The new power is available in circumstances in which the regulator is not satisfied that the operator intends regulated activities to resume at the installation, or intends regulated operations to resume at the sub-installation level. That change will increase certainty for operators and facilitate equivalent treatment for all installations undergoing a cessation.
The changes follow comprehensive engagement and consultation with stakeholders. Between 18 December 2023 and 11 March 2024, the UK and devolved governments ran a consultation seeking views on proposals to alter the free allocation methodology for the UK ETS stationary sectors to better target those most at risk of carbon leakage and to ensure that free allocations are fairly distributed. The UK ETS free allocation review covered the provisions included in the statutory instrument on permanent cessations. The responses to the consultation were broadly in support of the proposed technical changes to the treatment of permanent cessation. The authority response to the consultation will be delivered in two parts. An early response to the proposals on permanent cessations was published last November.
The changes in the draft order will deliver on commitments made by the UK ETS Authority, improve the operational fairness of the scheme and increase certainty for both regulators and operators; and the alterations to the UK ETS will support its role as a key pillar of the UK’s climate policy. These measures show that we will take action to extend and improve the scheme when necessary. I commend the draft order to the Committee.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this evening, Mrs. Harris, and a pleasure to speak to the draft order on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition.
We welcome the clarity provided by the draft order and will continue to scrutinise the details of the emissions trading scheme implementation under this Government. It will be important to observe how aligned we are with Europe on carbon pricing. Regardless of the many policy decisions we face in the years ahead, as a matter of principle we should always make sure that we are competitive and not naive in our carbon pricing, because the cost of energy affects our economy and people’s standard of living in fundamental ways. Without secure and affordable energy, industry cannot compete, jobs are lost, and living standards fall.
We have experienced unacceptable deindustrialisation in the years since 2008, and the trajectory of policy under this Government means that we will suffer a further loss of competitiveness in the years ahead, making the imbalances in our economy—sectoral and geographical—as well as a huge trade deficit and all the consequences of that, far worse. That is why I want to take this opportunity to ask the Minister about the assumption in the National Energy System Operator report that the carbon price will rise to £147 per tonne of carbon dioxide by 2030 to meet the Government’s clean power target. That is an incredible number, but the feasibility of the Government’s whole plan to decarbonise the grid by 2030 is entirely based on that number.
When asked about the £147 carbon price by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove during a recent Select Committee hearing, the Secretary of State said:
“I will not endorse these assumptions”.
Yet he also said:
“We work hand in glove with NESO, not just on modelling but on all of these questions”.
He insisted that the NESO report proves that his Department’s clean power plan can be delivered. The Government cannot have it both ways. Either Ministers must be honest and admit that the carbon price will increase to £147 per tonne of CO2 because of Government policy, or confess that the 2030 target for clean power will never be reached and that the many claims they have made while citing the NESO report are utter nonsense.
Earlier today, representatives of Britain’s energy-intensive industries including steel, glass, ceramics, chemicals, paper and mineral products wrote a public letter to the Minister responsible for industry to express their frustration with being held back by
“high electricity costs, policy uncertainty and risk of carbon leakage”.
Energy-intensive industries know what that means for their survival, saying that they
“will not be able to bear these carbon costs”.
We should be clear about what the £147 figure would mean: the destruction of industry in this country and the death while such opportunities are in their infancy of British artificial intelligence. How many Members of the Committee have consulted the NESO report and its technical annexes? If they have not done so already, I strongly urge them to ask themselves whether they accept this projected carbon price figure and how business might respond to such a drastic increase. How many jobs will this cost? How much higher will bills go?
Let us be clear. Increasing the cost of carbon will be destructive for the economic wellbeing of the country. Ministers and supporters of the Government should be up front with the British people and with British industry about this fact. I implore members of the Committee, because they will be asked to keep voting for this mindless Milibandism, to read up and listen to industry and the technical experts—I do not mean Dale Vince—before lending their support and credibility to this destruction. If they go along with it, history will be most unkind to them.
We should remember that the Government were elected on a solemn manifesto promise that their policies would cut household energy bills by £300 per year by 2030. The Secretary of State and Ministers in the Department have studiously avoided repeating this promise time and again since July. The Government know that this promise was nonsense, and whatever his outward zeal, so does the Secretary of State, but he is too afraid to admit it.
Following the Government’s Budget spending spree, the Office for Budget Responsibility made it clear that environmental levies will have to increase to as much as almost £15 billion, thanks to the Secretary of State’s policies. That means households will each pay £120 more in environmental levies, and that is on top of all the hidden costs in the system—the subsidies, balancing costs, new interconnectors and massive upgrades to the grid and distribution networks that Ministers pretend do not exist while they tell the public that renewables are cheap.
The news gets worse for British business. The UK was once a net exporter of energy, with internationally competitive energy prices. This is no longer the case. We have been a net importer of energy since 2004, and our import dependency has increased from 13% in 2005 to 41% in 2023. Industrial energy prices have increased from 4.56p per kWh in 2005 to 25.46p per kWh in 2023. Industrial energy prices in the UK are now on average 50% higher than prices in in other advanced economies. Our industrial energy prices are four times higher than those in China and three times higher than those in America and Canada. They are also higher than prices in France, which has significant nuclear energy capacity. We are artificially driving up costs with a misguided drive to decarbonise before the technology is ready.
To be clear, I know that my party played a part in this, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has acknowledged, but we are looking at the evidence and being honest about the mistakes we made. The Government are denying the evidence and driving us faster and faster towards the abyss—
Nick Timothy
I certainly will, Mrs Harris, but this is relevant to the ETS, because there is nothing more important for the future of energy policy. Getting policy right means being straight about the trade-offs. The energy trilemma has not been resolved. We must choose how best to prioritise. We must do what other countries are doing and put cost and security ahead of decarbonisation.
Kerry McCarthy
I suppose I should welcome the shadow Minister to his place, but it is a bit depressing to hear him outline the Opposition’s position. In the last year or two that the Conservatives were in government, we saw them U-turn and row back on getting to net zero. We recognise that it is an integral part of our growth and industrial strategy, which will protect jobs and investment in this country, so to hear the Opposition’s position spelled out in such stark terms is disappointing.
Net zero is part of our growth strategy, and energy security is very much at the heart of what we do in the wake of Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and other global factors. The shift away from volatile fossil fuel markets is not just about a desire to reach net zero, although of course that is really important—we see evidence of what happens if we do not tackle climate change around us every day. It is about protecting our security. The UK emissions trading scheme is a key pillar of the climate and net zero policy regime and our industrial strategy. It sets a cap on emissions in the sectors covered, which currently represent about a quarter of the UK’s emissions, and guarantees that those sectors will reduce their emissions in line with our world-leading net zero target.
We believe that maintaining a strong UK ETS will play a key role in making Britain a clean energy superpower, delivering on our mission of ensuring secure and clean electricity by 2030 and cutting bills. The ETS makes fossil fuel electricity generation face the costs of its pollution. It is only a small component of electricity bills, especially compared with wholesale gas prices. As power generation continues to shift to renewables and nuclear, and as we reduce our reliance on volatile international gas markets, the impact on bills will fall and the costs to consumers will be reduced.
Only fossil fuel electricity generation will be captured by the UK ETS, so the increasing uptake of renewables and nuclear power will reduce the costs for consumers. By driving green investment as part of our industrial strategy, the UK ETS will also help to deliver a just transition, growing the UK’s economy and securing good jobs for people across the country.
I think the shadow Minister is arguing that decarbonisation is coming too fast, but we are absolutely at the forefront of the new technologies and industries. My hon. Friend the Member for Redcar could wax lyrical about what that means for a constituency such as hers. Redcar has a strong industrial base but its future will be built on decarbonisation technology and the accompanying jobs.
Delivering an industrial strategy is the centrepiece of the Government’s growth mission. It will make us energy independent while creating jobs and providing investment in communities across the UK. A key part of that will be investing and creating the right conditions so that the green industries of the future can flourish, and the UK ETS is a vital element of that approach. It sets out a clear trajectory for emissions from the sectors covered and drives investment in decarbonisation.
In November 2024, the UK ETS Authority set out an early response on its proposals on permanent cessations. This draft statutory instrument will implement those changes and improvements to the scheme, following detailed consultation. These changes have the support of the four Governments of the UK. I think Scotland and Wales have already approved them, and Northern Ireland is about to consider them in the next few days, so there is consensus on advancing carbon pricing policy, which adds to the strength of the UK ETS. The shadow Minister mentioned the need for close co-operation with the EU, and we certainly want to achieve that.
To ensure the scheme continues to remain a key driver of decarbonisation, our intention is to expand its scope further. We have recently consulted on proposals to expand it to energy from waste and waste incineration, and we have recently consulted on expansion to maritime operators and on a regulatory framework for integrating non-pipeline transport for carbon capture, usage and storage. Beyond those new sectors, we are exploring options to build the UK ETS into the world’s first integrated market for carbon emissions and carbon removal. Subject to consultation, our intention is to include engineered greenhouse gas removals. That would support the new technologies we need to reach net zero while providing a sustainable path for industry to decarbonise and flourish.
We recognise the importance of long-term certainty to decarbonisation planning. The authority’s intention is to run the scheme until at least 2050. The authority published a long-term pathway for the UK ETS in December 2023, outlining our intention to consult on extending the scheme beyond its current date of 2030. We will consult on that and on any cap for future scheme phases in due course.
We are committed to being attentive to views and to bringing forward changes as required to ensure the scheme operates efficiently and achieves emissions reductions. It is an integral part of our journey on our path to decarbonisation coupled with industrial growth. I commend the order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements etc.) Regulations 2025
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Airports Slot Allocation (Alleviation of Usage Requirements etc.) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey—as constituency neighbours, we share runway 2 between us. In fact, I was on speed dial with your predecessor and another neighbour, the former Chair of the 1922 Committee—I was probably the most powerful Back-Bench Labour MP in the place at the time. I thought that would get more of a rise—
Chris Kane
Thank you. Let’s get down to business.
The regulations will be made under powers conferred by the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, also known as the REUL Act. The regulations amend Council Regulation (EEC) No. 95/93, which sets out the rules for the allocation of airport slots. Slot allocation rules apply only in co-ordinated airports where capacity at the airport is unable to meet demand for slots. There are now nine airports covered by these rules, including London City, Gatwick, Heathrow and London Stansted, as well as Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds Bradford and Manchester.
The regulations will update the definition of a new entrant carrier—or airlines as they are known—for slot allocation purposes. That will allow air carriers with a small presence at a co-ordinated airport the opportunity to benefit from greater priority when it comes to the allocation of airport slots. The change aligns UK regulations with international guidelines and has the potential to provide more choice for consumers in terms of route, destinations and carriers.
In addition, the regulations will amend assimilated EU law to enable the UK to respond in the event of a pandemic, epidemic or other outbreak of disease, such as the covid-19 epidemic. It will remove the need for emergency legislation to provide alleviation from slot usage rules, as was the case during covid-19. That will protect consumers, the environment, and the aviation sector.
The draft statutory instrument will amend regulation 95/93 to change the definition of a new entrant carrier. The purpose of the new entrant rule is to stimulate competition. New entrant carriers are given priority in the allocation of slots, as the regulation requires that 50% of slots shall first be allocated to new entrants. Currently, an air carrier is a new entrant if it has fewer than five slots at an airport on a given day. Under these regulations, a new entrant is defined as a carrier that holds fewer than seven slots at airports. The update is designed to enhance the presence of new entrant carriers at slot co-ordinated airports.
The instrument will also build on previous regulations that provided carriers with slot alleviation during the covid-19 pandemic. It will introduce a permanent provision for carriers to obtain slot alleviation where there are Government-imposed measures relating to a pandemic, epidemic or other outbreak of disease. Consequently, it will simplify the process by which an event such as covid-19 can be managed for slot co-ordination purposes.
The provisions were subject to consultation with the aviation sector in 2023, and received strong support from across the industry. In the regulations, the Government have recognised the need to update the definition of a new entrant, and to provide additional reasons for allowing alleviation from slot usage rules. I commend them to the Committee.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, and I thank the Minister for his opening statement. The regulation of slot allocation is an important part of maintaining the efficient operation of the UK’s busiest airports, which are often constrained by capacity. The core objective of airport slot co-ordination is to optimise the use of available transport infrastructure, benefiting consumers and industry alike. Airport slots are allocated by independent co-ordinators to airlines for their planned operations, particularly at airports such as London Heathrow, London Gatwick and others, as the Minister outlined, where demand consistently exceeds available capacity.
Historically, the system has adhered to the principles of historical rights and the “use it or lose it” rule. Those principles prioritise airlines based on past usage, requiring them to operate at least 80% of their allocated slots in order to retain them for future use. However, as the Minister said, recent events, particularly the covid-19 pandemic, have exposed vulnerabilities in that framework, which this statutory instrument seeks to address. The Opposition do not intend to oppose the SI or divide the Committee on it—quite the opposite. We support it, because it implements measures proposed by the previous Government’s consultation on airports slot allocation.
As the Minister said, this SI proposes two key changes to the existing rules. Its first provision revises the definition of a new entrant in the context of airports slot allocation. As we heard, the amendment increases the threshold for airlines to qualify as new entrants from those holding fewer than five slots a day to those holding fewer than seven. This change is a significant shift in policy, with the potential to broaden access to congested airports for smaller carriers, thereby encouraging greater competition. The change is intended to make it easier for smaller airlines to obtain slots at busy airports, because the threshold for being considered new has been raised. We hope that it will encourage greater competition by giving smaller airlines a chance to access slots at crowded airports.
The second provision introduces more extensive alleviation measures. These measures, previously temporary, will be made permanent and apply in cases in which airlines cannot meet their slot usage targets because of Government-imposed restrictions. The alleviation provisions state that those restrictions must significantly affect the viability of air travel—for instance, through flight bans, border closures, health crises or severe restrictions on airport operations. The goal of the changes is to make the aviation sector more resilient to unexpected events, such as another pandemic or health crisis.
However, the introduction of permanent alleviation raises questions, particularly about the long-term impact. With the broad discretion given to co-ordinators in determining eligibility, there is a real need for clarity and oversight. I note that in the other place, the noble Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill did not outline how the Government will monitor and assess the effectiveness of the alleviation measures, so I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Minister to reassure the Committee as to how the Government intend to ensure that the alleviation measures are applied judiciously, fairly and consistently.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. May I just ask the Minister a couple of questions, particularly about how these provisions apply to Northern Ireland? Regulation 3, which the explanatory note says
“makes transitional and saving provision with regard to the omission of paragraph 4(g) of Article 10 of Regulation 95/93”,
does not apply to Northern Ireland in regard to setting the date, so may I ask the Minister how this particular regulation and the date are applicable to Northern Ireland?
Also I note that the explanatory memorandum states:
“Aerodromes (and therefore slots) are a transferred matter in relation to Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland Executive has however agreed that the UK Parliament can legislate to extend and apply the relevant provisions to Northern Ireland.”
Although I have no objection to that, I ask the Minister to clarify by what method those decisions will be taken in this place.
Mike Kane
I thank hon. Members for being here for the consideration of the draft regulations. Let me respond to the hon. Member for Orpington, in particular, by saying that the Department will write to industry and stakeholders now to make them aware of the provisions that are coming into force. The airport slot co-ordinator will take into account the new entrants as part of the co-ordination activities for winter 2025. There is no indication of a pandemic, but the hon. Member is right that we do not know what is around the corner. There are press reports today of bird flu in the UK, and we have seen reports of monkeypox. As he rightly said, the regulations will help with resilience. We will monitor the legislation and ensure that it is implemented is through the course of normal activity within the Department.
In response to the hon. Member for South Antrim, let me say that when the measures providing slot alleviation because of covid-19 were introduced, they did not apply to Northern Ireland. There were no slot co-ordinated airports there, and because the measures were temporary and lasted for six months—or one scheduling session—at a time, after which they needed to be reviewed, the Northern Ireland authorities were happy with that approach. However, the position is now different. The new measures are permanent, and it made sense to apply them throughout the whole of the UK.
Robin Swann
I thank the Minister for that clarification, because my concern has been protecting those slots that are vital to the economy of Northern Ireland and to people coming across to the rest of the UK. Giving permanency to that slot provision is very welcome.
Mike Kane
That is great, and I am sure that if the Minister in Northern Ireland is not happy then the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will ask an urgent question in the House before we know it.
I thank Members again for their consideration and for their questions. To conclude, the regulations will make two permanent changes to regulation 95/93, as the hon. Member for Orpington said, reducing barriers to entry at UK airports and making the slot allocation system more resilient. They are putting the UK on the front foot, and ensuring we build on the lessons learnt from covid-19.
Question put and agreed to.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Speech and Language Therapy
(3 days, 14 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
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 657935 relating to speech and language therapy.
May I say what a pleasure it is to lead this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers? Before I turn to e-petition 657935, I beg your indulgence to mention that today is International Holocaust Memorial Day and the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. Given that it is possibly the last significant anniversary on which many of the survivors will be with us, it is really important that we mark today, because we must never, ever forget the crimes that were committed in the early part of the last century. I stand four-square behind the work of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in making sure that we never forget and that we can turn darkness into light.
Today I am introducing a debate on a topic that we so often take for granted, particularly those of us who have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Communication, and our ability to speak and to put our views on the record, is fundamental. It is fundamental to Members of Parliament because of the job that we do, but it is also fundamental to everybody across this country and, in fact, across the globe. The power of communication is in our ability to speak and to express our thoughts, our feelings, our hopes, our needs and our politics. In its simplest definition, it is how we connect with each other.
For some people, however, it is not so simple. The words, feelings and thoughts are there, but they cannot quite find how to get their words out. That is so difficult for many people, and we should never overlook it, because every single human being has the ability to communicate and a need to connect with people. Supporting people to make sure that they can always find the words, and that they can always communicate and reach out to others, is something that I am sure everybody would support.
That is where speech and language therapy steps in—not just as a treatment, but as a lifeline and a way to help people to find the words. It is about helping people to find their voice and to overcome the barriers that keep them from being heard. If we cannot communicate, we can feel invisible and alone, which is a huge challenge in itself. Speech and language therapy is more than just a clinical service; it is absolutely vital to a huge number of people across this great country. It is the bridge between silence and expression, and between isolation and inclusion. Speech and language therapists are the unsung heroes who help people to rediscover their ability to speak, to listen and to engage with the world, regardless of whether they are a child who struggles to form words, an adult recovering from a stroke, or someone with a lifelong condition that affects communication.
Last week, I had the great privilege of speaking to Mikey, who created this fantastic petition. One thing that struck me in that meeting was not just how thoughtful, well prepared, well read and on top of every single part of the issue he was, but his determination that this debate should not just be about him. It is not about Mikey’s treatment or his journey, although he is very able and willing to discuss them with people; it is about Mikey standing up for people who find themselves in a similar situation to him. When we meet somebody who is a true campaigner, and who is willing to spend their time and effort supporting people across their community, we should applaud them. I place on the record my thanks to him for his work.
When I spoke to Mikey, he told me that he is actually one of the lucky ones. A year and a half after he was diagnosed with apraxia, he was offered an hour of speech therapy a week. That was a huge boon to Mikey’s ability to take part, develop and just be part of the world. He feels lucky for that one hour, because the ability to access speech and language therapists is a postcode lottery, but it should not be a matter of luck. Getting help for something so important should be a minimum; in fact, the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists recommends four sessions a week for Mikey’s condition. Mikey raised that not because he did not feel supported, but as an example of the fact that current provision and support do not meet the need, even for people like Mikey, who, in his own words, is lucky to have the support that he has had.
Just over 23,500 adults and more than 67,000 children and young people are on a waiting list for speech and language therapy. Every one of those lives can be touched and immeasurably improved by ensuring that they have the treatment they need to rebuild the confidence that they may have lost. Mikey told me that, after his treatment, his confidence has grown, he is less anxious, he is able to speak publicly with strangers and friends, and he has been able to get a job and catch up in education. That is all down to the speech and language therapists who have supported him to reach his goals. Not everything is down to the therapists, obviously—Mikey is responsible for a huge amount of what he has done—but his ability to express himself, and to show the world where he is coming from and what he does, is down to the language therapists who have supported him.
I met representatives of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists and Speech and Language UK last year, and the most striking thing that came out of those meetings was how important it is to look at this issue through the lens of social justice. The most striking piece of data that they shared is that 25% of all children, when they go to primary school, have some form of diagnosed or undiagnosed speech, language and communications need. If one looks at the most deprived areas of the country, that percentage rises to 50%.
On top of that, more than 60% of children in young offender institutions have communication difficulties. That information—that reality—is too stark to be an accident; something could be driving that. Reaching out and ensuring that people can express themselves and engage with the world at large, whether that is school, friends or family, can support them to access the world and prevent them from going down a path that could end with them making some difficult decisions and finding themselves incarcerated.
However, it is not just about young people; it is also about adults who develop conditions such as dementia, Parkinson’s, which is close to my heart, or long covid, which we will be talking about a lot over the coming years in the post-pandemic world. The speech and language difficulties that can come with long covid have driven demand since the pandemic, although there was significant demand for speech and language therapists before that.
I will touch briefly on Parkinson’s, because a close family member—my mum—suffers with it. Mam learned English to go to school, as her family spoke Welsh at home, and since she moved to England, where she brought up me and my brothers, she has spent her whole adult life communicating in her second language. Mam was also fluent in French. Seeing where she has gone with her Parkinson’s—just not being able to find the words—is a real challenge for all of us who know her. Helping her to find that word and communicate is something that I think everybody who knows her would support, and I am sure that anybody with a relative in a similar position would also be eager to support them with that.
Parkinson’s UK did an audit of its members in 2022 and, of the people it spoke to, just 40% had access to speech and language therapy. Only 15.5% were referred to therapists at the diagnosis stage and only 8% were seen. That is one example—I beg the House’s forgiveness for raising one of such significance to me; I picked it because that is where I have a lot of direct experience—but there are many, many conditions that can be supported through speech and language therapy.
Returning to the postcode lottery that I mentioned, there are areas of this country where integrated care boards are spending less than £1 per person receiving therapy—I think 58p was the smallest number that I saw. In the best-funded area for speech and language therapy, the ICB was spending £16.35 per child who was receiving therapy, which is a vast difference. Now, I am not going to say that ICBs are not doing their job; we are all aware that there are regional disparities and that ICBs have to cut their cloth according to the funding available. When we see such a significant disparity, however, with around 30 or 32 times the amount being spent in one area compared with another, it highlights that for far too many people, it is a real fight to get the support that they need because the funding is not there.
In the Minister’s response, I am interested to hear whether anything can be done in the long-term 10-year health plan for the NHS to set minimum standards or whether the Government intend to level the playing field between different areas. Many people, especially those from disadvantaged communities, live in areas where services are scarce and where waiting times are long. That can exacerbate some of the issues faced by those communities, as well as by the individuals affected.
We know that it is not always about just funding or putting more money into the system. Where money is needed, it should be there, but recruiting and retaining speech and language therapists is vital. No amount of funding in the world can replace a human being actually doing that role, or the skills, training and care that they provide for the people they are supporting.
There is a shortage of therapists in our system, and many are leaving the profession due to burnout, insufficient support and unsustainable workloads. When I spoke to the royal college, it was absolutely clear that recruitment is one side of the coin, but retention is the other. It is not just an operational necessity, but how we increase the number of speech and language therapists available and make sure that the more experienced people can train, support and mentor people who are less experienced to get through those grades, from grade 5 to grade 6 and so on.
A survey by the royal college found that 17% of speech and language therapy roles are currently vacant. That is a huge number: almost one in five. Ensuring that we have the right number of people to support the vital care that people need would have a profound effect across the country. The biggest shortages are in bands 6 and 7 in the NHS, which are the more specialist roles.
Across the board, therapists are saying that they want to do the job. Nobody goes into healthcare for the money, but because it is a vocation and they want to support their community and support people where they need it. To support them, however, we have to do something about caseloads to ensure that they can devote enough time to each person they see.
I am proud that the Government will bring forward a 10-year plan to offer a vision of a healthier, more resilient NHS. However, given how well supported this petition has been and how important speech and language therapy is for people who need it, I am very eager to hear that the Government are taking the issue seriously and making sure that speech and language therapy is fully integrated into that 10-year plan, so that we can look much more at preventive care, get community services to deliver support where it is most needed, and prevent those acute issues developing.
I am very glad to see so many hon. Members from both sides of the House in the Chamber. Ultimately, this debate is an opportunity for us to talk about speech and language therapy, and to make sure that it has the place that it deserves at the heart of our health system. I am sure that there is much more that other hon. Members will want to say, and I look forward to the contribution from the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti).
Several hon. Members rose—
Martin Vickers (in the Chair)
I remind hon. Members that they should bob—as indeed they are doing—if they wished to be called to speak.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It is a great privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson). He gave an excellent speech, and I cannot think of a single thing that I disagreed with—although I might wait to read the Hansard to double-check that. He spoke passionately about his own mum and the situation with Parkinson’s.
As for many Members across this House, issues of special educational needs, and speech and language therapy are not new to me or to my inbox, so I think this is a timely and important debate. It is particularly important because of the hard work of one of my constituents, Mikey Akers, who is in the Public Gallery today, along with his mother and friends, whom I will also mention. He was the instigator of the petition, which is very much the reason why we are here.
Mikey first came to see me on 13 January 2022. Little did I know at that point that this young man would be such a giant when it came to standing up for children and adults everywhere who have been affected by speech and language conditions. In many ways, this young man has given voice to so many up and down the country who, through no fault of their own, do not have their voice.
Mikey’s ask of me was really simple. He looked at me and said, “Will you help me to raise awareness of verbal dyspraxia?” I am not afraid to admit that I had no idea what verbal dyspraxia was at that moment, but of course I said yes, because for us as Members, one of the easiest things that we can commit to is using our platform to raise awareness of issues that particularly affect not only our constituents, but others across the country.
I went away to investigate verbal dyspraxia and see how widespread it was. I found out that there is a huge lack of awareness of verbal dyspraxia, and yet there were friends of mine, parliamentarians in the previous Parliament, who suffered from various forms of dyspraxia, as I found out when I raised Mikey’s issue at Prime Minister’s questions. Parliamentarians came to speak to me about them having some form of it, or said that they knew someone who did. Simply, for those who do not know, verbal dyspraxia is when a child has difficulties in being able to make and co-ordinate the movements needed to produce speech that is clear and easy to understand.
Like the hon. Member for Lichfield, I then set about meeting the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, the Dyspraxia Foundation, and many other expert organisations and practitioners. I draw attention to Gillian Rudd, who is in the Public Gallery and is a senior lecturer at Birmingham City University. She is training future speech and language therapists—I will also touch on the workforce. She contributed to the “Bercow: Ten Years On” report, and her petition—back in 2018, garnering 11,000 signatures at the time—led to a Westminster Hall debate on the topic. Gillian came to see me in 2020, and I am so pleased that I have been able to at least highlight her work and to support her in all the work she has been doing.
Since my first meeting with Mikey, I have been able to raise the issue of speech and language therapy and verbal dyspraxia in the House on a number of occasions, including at PMQs. I am pleased that in conjunction with Mikey, the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists, and Chris Kamara—who, as you may be aware, Mr Vickers, is a well-known footballer and commentator—we were able to hold an event in the previous Parliament calling on the Government to do more to support speech and language therapists.
I have talked about verbal dyspraxia, so I will say that Chris—I hope he will not mind me saying this, as he has spoken about it in public—suffered during lockdown from apraxia. In his role, voice and speech matter so much, with the intonations and being able to get thoughts out. I will not try to copy his most famous lines, but those things matter so much. He was so brave in the way he spoke about it. Kammy and Mikey were kind enough to invite me on to their documentary, “Lost for Words”, which is on the ITV player. The documentary is illuminating for anyone who wants to get an understanding of some of the challenges families face across the country and of the trials and tribulations that parents and children go through to get the support that they need. Georgia Leckie, who was on it, is also in the Gallery.
This issue has affected so many of us in this Parliament and in previous Parliaments. Under the previous Government, the Department for Education committed £8 billion to special educational needs in the 2021-22 financial year. In the financial year ’22-23, that was increased by £1 billion to more than £9.1 billion, and at the 2021 spending review, the Government announced £2.6 billion, over the spending review period to 2025, to create more than 30,000 new high-quality school places for children with special educational needs and disabilities —more than tripling the previous capital funding levels to over £900 million to ’24-25.
That was a transformational investment, which I was proud of, and it supported local authorities to deliver new places in mainstream and special schools, as well as other specialist settings. It would also have been used to improve the suitability and accessibility of existing buildings. Of course, none of that is to say that there was not more that needed to be done, or that needs to be done.
A £2.6 billion capital investment in high-needs provision was announced in October 2021. That was to deliver up to 60 new special and alternative provision free schools, and was in addition to the 48 special free schools already in the pipeline and the more than 90 that were already open. In fact, a number have opened in the borough of Solihull, which I represent, and one opened recently in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst). In March 2022, the Government announced high-needs provision capital allocations amounting to over £1.4 billion-worth of new investment, which was focused on the academic years ’23-24 and ’24-25.
Of course, there has been a change of Government and a change of priorities, so will the Minister set out whether that funding will be increasing and what his intentions are in that regard? In March, the previous Government published their SEND and AP improvement plan. The plan set out what the Government would do to establish a single national system to deliver for every child and young person with special needs and disabilities from birth to age 25, so that they could enjoy their childhood, achieve good outcomes and be well prepared for their next step, whether that was employment, higher education or adult services. Has that plan continued, or has it informed current Government strategy and how the Government intend to take the previous Government’s ambitions forward?
It is no secret that councils are under great strain, so I hope that the Minister can highlight how, in the coming years, the Government intend to support local councils to alleviate that strain, especially when it comes to SLT and integrated care boards. The hon. Member for Lichfield mentioned the demand on the workforce, which has been a perennial issue—the RCSLT briefing for this debate also highlighted it. How do the Government intend to alleviate pressures in this area? Do they intend to fund more places, especially at the university level? These are complex issues, and highly skilled people are needed.
I also want to ask a few questions that Mikey had. One of the key things that he has raised with me from the first day I met him is the lack of awareness in the teaching profession and among GPs when it comes to identifying cases of verbal dyspraxia. The Minister might not be able to answer on the education side, but he might be able to say how the Government intend to ensure that health professionals are prepared to identify some of these serious issues. Of course, I have to ask whether the Minister will agree to meet me, Mikey, RCSLT and—given the cross-party nature of this debate—the hon. Member for Lichfield. Can the Minister also describe the timeframe for any increases in spending? The hon. Member for Lichfield mentioned the retention of the workforce, so what are the Minister’s thoughts on ensuring that we keep more of the people who enter this profession?
The metrics that we use to assess policies are key, so can the Minister describe the metrics for a successful policy around speech and language therapy? That would ensure that Members can assess the policy going forward. I hope that the answer to this question is yes, but do the Government recognise the economic benefits of getting people, young people and those who are young at heart to have better speech and language therapy and to contribute to the economy?
I will finish where I started: by encouraging people such as Mikey, as well as those he inspires, to continue to campaign on this issue. There is always more to be done. I have met Mikey a number of times, and he really is a legend. I thank him for allowing me to support him on his journey. I will end with some of his words:
“I raise awareness of verbal Dyspraxia/Apraxia so those who share my diagnosis, now and in the future, never feel the loneliness I felt growing up.”
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for securing this important debate. I also thank Mikey Akers, all campaigners and the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists for their tireless efforts in bringing this critical issue to the forefront and getting it the priority that it needs. I heard, remarkably, that when Mikey started the petition on the Parliament website back in March 2024, something like over 10,000 signatures were secured in just 16 days. However, I am not surprised, because communication is at the heart of who we are. It is how we connect, learn, work and build relationships. It is a fundamental human right. Just as vital is the ability to eat and drink safely when swallowing becomes difficult. For deaf people, who already face enormous barriers, access to timely and appropriate support is even more crucial.
In September 2024, more than 64,000 children in England were waiting for speech and language therapy. In my Wolverhampton North East constituency, children and families are facing unacceptable delays and limited access. Behind each number is a child struggling to communicate in the classroom, a young adult trying to rebuild their life after a brain injury, or a stroke survivor who feels isolated because their voice has been taken away.
I would like to share the story of Samantha, one of my constituents who knows that struggle all too well. Samantha is a former modern foreign languages teacher in Wolverhampton. After a stroke during the pandemic, her ability to speak four languages and her independence were severely impacted. Samantha is mobile—her disability is hidden, but you would know after speaking with her. Yet accessing the specialist speech and language therapy she needed was an uphill battle. Samantha’s story is not unique. It is a reality for far too many people across the country.
Let us not forget the workforce challenges. Speech and language therapists are invaluable, yet there simply are not enough of them to meet the growing demand. Despite efforts such as the speech and language degree apprenticeship, we are still falling short. Private therapy is out of reach for most families, leaving NHS services overwhelmed. The current system is underfunded, overstretched and unprepared for the future. Meanwhile, adults in the Black Country integrated care board are waiting far too long, with over 1,000 people on waiting lists in November 2024.
What do we need to move forward? First, we need to increase funding to meet growing demand. Secondly, we need a robust workforce plan so that we have enough skilled therapists to support everyone in need. Thirdly, we need equitable access to therapy across the health, education and criminal justice sectors, no matter where someone lives. Investing in speech and language therapy not only changes lives; it saves money. Early intervention can reduce the need for more costly services down the line in health, education and criminal justice.
I urge the Minister and my colleagues to listen to the voices of campaigners such as Mikey, the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists and people like Samantha. Their message is clear: we must work at pace to tackle the crisis in speech and language therapy. Let us make sure that no one in Wolverhampton North East or anywhere in this country is left without a voice or the support that they need to thrive.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. Not being able to articulate one’s thoughts verbally is, I suspect, not something that many of my parliamentary colleagues suffer with, but unfortunately it is the truth for hundreds of thousands of people in this country.
Speech therapy is not limited to children, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), who I am grateful to for bringing this debate to the Chamber. There are countless adults in need of speech therapy services. Those include stroke survivors who are relearning how to speak—which is why it is such a pleasure to speak with Chris, who is here in the Public Gallery and is a true hero in the footballing world—as well as people with cleft conditions or those living with dementia. I thank the hon. Member for Lichfield for spotlighting long covid, because that is an issue that will be with us for many years to come.
The need in the adult sector is significant, but today I will focus on children because they represent our future, and without intervention at a critical stage the challenge they face will only grow. I have not had the pleasure of meeting Mikey, but I would like to know if this resonates with him. Imagine a child starting school for the first time: friendship and bonds are made, and classmates are eagerly raising their hands, making friends and joining in chatter in the playground, but the child remains silent—not because they do not want to speak, but because they cannot. Their words are locked away and their thoughts are trapped. Thousands of children face that challenge daily and they are getting left behind, not because they lack potential but simply because they lack support. That is the silent struggle of thousands of children in our country.
Speech, language and communication difficulties are not just a health issue but a life one—they affect mental health, academic success, employment, and relationships. They are a barrier to participating fully in our society. Over 369,000 pupils in England were identified as having speech, language and communication needs in 2023-24. That is a staggering 64% increase since 2015, and yet, as of November 2024, more than 65,000 children were waiting for speech and language therapy, with nearly half waiting for over 12 weeks. The impact of that delay cannot be overstated. Worryingly, in socially deprived areas, upwards of 50% of children start school with impoverished speech, language or communication. Those delays snowball, creating challenges in literacy, learning, and most importantly, social integration.
It is concerning that research shows that more than 60% of young offenders have difficulties with speech. Is that the postcode lottery that the hon. Member for Lichfield talked about? The cycle of disadvantage starts with communication barriers, and it can end in exclusion, isolation or even worse. It is now a crisis. Speech and language therapists are overstretched, underfunded and working in systems that fail to meet the demand of local needs. However, there is a solution within reach.
Speech and language therapy changes lives. It is not about helping children speak clearly; it is about unlocking their potential. It gives them tools to learn, connect and thrive. It breaks down barriers to education and opportunity, and with timely intervention children can overcome those difficulties and go on to succeed in school, work and life. In 2015, the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists commissioned research to estimate the benefits of speech and language therapy compared to the cost of not doing it. The results showed that for every £1 spent on speech and language therapy, £2.30 in healthcare savings was delivered. Speech therapy is not a cost; it is an investment in the future of our society. We need urgent action.
First, we need increased investment to reduce waiting times and to ensure every child, no matter their background, gets the support they need. Secondly, we need improved workforce planning that addresses the shortages of speech and language therapists across all sectors—health, education, social care and justice. Thirdly, we need universal proactive provision, so that support is fully preventive, rather than reactive and limited. Those changes align with the Government’s stated priorities. Communication is fundamental to all areas of public policy—it touches economic growth, an NHS fit for the future, safer streets and breaking down barriers to opportunity.
This is the moment to decide whether we will act. Will we allow those children to struggle in silence, or will we give them a voice? Lastly, I urge the Government to meet with Mikey Akers and the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists to discuss workforce retention and development. Let us invest in our future and ensure that every child has a chance to be heard, to succeed and to thrive.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for opening the debate, and I pay tribute to Mikey. I have been privileged to work with young people for many years, putting them at the heart of leading change, and it is always brilliant to see that happening. I congratulate Mikey, and hope that he will start to see actual results. We have heard that he has been working on this for a long time, and is perhaps frustrated that he has not seen change happen more quickly.
It is not an exaggeration to say that high-quality speech and language services can transform lives because supporting a person to communicate can open a whole new world of opportunity for them. As we have heard, communication is an essential aspect of life for all ages, including for adults who have experienced major setbacks due to medical events. However, I will focus my comments on the need for excellent speech and language provision for children and young people.
A vital part of this Government’s mission is to break down barriers to opportunity for all children, and to help ensure that a record number of children start school ready to learn. A key component of our approach will be better identification of those children who may need additional support with their language and speech development. Speech and Language UK has found that 1.9 million children struggle with talking and understanding words, which demonstrates the scale and importance of this issue. I hope that the investments that this Government are making into increasing the availability and standard of pre-school childcare and into family hubs will lead to more opportunities to support young children with their early language development, at an earlier stage. However, many of those children will need access to high-quality speech and language therapy to help them progress, and their families need support to know how best to encourage and aid their child’s development.
I recognise that, often, parents feel left out in the cold and unclear on how they can best support their children when they face challenges. That support will be crucial to ensuring that no child is left behind in their educational progression because we know that language skills are the foundation for literacy development and further learning. I was delighted to see at first hand, in schools that I have worked with, the impact of the decision already taken by the Secretary of State for Education to fund a further year of the Nuffield Early Language Intervention programme. I hope that the Education team will continue to support that as one means to tackle this bigger issue. I ask the Minister, how are the Government further working alongside education colleagues? We know that it is by working together that we can enable children who need formal speech and language therapy to access it without the horrifically long waiting times that they currently experience.
There are specific challenges within the north-west, and it is no surprise that the majority of constituencies with a high level of signatories to the petition are in that region. In the north-west, in November, around 45% of children and young people who were waiting for speech and language therapy had been waiting for over 12 weeks, compared with 28% of those on the waiting list in the east of England. The latest available figures show that 2,672 children and young people in the Lancashire and South Cumbria integrated care board area were waiting for speech and language therapy. That is a damning statement on the inheritance that we received from the Opposition, and that inheritance is further demonstrated by their Benches being almost empty for this debate. Earlier today, we heard the shadow Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), make a big noise in the Chamber, but she did not take seriously the challenges that the Opposition have left us and how we can tackle them.
The regional disparity is adding another level of disadvantage to children growing up in my constituency of Hyndburn. Like all children, they deserve to be supported to learn. It is important that we are careful, when we speak about children with special educational needs and disabilities, not to suggest that their educational performances or communication skills are due to some internal difference or lack of ability: it is the systems and structures around them that we must fix to make sure that every child and young person has the same access to opportunities to fulfil their potential.
It is important that we provide wraparound support for families so that the Government can make better use of standard two-year check-ups to unlock pathways to support. Time and again, I hear of children and families in my constituency who are on pathways for not just weeks or months but years, without access to the education, health and care plan that they might need or the wraparound services intervention required to make sure that a child has the best possible chance in life. It is welcome that the Government’s mission to build a health service fit for the future will look to design a system that meets the changing needs of our changing population, but can the Minister share more about how speech and language services will feature in the current national conversation on the 10-year strategy?
Effective speech and language interventions can reduce the need for more intensive and costly healthcare services down the line, and as hon. Members have mentioned they have a significant positive return on investment in the long term. Investing in early screening and diagnostic services will help identify speech and language issues at a young age and allow for more effective interventions. Effective intervention does not just help young people to access language and communication skills but helps with their confidence and the ability to make friends and start school with their best foot forward.
I know that Ministers across Government appreciate that there is a crisis affecting the SEND education system. We have had a 140% increase in the number of children and young people with EHCPs, but outcomes have stagnated. More money has been put in, but we are not seeing better results for the children impacted. That is why I welcome the commitment that this is not just about investment but the right reforms.
I would like to ask the Minister about closer working relationships with education professionals—not just how it happens at the top of Government but on the ground. Is there an opportunity with the schools rebuilding programme to look at the co-location of education, health services and therapy and make sure that they are built into the design right from the start? The headteacher leading on the rebuilding of Hyndburn Academy is open and keen for this thinking, so it would be great to hear the Minister’s views as to how that will be rolled out nationally.
There are many wonderful examples of inclusive schools, but many parents have felt forced to seek an EHCP for more specialised speech and language support. Has the Minister made an assessment of how a focus on speech and language specialised support as well as inclusion in schools could create a system where parents do not always have to go through a formal written process to secure the resources they need? That might tackle the huge challenges we face in that part of the system. We cannot solve the problems in the SEND system without increasing support for children struggling with speech and understanding words.
My comments have focused a lot on language development and formal education, but I have had the immense privilege of knowing children who are non-verbal but wonderful and profound communicators. Communication comes in many forms. That is why I spoke about the systems and structures we facilitate around our children to ensure that every child and young person is given the opportunity to thrive. No child should be held back from the strong social participation, relationships, learning and wellbeing that can be forged with the right support.
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
I echo the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) on introducing this important debate, and to all the campaigners who work tirelessly on this issue. I thank everyone who signed the petition, especially the 124 people in my constituency of Altrincham and Sale West: we contributed more signatures than any other constituency. That reflects the great number of conversations that I have had on this issue with local residents since being elected.
Other Members have spoken powerfully about the fundamental nature of communication to human life. It is clear that speech and language therapy can be transformational for those who experience it— approximately 76% of people who have had therapy say that it has materially improved their life—but it is a service that is far too hard to access. NHS England figures show that in September last year, over 64,000 children were on a waiting list for speech and language therapy, and 41% of them were waiting more than 18 weeks.
In my local NHS trust, there are about 154 speech and language therapists working full time. If we speak to any family with a relative affected by a communication or language difficulty, they will tell us that that simply is not enough. I have spoken to many school leaders locally, especially primary leaders, who are having to make stretched budgets stretch even further to fill in the gaps. The picture we face is stark and reflects the huge crises in our national health service and our special educational needs system.
In 2023, a report by the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists identified significant failings over many years in planning for the speech and language workforce. Alongside significant cuts to early intervention services under the previous Government, those failings were reported as driving factors behind the waiting lists for therapy, which in turn piled pressure on other parts of the system and ultimately resulted in a demoralised workforce leaving the job they love and in the public going without the support they need. Ofsted, the Education Committee and the Care Quality Commission have all published similar reports, which should frankly have set alarm bells ringing in Government, but the truth is that not enough has been done.
Neither funding nor the numbers of speech and language therapists have kept up with the 64% increase in the number of children identified as having communication needs since 2015. Tragically, with adults, we have seen a steady decline in the amount of speech and language therapy received after a stroke, and effectively no dedicated adult service for those with long-term speech conditions. The challenge for this Government is that we must reverse these trends, not just because it is absolutely the right thing to do, but because improving access to speech and language therapy is essential to this Government’s missions for change, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) outlined. Whether that is breaking down barriers to opportunity in education or getting the NHS back on its feet, giving people the support to communicate effectively is critical.
Given the impact that speech and language therapy can have on giving people the ability to return to work, it is hugely important to our national effort to boost economic growth. I know that some important steps have been taken, and taken quickly, by this Government, not least the record funding increases set out for the national health service in the Budget. I know that there is no ringfenced central funding for speech and language therapy and that service delivery is in the hands of the integrated care boards, but I would like to know from the Minister, if possible, what work the Government are doing with ICBs to ensure that that extra funding feeds through the system and is being felt by individuals affected by communication and speech issues.
If possible, I would also like the Minister to address how the Government will improve the planning for the whole speech and language therapy workforce and what provision there is for that in the NHS workforce plan, which I know the Department of Health and Social Care is currently looking to update. That is desperately needed across our national health service. Finally, I will be extremely grateful if the Minister sets out the progress in delivering early language support for every child pathfinder project, so education settings can increase their ability materially to support speech, language and communication development.
These are big challenges for the Government to address, but that is why Labour Members like me have been sent here. We were elected on a mandate of changing and rebuilding our public services, so that they can be there for those who need them. We should never lose sight of the role that restoring speech and language therapy provision must play in the driving missions of this Government.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Thank you for your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, which my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) introduced on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I thank Mikey for campaigning to bring this really important matter to this place.
I cannot miss the opportunity to say that I am delighted to see Chris Kamara in the Public Gallery. I am a Stoke MP, and my twin sister is a massive Stoke City fan, so she will be most envious that she is not in Westminster Hall today.
I want to emphasise the importance of speech and language therapy in delivering on our Government’s ambition for childhood development and in supporting children with special educational needs. Ten per cent of all children and young people have a diagnosed long-term speech, language and communication need. We must invest in such services so that those young people are not held back in school and can communicate confidently with their peers.
Early language development promotes positive outcomes later in life, but in disadvantaged areas such as my constituency, about half of children start school with delayed language skills or diagnosed speech, language and communication needs. Speech and language therapists provide vital support in clinical settings to children with diagnosed complex needs and SEND. They also deliver universal programmes in early years settings, but sadly those programmes have been decimated by funding cuts in recent years.
Across Stoke-on-Trent and Kidsgrove, our local team at the Midlands Partnership University NHS foundation trust and organisations such as Stoke Speaks Out and Thrive at Five work incredibly hard to support our children, but sadly I have heard repeated concerns from local service providers about insufficient funding, rising demand and difficulties with recruitment and retention. Investment has simply not kept pace with the increase in the number of children with increasingly complex needs and SEND. I was surprised to learn that in Stoke-on-Trent an average of 269 children are allocated to a single therapist’s caseload at any point in time. That is simply not acceptable.
Our children and young people deserve to be able to access clinical services when they need them, but too often that is not the case. In 2024, 41% waited longer than 18 weeks for therapy—the longest waiting list across paediatric services. Under-investment has impacted accessibility and waiting times for clinical services and has hollowed out our local preventive services. Scarce resources are being used to meet statutory requirements and deliver specialist services, and we have seen significant cuts to universal programmes that support children in early years settings to meet their developmental milestones.
We know that universal programmes have a very positive impact on children’s outcomes. Early intervention can prevent children from developing more complex needs and can reduce the need for referrals to more specialist services in the future. That is why we need more programmes such as Every Child a Talker, Thrive at Five and Stoke Speaks Out, which have delivered excellent support to our families across Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire.
I am delighted that our Government have committed to a new target. We want 75% of our children to achieve a good level of development at five. The first three years of a child’s development are critical to their brain development. I stress the importance of investment in speech and language therapy to deliver on that mission, and our plans to reform the SEND system. I urge the Minister to listen to the calls for investment to tackle the long waiting lists faced by people in my constituency, and the calls to invest in preventive services.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I thank the Petitions Committee for securing this important debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for introducing it; I associate myself with his words on Holocaust Memorial Day. I also congratulate Mikey on starting the petition and on his impactful campaign.
Speech and language therapy is a vital service that supports children and adults with the development of speech and assists those who have difficulties in eating, drinking or swallowing. As Chair of the Education Committee, I will focus my remarks on access to speech and language therapy for children and young people.
Speech and language are vital building blocks of communication. Children who face barriers to developing speech and language early in life, for a wide range of reasons, can face significant difficulties. Poor communication skills reduce participation in education and can lead to frustration and challenging behaviour or withdrawal and school avoidance. For children whose needs relate to a difficulty in eating, drinking or swallowing, good and timely speech and language therapy can make the difference between being able to attend school or nursery safely or not.
I know the difference that speech and language therapy makes in my own family. When my oldest daughter started to learn to speak, it became apparent that she was really struggling to say particular sounds and that her inability to differentiate between sounds, because of her difficulty in pronouncing some of them, was having a consequential impact on her ability to read. We were able to seek advice from an open access speech and language therapy clinic at our local health centre, which provided a wealth of advice and some helpful exercises that we could support our daughter to do at home. The clinic was available to us whenever we needed it, and my daughter was able very quickly to overcome the challenges that she faced. I am pleased to report that she is now a 19-year-old who is nothing but forthright in her ability to communicate with everybody.
Open-access services such as the clinic that we were able to access are now extremely hard to find. There is a shortage of speech and language therapists. Children who need speech and language support face long waiting lists in many parts of the country. That is a huge problem, because accessing timely support has a significant bearing on the impact that a speech and language difficulty can have in the long term. Issues that can be quickly addressed in very young children, for example, can become much more challenging to overcome with the passage of time. Early intervention saves money and delivers better educational outcomes.
Speech and language therapy sits at the junction of several parts of the public sector. Needs are often identified in nurseries or schools; local authorities have a statutory responsibility for special educational needs and disability support; speech and language therapy is an allied health profession commissioned often by the NHS, but sometimes by local authorities and schools directly, and is often based in community settings. This complexity and the lack of a clear single pathway of commissioning services are among the contributory factors to the current shortage and the geographical disparities in the availability of speech and language services.
I welcome the Government’s recognition of the importance of speech and language development in children and the commitment from the Department for Education to roll out the evidence-based NELI—Nuffield Early Language Intervention—programme in reception classes across the country. Expanding the availability of targeted support to help people who have speech and language difficulties to catch up will undoubtedly make a difference, but we know that the earlier a speech and language difficulty is identified, the better, not least because sometimes a speech difficulty is the first indication of wider special educational needs. The earlier a problem is identified, the easier it can be to address it. The Government recognise this, but there is currently no clear plan to expand the availability of speech and language therapy in early years and community settings.
The early years sector is diverse and disparate. There is a need for clarity on expectations, commissioning pathways and professional development to ensure that very young children can access speech and language therapy as soon as a need is identified. The fact that it is not compulsory for children to be in a formal setting until the age of five underlines the importance of community-based support in children’s centres, family hubs and health centres, so that parents and carers can access support readily when they need it.
Adjusting the workforce challenges within speech and language therapy will also require intervention from the Government to make more training places available and to encourage those who have left the profession to return. I hope that the Government will produce a workforce plan for all the professions related to SEND support, so that professional expertise and support will be there for children and families who need it.
More widely, we have a SEND system that is failing children and their families across the country, with far too many children unable to access SEND support in school, waiting far too long for an EHCP and often finding that, when they get an EHCP, it cannot be fully delivered. Since the Minister for Care is responding to this debate today, I take the opportunity to highlight that when I speak with parents, teachers, local authority officers and others who are responsible for delivering SEND support, they very often say that, “within the EHCP, the H is too often absent”. They struggle to get the NHS to the table and there is very weak accountability in the levers that can force it to do so. I ask the Minister to look in detail at the issue, and to work with his colleagues in the Department for Education to ensure better collaboration between Health and Social Care and Education, in the best interests of children with special educational needs and disabilities.
Finally, I take the opportunity to plug the Education Committee’s recently launched inquiry on special educational needs and disabilities. As a Committee, we recognise the vital role of speech and language therapy within the wider network of services that contribute to effective SEND support. Our call for evidence on SEND is open until 6 February. I encourage all right hon. and hon. Members who have an interest in SEND services or challenges within their constituencies to encourage their constituents to submit evidence to our inquiry, including those who have experience of speech and language therapy, so that we can hear the widest possible range of evidence and make recommendations to the Government that can deliver a transformation in SEND services across the country.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank Mikey for being here today and for all his hard work to get to the point of having a debate. It takes a lot of campaigning to get as many people involved in a petition as he has done, and that is a fantastic tribute to him.
I also thank the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for introducing the debate. I was struck by his comment that speech therapy is not just a treatment, but a lifeline. That was certainly brought home to me recently. In Winchester last year, I visited an aphasia support group. Its members meet every couple of weeks and they all have speech issues caused by various types of brain damage, which could be caused by a brain injury, a stroke, a brain tumour or dementia. They told me that aphasia affects about 350,000 people in the UK. Jez Hodgkinson, who is part of the group, said:
“Learning to live with aphasia takes hard work, luck and lots of support—and this isn’t helped by the lack of knowledge of the condition. I’d never actually heard of aphasia until I had a stroke so hence it’s so important to share our stories both inside the group and with the wider public—including those with a voice in parliament.”
I also have personal experience of living with my father who had a series of mini-strokes and then dementia, and really struggled to communicate. He knew what words he wanted to say but he could not reach for them. It made communication difficult, and especially did not help a very independent farmer who had quite a hot temper at the best of times.
All people who have difficulty communicating, whether it is the result of a hearing impairment, special educational needs or conditions such as strokes and Parkinson’s, have the right to participate in society fully and independently. Too often, those rights are not fully recognised. Everyone has talked about how fundamental it is for us to be able to communicate, because we are a social species; we function because we can communicate. Even with my veterinary background, I understand how fundamental that need is. Puppies communicate primarily by body language; when they have had their ears cut off or their tails docked, they lose that ability to communicate and cannot socialise—they get psychological issues or behavioural problems that last for their entire lives. And the issue is so much more important for humans who need to communicate with friends and family, access services and interact with strangers on a regular basis to be able to work and get an education. Everyone deserves independence and the opportunity to flourish, with them and their families supported so that they can express themselves and communicate with ease in the most comfortable way for them.
Speech and language therapy can make a life-changing difference to the people it supports. It is a vital and overstretched service. In recent years, demand has risen at a faster rate than the number of therapists or the support they can offer. That desperately needs to be addressed. By improving outcomes, speech and language therapy can help to deliver better care, and actually save money for other parts of the NHS. We heard about supporting people who are unable to swallow properly; that can have a significant impact on reducing repeat chest infections. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) mentioned how every £1 spent on speech therapy can save £2.30 of NHS costs. When people ask how we can afford to do this, we have to ask, “How can we afford not to do this?”
Children and adults are waiting far too long for the speech and language therapy they need. As the hon. Member for Lichfield has already said, it is a postcode lottery; there are huge differences in outcomes depending on where someone lives. Helping people to swallow, eat and communicate is an essential service, and everyone should be able to expect that support if and when they need it.
We, the Liberal Democrats, are pressing for the NHS 10-year plan to address specifically the inadequate access to these speech and language therapies, and how that will be improved. We want the Government to develop a workforce strategy to end the chronic shortage of speech and language therapists, so that everyone can get the support that they need.
As a slight aside, but on a related note, we have also long campaigned for more support for those communicating through British Sign Language. We have campaigned for it to have equal official status to the UK’s other languages, and we are campaigning for free access to sign language lessons for parents of deaf children.
I visited St Peter’s primary school in Winchester recently. The headteacher was discussing how, since the covid pandemic, they had noticed a sharp rise in pupils struggling to communicate, as their speech and language had not developed as quickly as it did before the pandemic. We need to remember that it is not just people’s educational needs that are affected—both by covid and by speech and language challenges—but their entire social development and friendship groups as well.
We are really pleased that this issue has been highlighted, and that we have had this debate today. I urge the Minister to push forward on this issue as fast as possible.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) on his introduction to today’s debate. I also particularly congratulate Mikey Akers, who I understand introduced this petition, for the work that he has done in raising awareness of verbal apraxia—work that will no doubt help people right across the country. I know that he has been working with my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) on this issue too, and no doubt that will also be helping people. I also welcome Chris Kamara to the Gallery. He is doing great work on raising awareness too. The more awareness we raise, the better it will be for everybody, and the easier it will be for people to be treated for the conditions they have.
As we have heard today, speech and language therapists have a wide range of skills for people of all ages. The issue is much bigger than speech itself. It also includes swallowing, from newborns with developmental delay to the elderly, who may be struggling to swallow after a stroke. It is about communication, feeding issues, and specific sound delays—a stammer. Speech and language therapists are involved in a huge amount of work.
I have seen in my own family the work that speech and language therapists do, with one child unable to say “s”, and having speech therapy to try and encourage her to do so—one of her younger siblings, having spent much time attending these appointments, consequently learned to say “s” about 18 months earlier than she was supposed to.
I also had a child with a stammer who was treated successfully. I learned from that that the whole family needs to be involved in treating the child, and I am grateful for the support that I got from the NHS speech and language therapists for my family. When I went along, particularly with the child with the stammer, I learned that the parent, and indeed the whole family, had to play games every day. I had to learn to play with my child without asking her any questions, which is a lot harder than it looks.
I learned about the importance of sleep and that early therapy is better. I remember the speech and language therapist likening the condition to a record getting stuck in a groove on a record player. If someone got stuck in a particular groove, the more times the disc went round the deeper it got and the harder it was to jump out, so it is important to ensure that speech and language therapy is instituted as early as possible to make it easier to treat the patient.
I want to ask the Minister about parent resources. If early is better, special guidance on aspects of treatment and management even before the patient sees a speech and language therapist would be helpful. I saw that Hereford and Worcestershire health and care NHS trust had some very good online resources for parents and what they can do to help their child with a speech or language condition.
The priority of reducing overall waiting times for community services was reflected in NHS England’s operational planning guidance for 2024-25. Local systems across England were asked to develop the comprehensive plan by June 2024 to reduce the overall waiting times for community services, including reducing waits over 52 weeks for children’s community services. The waiting lists have reduced from roughly 76,000 last July to 63,000 at the end of last year, which is still too long. Will the Government focus on trying to reduce the waiting lists still further? And does the Minister have a target in mind for next year to see how far he would consider it successful to have reduced those waiting lists?
What is also clear and has been reflected in many hon. Members’ speeches is that the demand for speech and language therapy has gone up. According to Department for Education data, in 2023-24 370,000 pupils had a speech, language and communication need in England—an increase of over 64%, from 225,000 in 2015-16. That is not related to an overall increase in the number of school-age children, so why is that the case?
One could perhaps consider that more people are aware of the conditions, thanks to active campaigns. That is a good thing because people are getting referred earlier and treated earlier. But it also would appear that the number of children affected by speech and language conditions has gone up. The Minister and his Government have talked a lot about prevention being better than cure, and I agree with that. So what work has he done to look at the causes of the rise in speech and language difficulties?
As I was researching causes, I came across the issue of screen time. What is the effect of screen time? It reduces imagination, peer-to-peer speaking and verbal problem solving. It is also a solitary rather than truly social activity. We know that children are spending more and more of their time online, particularly young children. Families are smaller. Does that mean that people have less time to interact with other children? We have an increase in the number of bilingual children. Although that in itself does not cause speech and language problems, it can cause temporary language mixing at younger ages, and in some cases slower vocabulary acquisition in early years. What is the Minister doing to find the cause of the rapid increase in the number of children with speech and language difficulties so that we can prevent them rather than waiting for them to occur and then treating them?
I also want to talk about the Nuffield Early Language Intervention, known as NELI, which was mentioned earlier. It is a teaching assistant-delivered programme that has been accessed by over 11,000 schools since the pandemic. It is known to improve the speech and language communication of the children who go through the programme by three months; the improvement is much greater for more disadvantaged children. Can the Minister commit to continuing to ensure that children have access to the NELI programme?
Pre-election, the Department of Health and Social Care worked with the Department for Education to ensure that young people with special educational needs and disabilities received the right support. The collaboration included working together to implement the SEND and alternative provision improvement plan, published on 2 March 2023. Those two Departments also worked together on SEND workforce planning and established a steering group to oversee the work, with a view to completing it by 2025. Will the Minister provide an update on the steering group’s work and what plans there are to commission research into supply and demand for speech and language therapy?
In 2023 the Department for Education launched the two-year early language and support for every child pathfinder project with NHS England to improve access to speech and language therapy. Funding for that is due to run out this year, so can the Minister confirm whether it will be renewed to allow the project to continue?
The Government are also due to refresh the NHS long-term workforce plan this year. Back in 2023, that plan set out an ambition to increase allied health professional training places by 25% by 2031-32. However, the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists and others have highlighted that that is likely to cover only speech and language therapists in the NHS workforce, and the Minister also needs to address shortages in educational and criminal justice settings. Can he confirm what work he is doing with his colleagues across Government to ensure that is the case?
Many speeches today have been focused on the social speech and language needs of children, which is understandable, but in the Minister’s wrapping up, will he talk about what work he is doing to support adults with speech and language difficulties or swallowing needs? Finally, we understand from the newspapers that many aspects of care across the NHS are now to be deprioritised, and Ministers are to focus on one specific target. While I would not expect the Minister to comment on any leaks, can he confirm that speech and language therapy will not see a reduction in real-terms resources?
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) on introducing this important debate, and on the passionate, moving and powerful way in which he spoke, particularly about his mother. I would really like to thank him for sharing those personal experiences. I also thank every Member who has spoken today. We have heard really compelling accounts about access to speech and language therapy for both children and adults.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for giving way, and my apologies, Mr Vickers; I had to leave earlier for a ministerial appointment.
In 2018 my father suffered a stroke, and the staff at my local hospital, the George Eliot, could not do enough for him—they were absolutely fantastic. I know that my father stayed in hospital longer than he needed because that was the only way in which he could access the speech and language therapy that he needed, as well as the help to enable him to swallow. It was fantastic to see him recovering that speech because of their intervention. As he had served for nearly 50 years as a volunteer magistrate, it is wonderful to see him now being able to challenge my ideas and give his comments on my contributions in this House.
Last week, I held a consultation event in my constituency where a dietician told me that she felt there was not enough ability for her and her team, as well as speech and language therapists, to give help in the community. She was quite excited about our ideas for virtual wards and asked me, on her behalf, to plead with the Minister to ensure that we give recognition to putting more speech and language therapy in the community. I know that my dad would have been very pleased to receive that.
Martin Vickers (in the Chair)
Order. Interventions should be brief— I was very generous.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank my hon. Friend for that wonderful example of the personal experience that so many Members on all sides of the House have of this service, which can be life-changing for so many people. I pay tribute to her father for coming through in the way that he has, and I also pay tribute to all those in the community care services. The care that he received was obviously vital and life-changing for him, and that is wonderful to hear.
My hon. Friend raises an interesting point on virtual wards. It is absolutely right that we build on the innovation and opportunities that they offer. Later in my speech I will say a word or two on the three big shifts that we will put at the heart of our 10-year plan: from hospital to community, from sickness to prevention and from analogue to digital. I think the virtual wards are a great illustration of how we can bring those three seismic shifts together to transform our health and care system. I can tell my hon. Friend that the 10-year plan is the right forum and opportunity for that, and I encourage her and all Members to get involved in that plan, which can be accessed at change.nhs.uk. Hon. Members may also wish to organise roundtables and discussion fora in their constituencies to talk exactly about the kind of innovations that we are looking to bring to the fore.
It would be remiss of me not to pay tribute to Mikey Akers; he is an outstanding young man and truly an example to us all. Of course, I also pay tribute to Chris Kamara and the whole team campaigning with such vigour and verve on this vital issue. I would of course be delighted to meet Mikey, Chris and the team at a mutually convenient time to discuss the project and how to take it forward.
As our debate today has shown, speech and language therapists work with people of all ages, providing specialist care and support. Their work takes place across a range of different settings in health, care and education. It responds to a wide range of communication needs, from those of children whose speech is slow to develop to those of older people whose ability to speak has been impaired by illness or injury, for example as a result of Alzheimer’s, a stroke or head injury. Speech and language therapists also support patients who have difficulties with eating, drinking and swallowing.
The variety of support that speech and language therapists provide means that they play a key role in a wide range of care pathways. A speech and language therapist is a core part of the multidisciplinary stroke rehabilitation team, providing long-term rehab for stroke patients. It is not just patients they support—a speech and language therapist also works with a patient’s family or carers on how best to facilitate communication and support the patient, sharing their expertise to upskill the support network of the person they are caring for.
Another example of the work of speech and language therapists is the role they play in supporting autistic people. They can offer interventions to improve communication skills where needed. For individuals who are unable to speak, speech and language therapists can design alternative communication systems.
Moreover, as part of a wider multidisciplinary team, speech and language therapists also contribute to a young person’s education, health and care plan. A therapist will carry out a detailed assessment of an individual’s speech, language and communication abilities, which will help to determine the additional support they may need to access education.
However, it is the key role that speech and language therapy plays in care and support pathways that creates complexity in funding and commissioning models for it. In some cases, full care pathways are commissioned as opposed to individual services within a particular pathway, while in some areas community health services are commissioned using block contracts. Both these things create challenges in clearly identifying specific funding streams for specific services.
Speech and language therapy is generally commissioned locally by integrated care boards and in some cases by local authorities. Funding is allocated to ICBs by NHS England. The allocations process uses a statistical formula to make geographical distribution fair and objective, so that it more clearly reflects local healthcare needs and helps to reduce health inequalities. This process is independent of Government, and NHS England takes advice on the underlying formula from the independent Advisory Committee on Resource Allocation. NHS England is also continuing to work with ICBs to develop their financial plans.
NHS planning guidance sets priorities for systems, and the Secretary of State has confirmed that this key document will be published in due course—indeed, imminently. Each ICB will then commission the services they need for their local area, taking into account their annual budget, planning guidance and the wider needs of the population they cover. Local commissioners are responsible for ensuring that their offer is tailored to the local population and that their communities are able to access the specific support they need. NHS England continues to work with ICBs to develop their financial plans, to ensure that communities can access the healthcare support they need when they need it. A complex patchwork quilt of systems and processes needs to be gone through by the people who know best about what is required in their community—those at the coalface—to deliver the care that is needed.
That said, I reassure hon. Members that the Government are committed to funding the NHS properly. We recently provided a £26 billion boost for health and social care at the Budget through the policies and choices that the Chancellor laid out. We have been clear that funding must go hand in hand with reform, and we will ensure that every penny of extra investment in the NHS is well spent.
The community health services data plan, published by NHS England last year, goes some way to improving data about community health services. The plan sets out how the NHS aims to improve the quality and relevance of data, and the timeliness of its publication. It will improve our understanding of demand and capacity across community health services, including speech and language therapy, with high-quality data to generate helpful insight to shape interventions and improvements to services.
Data and clear funding lines are not the only challenge facing speech and language services. Our children and young people are stuck on waiting lists, some for more than two years. More than 65,000 children and young people were on a waiting list for speech and language therapy in November 2024. We know that more than 23,000 have been on those waiting lists for longer than 18 weeks. That is simply too long. Waiting times for adults are not as bad as those for children and young people, but there were more than 23,000 adults on waiting lists for speech and language therapy in November 2024.
We hear a lot about the increasing demand for speech and language therapy, and about the fact that our existing workforce are struggling to meet the increase in referrals—pretty much every hon. Member said that in the debate. The reason for the increase in waiting times is multifaceted. Although services are still recovering from the pandemic, there has also been an increase in demand, and analysis from the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists shows that demand is increasing faster than the workforce are growing.
Speech and language therapy covers a broad spectrum of support. Therapists are often dealing with complex long-term cases, requiring a resource-intensive approach to supporting their patients, and referral pathways are often complex. Those referral pathways, and the services offered, also vary regionally.
As my hon. Friends pointed out, we are coming off the back of 14 years of failure, which have led to serious workforce challenges, and the reality is that we have a mountain to climb on recruitment and retention. The speech and language degree apprenticeship is now in its third year of delivery and offers an alternative pathway to the traditional degree route into a successful career as a speech and language therapist. We think that that has had a positive impact on recruitment, but much more needs to be done. We want to remove the barriers to training in clinical roles, which is why eligible students get a non-repayable grant of £5,000 a year. Further financial support is also available for childcare, dual accommodation costs and travel, but we know that that does not go far enough.
The training and retention of our talented NHS staff are absolutely key to our mission of rebuilding a health service that is fit for the future. A central part of the 10-year plan concerns our workforce and how we ensure that we train and provide the staff, technology and infrastructure that the NHS needs to care for patients across our communities.
This summer, we will publish a refreshed long-term workforce plan to deliver the transformed health service that we will build over the next decade and that will treat patients within the 18-week constitutional standard once again. We will ensure that the NHS has the right people in the right places, with the right skills to deliver the care that patients need when they need it. We must acknowledge that tackling this will take time, but we are committed to training the staff we need to ensure that patients are cared for by the right professionals and in a timely manner.
Community health services, and speech and language therapies in particular, speak to the three seismic shifts that will drive our 10-year plan: shifting healthcare from hospitals to communities, focusing on prevention, and embracing digital care. Effective, user-centred services are invariably delivered by multidisciplinary teams that are based in the communities they serve. The early language and support for every child—ELSEC—programme provides an example of different professions coming together to support children and young people, with local authorities, schools and the health and care system working together in the community. In our view, that is a potential building block for how our neighbourhood health service should work.
Nine regional pathfinder partnerships are trialling new ways of working to better identify and support children in early years settings and primary schools. We have asked the pathfinders to consider how to make the model sustainable after the project period. The therapy assistant roles have the potential to attract individuals to train to become speech and language therapists through the apprenticeship route. The ELSEC workforce model focuses on recruiting pre-qualification speech and language therapy support workers into the workforce to improve the capacity and knowledge of staff who support children with emerging or mild to moderate speech, language and communication needs in early years and school settings.
That will be important, because we hear a lot about the challenges our workforce face in meeting the increasing demand for speech and language therapy. Across all community health services, increasing demand and workforce availability are frequently cited as the main reasons that systems are struggling to reduce waiting times and get on top of the demand. The interim programme evaluation is due to be published in February, at which point we can explore insights into the effectiveness of ELSEC delivery at a local level. Reporting data shows that therapy support teams have supported around 13,000 children so far, and just over 1,000 staff in settings have been upskilled in delivering interventions. That is an encouraging set of achievements, and I will continue to work with my ministerial colleagues and officials across my Department and the Department for Education to support this important programme.
I referred earlier to our ambition to build a neighbourhood health service. We are firmly committed to moving towards our vision for such a service, and community health services will be an essential building block of it—keeping people healthy at home and in their communities, and providing more preventive, proactive and personalised care. Later this year, we are going to trial neighbourhood health centres, which will bring together a range of services and will ensure that healthcare is closer to home and that patients receive the care they deserve.
We have heard about the importance of adequate funding and timely access to speech and language therapy services for children and adults with communication and swallowing needs. The importance of such services is not in doubt, nor is the life-changing impact that timely access to high-quality services can have, from helping a child to develop the right skills to engage with education to supporting adults to regain their ability to speak. Speech and language services are facing challenges, but sustainable, accessible and high-quality community health services are vital, and I will continue to work closely with NHS England, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education on this critical issue.
Dave Robertson
I place on record my thanks to all the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, starting with the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), who made an excellent contribution, as I think we would all expect. I congratulate him on his campaigning on this important issue. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) for raising the story of her constituent Samantha, who I am sure will be watching the debate closely.
I thank the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) for reminding us of the importance of supporting the next generation and all those who come after. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) for raising the issue of unacceptably long wait times for speech and language therapy. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) for highlighting the caseload faced by speech and language therapists in Stoke-on-Trent and the great county of Staffordshire. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for discussing the need for early intervention and the remarkable impact that it can have.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor) for the story of her father’s experience in speech and language therapy. I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), for his excellent contribution on the need to raise awareness around aphasia, which does not necessarily get spoken about enough in the community.
I thank the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition, for her considered remarks and for avoiding making the issue a political football. It is really important to highlight where we do agree, because there is often more agreement than people realise in this place. By working together, we can achieve those goals.
I especially thank the Minister for Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock)—did I get that right?
Dave Robertson
Mam never quite got round to teaching me the Welsh that she speaks. I thank the Minister for his kind words about her and for outlining the complicated funding scenario that currently exists for speech and language therapy, along with the Government’s desires for the future of this therapy as an example of the three shifts that the Government will introduce in the NHS, and the need for people to engage thoroughly with the NHS 10-year plan consultation as a vehicle to securing those changes.
I thank the Petitions Committee for allowing me to lead the debate. It has been a real pleasure, not least because my constituency was the fourth most supportive of the petition. Finally, on behalf of all hon. Members who have been able to contribute today, I say an enormous thanks to Mikey, without whose campaigning we would not be here discussing this issue.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 657935 relating to speech and language therapy.
Written Statements
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Fairey Swordfish Mark II
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)
I have today laid before Parliament a departmental minute describing a gift which the Ministry of Defence (MOD) intends to make to the Fly Navy Heritage Trust Ltd.
Since 1960, the Royal Navy operated a collection of MOD-owned historically important naval heritage aircraft with the Royal Navy Historic Flight. Five military-registered aircraft formed part of the Royal Navy Historic Flight, all of which had been maintained at some expense on the military register by the MOD. In January 2018, it was determined that, to allow greater freedoms in operation at reduced cost to the MOD, the Royal Navy Historic Flight should be disbanded, with its aircraft transferred to a civilian owner-operator. On 1 January 2020, four former Royal Navy Historic Flight aircraft were gifted to the Fly Navy Heritage Trust, with one, a Fairey Swordfish Mk II (LS326), retained while its original conditions of transfer to the Royal Navy were clarified.
The gift comprises a Fairey Swordfish Mk II (LS326) torpedo bomber aircraft, famous for the battle of Taranto and operations throughout world war two, in flying condition.
The total value of this gift is in the region of £495,000. The transfer of ownership is expected to be undertaken over the coming weeks.
The Fly Navy Heritage Trust Ltd, a charity operating under the umbrella of “Navy Wings”, has promoted the culture and heritage conservation of the Royal Navy’s Fleet Air Arm since the formation of the trust in the early ’90s. The trust has provided significant financial support to the renovation, repair and maintenance of heritage aircraft, operating them in direct support of naval service engagement aims.
The gifting of this final former Royal Navy Historic Flight aircraft to the Fly Navy Heritage Trust will allow this historically important aircraft to continue to be used in support of commemorative and educational aims in support of the Royal Navy and Fleet Air Arm for many years to come.
[HCWS389]
National Infrastructure Planning
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
Sustained economic growth is central to the Government’s plan for change. It is the only way to increase the prosperity of our country and improve the living standards of working people.
Building and upgrading the right economic infrastructure—whether that be electricity networks, public transport links, renewable energy projects, roads, or water supplies—is essential to achieving that growth and delivering the Government’s long-term missions. Yet when it comes to infrastructure delivery, Britain today performs poorly against comparator countries. That needs to change.
That is why the Government moved quickly last year to lift the ban on onshore wind and expand the scope of the nationally significant infrastructure projects regime, enabling laboratories, gigafactories and data centres to be directed into the process. Last week, the Prime Minister announced plans to speed up the conclusion of legal challenges against development consent orders, including committing to legislate to ensure that meritless claims are given only a single permission attempt to seek a judicial review.
Yesterday, the Government published two interlinked working papers: the first, from His Majesty’s Treasury, set out the Government’s plan for their 10-year infrastructure strategy, which will be published alongside the spending review in June; the second, from the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government, detailed our legislative proposals to streamline the consenting of critical national infrastructure—proposals which, subject to further work and the views expressed in response to the working paper, will be taken forward through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Copies of these documents will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
The proposals in the latter paper are intended to help deliver the commitment that the Government made in their plan for change to determine applications for at least 150 major infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament. This target is more than the total number of decisions made under the NSIP regime since it was introduced in 2011, and nearly triple the 57 decisions made during the previous Parliament. Delivering this ambitious commitment will require decisive action on several fronts.
We are not, however, starting from scratch. The NSIP reform action plan, published in 2023, laid the foundations for a better, faster, greener, fairer, and more resilient NSIP regime. The action plan was broadly welcomed by infrastructure developers and communities, and the implementation of many of its proposals is already under way. These include enabling public bodies to recover costs for their services, and the provision of new services on the part of the Planning Inspectorate to enhance its advice to applicants and fast-track examinations.
We now want to move further and faster—which is why our working paper outlines legislative proposals to deliver two key objectives: clearer and stronger national policy; and faster decisions under the NSIP regime. With respect to national policy statements, the working paper confirms that the Government will implement recommendations from the National Infrastructure Commission to require that each NPS is updated at least every five years. This is essential given that some NPSs, such as those for waste water and hazardous waste, have not been updated for over 10 years.
The working paper also proposes a faster process for amending NPSs to reflect legislative changes, changes to current Government policy or relevant court decisions that have taken place between five-yearly updates. Both measures will ensure that national policy better reflects the Government’s priorities and provides stronger guidance to decision makers determining applications in line with the current national interest.
When it comes to ensuring faster and more consistent decisions under the NSIP regime, the paper outlines four proposals. First, we want to protect the consultation process while making it less burdensome. The time taken for applications to complete the pre-application stage has grown from 14.5 months in 2013 to 27.9 months in 2021, in part as a result of increased consultation and re-consultation on project proposals. Prescriptive statutory requirements and uncertainty about meeting them make developers cautious, resulting in gold-plating, which delays projects and confuses communities.
Our proposals seek to rebalance and improve the quality of consultation, with the aim of closing down issues and reducing the examination burden for all parties by:
clarifying the requirements around consultation;
introducing a new duty on all parties to identify and, where possible, narrow down any areas of disagreement during the pre-application stage;
revising requirements around the contents of consultation reports to reduce their length and make them more accessible; and
removing the requirement to consult ‘Category 3’ persons during the pre-application stage.
This also responds to the concerns raised by the NIC and stakeholders, and brings the statutory consultation requirements in the NSIP regime closer in line with other parts of the planning system.
Secondly, we want to further support the building of infrastructure after a development consent order is granted. The paper seeks views on how to ensure the system returns to the ‘one-stop shop’ it was originally intended to be, with more consents, licences, and permits granted in parallel with a DCO. We know that seeking these permissions post consent can delay construction by six to 18 months. Our paper invites contributions on whether this can be tackled through stronger guidance, or if an alternative model of seeking a ‘deemed consent’, replicating the approach of deemed marine licences, would have merit. We also outline proposals to streamline the process applicants need to follow to make factual corrections, or more substantive amendments to a DCO.
Thirdly, we consider ways to make the NSIP regime more flexible, so that it can accommodate the complexity and volume of projects expected over the coming years. Building on feedback received from infrastructure stakeholders in response to our NPPF consultation, we propose to amend the Planning Act 2008 to allow the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), to consider on a case-by-case basis if a project would be better determined via an alternative consenting route. This will enable projects which would otherwise be unviable due to disproportionate planning requirements to be brought forward, while in turn ensuring that the capacity of the NSIP regime is reserved for those projects that truly merit it.
One of the original objectives behind the NSIP regime was to enable all major projects across different sectors to follow a uniform consenting process. This has broadly been achieved; providing greater certainty for applicants on what are often one-off, unique and once-in-a-generation schemes is why the regime is widely supported by industry.
However, given the volume and complexity of projects set to come forward over the course of this Parliament, our paper explores whether the NSIP regime is sufficiently flexible to deliver robust and swift decisions in all instances. The paper outlines three examples where rigidity of process may be holding back better consenting outcomes, and seeks views on how best to address these concerns. It invites views on whether the best means of introducing greater flexibility would be via a general ‘process modification power’ to be used on a discretionary case-by-case basis; or whether it would be more appropriate to make a series of specific changes to tackle known issues via amendments to the Planning Act 2008, changes to secondary legislation or improvements in guidance.
Fourthly, we outline plans to increase the reach of statutory guidance in the system, to enable greater clarity over expectations for those involved in the consenting process, and to support implementation of our changes, particularly those linked to consultation.
Finally, the working paper also sets out our proposals for amending and updating existing transport consenting regimes to support quicker delivery of transport projects that are consented via the Highways Act 1980 and the Transport and Works Act 1992.
We look forward to receiving views on the proposals set out in the working paper, and to working with all those with an interest in streamlining the delivery of major national infrastructure.
[HCWS390]
Grand Committee
Environmental Permitting (Electricity Generating Stations) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That the Grand Committee do consider the Environmental Permitting (Electricity Generating Stations) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid in draft before the House on 30 October 2024. The Government believe that the answer to the challenges around energy security, affordability and sustainability point not in different directions but in the same direction: clean power. Investing in clean power at speed and scale can help tackle the climate crisis and create good jobs. We believe that it is the only route to protect bill payers and ensure energy security; this is why making Britain a clean energy superpower by 2030 is one of the five central missions of this Government.
To deliver that mission, we will rely increasingly on a renewables-led system as the foundation for a decarbonised grid. We have set ambitious but deliverable targets to double onshore wind, treble solar and quadruple offshore wind by 2030. Although renewable energy is at the heart of our plan to deliver clean power, we also know that we must bring forward low-carbon generation sources, providing added security for when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow. This includes flexible supply sources that can scale up or down instantaneously to meet peak demand.
Some of this flexibility can be provided by short-duration technologies such as batteries, which can help balance the system within each day, but we know that we will also need long-duration technologies, which can run for extended periods of low renewable production. To meet this challenge, the Government are investing in low-carbon flexible technologies, such as carbon capture and storage at existing power stations, hydrogen and long-duration electricity storage. This flexibility is critical to maintaining a constant supply of electricity in the UK, keeping the lights on for millions of homes and businesses.
However, as these new low-carbon technologies scale up, we will continue to need reliable mature technologies, including gas, to provide energy security. The National Energy System Operator’s report on delivering clean power by 2030 showed that maintaining gas capacity in the system is in line with the mission to deliver clean power. We have been clear from the outset that gas is expected to be used less in our future energy system, moving to an important strategic reserve role in order to ensure security of supply. Although gas will continue to play an important role in the system, it is only right that we should expect any new or substantially refurbished combustion plants to be built “net zero-ready”. This is why we are uplifting the existing regime and introducing the new decarbonisation readiness requirements.
Before I turn to detail of the decarbonisation readiness requirements, let me first set out the current regime. Since 2009, all new-build combustion power plants in Great Britain sized over 300 megawatts have been subject to the carbon capture readiness requirements. These regulations require plant operators to demonstrate that it is technically and economically feasible to retrofit carbon capture and storage technology. Due to the threshold of 300 megawatts, the policy has seen limited application since 2009. The reality is that it has contributed to a costly market distortion by incentivising the building of smaller, less efficient plants and inadvertently creating an unacceptable loophole. This has resulted in a significant number of plants being built at 299 megawatts in order to avoid the carbon capture readiness requirements.
The policy landscape has changed significantly since the carbon capture readiness requirements were introduced. Plant operators now have an alternative pathway to decarbonise, through hydrogen-fired generation, as well as the introduction of the UK’s legal obligation to meet carbon budgets and reach net zero by 2050. In March 2023, a final consultation on the decarbonisation readiness proposals was published alongside the publication of two technical studies for hydrogen and carbon capture and storage. The consultation received positive feedback from industry. Some 28 organisations and one individual responded—representing plant operators, original equipment manufacturers and trade associations—with broad support for the proposed changes and implementation of the decarbonisation readiness requirements. We published a response in mid-October, giving the go-ahead to proposals set out in the consultation.
On the details of the regulations, this statutory instrument will amend the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 by inserting new Schedule 25C. It will remove the minimum capacity threshold of 300 megawatts, which will remove any existing market distortion and support rapid decarbonisation by ensuring that nearly all new and substantially refurbishing combustion power plants must have a credible plan to decarbonise. The regulations will also move the requirements from the planning consent process, where they currently sit for carbon capture readiness, to environmental permitting. This will ensure that the responsibility for regulating the requirements falls to the Environment Agency rather than to local planning authorities and my own department. Unlike local planning authorities, the Environment Agency is already involved in the assessment of carbon capture readiness and has the technical expertise to assess the requirements. As I mentioned a moment ago, that will also include hydrogen readiness.
The new requirements will now enable combustion plants to demonstrate decarbonisation readiness through conversion to hydrogen firing, as well as carbon capture. In doing so, the instrument introduces hydrogen conversion readiness and carbon capture readiness assessments, which are proportionate to the developing nature of hydrogen to power and carbon capture and storage. The requirements will also expand the generation technologies in scope of the requirements to include biomass, energy from waste and combined heat and power plants. This will ensure that a higher number of carbon-intensive plants are now captured.
These updated requirements are intended to strike a balance. They ensure that new-build plants and the refurbishment of old sites are conducted ready to take full advantage of future decarbonisation opportunities, while acknowledging the emerging state of hydrogen and carbon capture technologies and their enabling infrastructure. We expect that the requirements will be strengthened over time as the generation technology improves and clarity on enabling infrastructure availability increases. To ensure that we regularly assess the impact of the policy and the case for strengthening the requirements, we have included a statutory requirement for the Government to carry out a review of the policy in periods not exceeding five years.
In summary, these regulations will ensure that the gas capacity we need for security of supply is future-proofed and has a credible plan to transition to low-carbon operation. In doing so, it will help deliver our aim to become a clean energy superpower and deliver net zero by 2050. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson (LD)
When one is first appointed to Parliament, one worries about addressing a huge crowd of parliamentarians and being on the telly as well. I am not feeling too nervous today.
I found the Minister’s explanation excellent; I did not understand it particularly from the legislation or the Explanatory Memorandum. I presume that the whole area around potential new gas, in particular combustion power stations, is about aiming for 95% decarbonisation by 2030 rather than 100%, which I understand in terms of pragmatism.
On the areas that I do not really understand, the one that I had not really realised is the hydrogen aspect of these regulations. I find it difficult to understand how one would ever convert a gas power station to a hydrogen power station in a way that would make any economic sense whatever in terms of gas storage coming in and perhaps being used as part of the capacity mechanism. The hydrogen would have to be green hydrogen, which means that it is probably generated by electricity in the first place—so why would one de-convert it through various inefficiency mechanisms for it then to go through a degassed power station? That just does not seem logical to me.
On that, the other risk seems to be that—I am not a technical expert on this, obviously—the conversion from a gas-fired power station to a hydrogen-fired power station is probably not that different, and therefore the cost of conversion, or of being hydrogen-ready, is not very great. Carbon capture and storage, however, is a major conversion and, presumably, it has to be near facilities that can store carbon: either a carbon pipeline, which we went through all the legislation for in the last Energy Act, or something on the coast, so it can go undersea. So I ask the Minister: is this effectively another loophole like the one that already exists, in that new combustion stations just say that they are hydrogen-ready? In terms of carbon capture and storage, does that very much restrict where they are?
I have another concern, although I fully accept what the Government are trying to do here. The Minister mentioned energy from waste plants. We all know that, as part of their planning permission, the plants often have to be ready to have heat networks—but this hardly ever happens. Occasionally it does; there are examples of energy from waste being tapped into heat networks. I just feel that there is a risk that these things can be built in a certain way—I do not know how much they have to be ready or near a connection—but in reality they will never happen. Certainly, that tends to be the track record in this area.
I will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments, but, generally, I welcome what the Government are trying to do.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, in speaking to these regulations, I will concentrate on a major area where I feel the Government must provide some clarity: regulatory burden. In doing so, I am of course mindful that it was the previous Government who introduced the initial consultation to expand and update carbon capture readiness requirements, now rebranded as decarbonisation readiness requirements. The immediate effect of these regulations will be felt across electricity generating stations in England, particularly those now required to meet the expanded decarbonisation readiness criteria. Operators will be required to submit a decarbonisation readiness report as part of their environmental permit applications, which must include technical details on the feasibility of carbon capture or hydrogen conversion during electricity generation.
A significant provision in this statutory instrument is the removal of the 300 megawatt minimum capacity threshold, which currently dictates when carbon capture readiness requirements apply. In this amendment, the requirements will apply to both new and substantially refurbished combustion power plants, as well as voluntary applications for existing plants. Additionally, the SI introduces assessments for hydrogen conversion readiness and carbon capture, usage and storage.
It is incumbent on the Government to outline comprehensively what specific support will be available to businesses as they are required to adjust to these new requirements. Can the Minister assure me that his officials in the department recognise that the onus must be on helping operators achieve compliance rather than face an undue burden? Will he outline whether exemptions have been considered—for example, for smaller or older power plants that may face specific challenges in meeting the requirements on day 1? There is a fine line to be walked between regulation and innovation, and, to use a familiar proverb, there is a real need here to make sure that we are not cutting off our nose to spite our face.
This instrument hands the Environment Agency direct assessment powers over compliance. Again, can the Minister provide the necessary detail on the actions that the agency will take to facilitate a smooth transition before the implementation date of February 2026? Additionally, will there be any further consultations, or will any additional guidance be issued, before the regulations come into effect?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Offord and Lord Teverson, for their comments. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, that I am grateful for his support and for noting the clarity with which we have presented the proposals. In terms of the popularity of debates on energy SIs, we have had more colleagues here in previous debates, but we are presently on a rota of two SIs every Monday, and at some point I hope we might come to a conclusion in relation to that.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2025
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That the Grand Committee do consider the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) Order 2025.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, this order was laid before Parliament on 3 December 2024. Noble Lords will know that the UK Emissions Trading Scheme, UK ETS, was established under the Climate Change Act 2008 by the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020 as a UK-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme, contributing to the UK’s emissions-reduction targets and net-zero goal. The scheme is run by the UK ETS authority, a joint body comprising the UK Government and the devolved Governments. Our aim is to be predictable and responsible guardians of the scheme and its markets.
Under the UK ETS, operators are required to monitor, report on and surrender allowances in respect of their greenhouse gas emissions. Most allowances are purchased at regularly held auctions. However, operators in certain sectors at risk of carbon leakage are given a number of allowances for free in order to manage both their exposure to the carbon price and the risk that businesses’ decarbonisation efforts could be undermined by higher-carbon imports.
Under the UK ETS, an operator is the person who has control over an installation. Installations are stationary units at which regulated activities take place. Sub-installations represent operations carried out at an installation in respect of which free allocation operators are required to report activity levels for the purposes of the ETS.
I now turn to what this statutory instrument does. We have brought forward this SI to enable important changes and improvements to the scheme to be made. Under previous UK ETS policy, where a sub-installation ceased operation, free allowances were no longer distributed in respect of that sub-installation in the year after the year in which the relevant sub-installation ceased operation.
However, the operator was entitled to retain the full amount of free allowances made available in respect of the sub-installation without recalculation to account for the permanent cessation of the sub-installation within the scheme year. Noble Lords will readily see that this had the potential to result in the overallocation of free allowances beyond the volume required for carbon leakage mitigation, as well as the distribution of free allowances that were no longer associated with an activity that resulted in emissions.
This instrument ensures that the volume of free allocation to which an operator is entitled in the final year in which operations are carried out at one or more sub-installations is calculated by reference to the level of activity at the relevant sub-installation in that year. To facilitate this change, this statutory instrument will require that operators prepare an activity level report in respect of the final year in which operations are carried out at a sub-installation. That report will be used to recalculate the volume of free allocation to which the operator is entitled in the final year in which operations are carried out at a sub-installation, and any overallocation will be recoverable in accordance with existing scheme rules.
This instrument includes an exception to the final-year rule in circumstances in which the permanent cessation of operations at a sub-installation is part of a series of changes that has resulted in a material reduction in the specified emissions per unit of production of those pre-cessation products that continue to be produced at the installation. This exception to the final-year rule will incentivise decarbonisation, as operators that can demonstrate that the relevant requirements are met will continue to be entitled to the free allocation calculated in accordance with existing UK ETS rules, which is calculated in advance on the basis of historic activity levels.
This instrument also amends the circumstances in which an installation or sub-installation has ceased operation for the purposes of the UK ETS legislation. The previous definition of the circumstances in which an installation or sub-installation had ceased operations was at the point in time when it became technically impossible to resume operation. This definition was difficult to apply consistently in practice. The updated definitions provide that an installation has ceased operation when all regulated activities, in the case of an installation, or the relevant operation, in the case of a sub-installation, have permanently ceased to be carried out at the installation. This amendment increases certainty for both the scheme regulators and operators.
This instrument also introduces a requirement for operators to notify the relevant scheme regulator of circumstances in which all regulated activities cease to be carried out at an installation by the end of the scheme year in which the cessation occurs or within one month of the date of cessation—whichever is later—and to confirm whether the operator intends for one or more regulated activities to resume at the installation. Operators are similarly required to provide details of a cessation of operations in respect of a sub-installation in annual activity level reports prepared in relation to the 2025 scheme year and thereafter. Requiring these reports will facilitate the application of the new final-year rule.
The statutory instrument introduces a new power for regulators to issue a notice to an operator which determines that an installation or sub-installation has ceased operation for the purposes of UK ETS legislation. The new power is available in circumstances where the regulator is not satisfied that the operator intends regulated activities to resume at the installation or intends for regulated operations to resume at the sub-installation level. The change will increase certainty for operators and facilitate equivalent treatment for all installations undergoing a cessation.
The changes follow comprehensive engagement and consultation with stakeholders. Between 18 December 2023 and 11 March 2024, the UK and devolved Governments ran a consultation, seeking views on proposals to alter the free-allocation methodology for the UK ETS statutory sectors to better target those most at risk of carbon leakage and ensure that free allocations are fairly distributed. The UK Emissions Trading Scheme: Free Allocation Review covered the provisions included in this statutory instrument on permanent cessations. The responses to this consultation were in broad support of the proposed technical changes to the treatment of permanent cessations. The authority response to this consultation will be delivered in two parts; an early response to proposals on permanent cessations was published last November.
In conclusion, I have spoken at considerable length on what seems to me a perfectly sensible order that builds on the work of the last Government. It seems to me absolutely sensible and proportionate. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson (LD)
I do not think I have ever known something so simple be made to sound so complicated, if I am honest. Basically, this will stop people having a free ride after they have closed down a particular part of their business; I think that describes it. Therefore, it makes sense and is right to do.
Perhaps I may come back to a slightly broader canvas, because this is a really important area for the UK ETS. Free allocations come primarily from grandfather rights and work through. I presume that all free permits will cease as the UK introduces the carbon border adjustment mechanism, which I think is coming in 2027, as planned by the previous Government. Free allocations are all about carbon leakage and, when we have a carbon border mechanism, clearly, carbon leakage is solved by that instrument rather than by free issue. So will they be phased out in that time?
The Minister will also be aware that, under the trade and co-operation agreement negotiated by the previous Government, there was a strong inference that the UK ETS and the EU ETS should recombine in a single scheme. In fact, one of the issues at the moment is that the UK ETS carbon price is significantly less than the European one. This is due to what I would probably see as an overallocation of free permits.
So my question is: are this Government still considering bringing those two schemes together? This is particularly important at present because, in one year’s time, the EU will introduce its carbon border adjustment mechanism for heavy industry, but, in particular, energy exports will be taken into account by the first phase. If we do not have an equivalent scheme or are not part of a joint scheme, effectively we will be subject to tariffs in terms of those effective carbon charges.
A particular problem with the carbon border adjustment mechanism is the GB-Northern Ireland issue, because there will effectively be a tariff for carbon costs and energy between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I visited Energy UK one or two weeks ago, and it was particularly concerned about these aspects of the UK ETS into the near future and when the EU moves forward with its well-planned carbon border adjustment mechanism. It is really important to make decisions here and get on with them, because there will be very difficult issues if we do not resolve this over the next 12 months.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, this statutory instrument proposes amendments to the UK emissions trading scheme, including expanding its scope to cover CO2 venting for upstream oil and gas operations, lowering the emissions cap and introducing new penalties alongside a flexible reserve mechanism. It is crucial that industries and communities affected by these changes receive the necessary support during the transition period.
The amendments introduced by this order significantly expand the UK ETS. Notably, it will now cover CO2 venting from upstream oil and gas operations, requiring companies in this sector to purchase allowances for their emissions. The adjustment of the emissions cap ensures that the allowances for companies to buy in 2025 will be reduced by 12.4%. By 2027, the number of allowances will fall by 45%, ultimately reaching a 70% reduction by 2030.
I draw noble Lords’ attention to the introduction of new penalties and a deficit notice in this instrument—fines for non-compliance linked to the carbon price, obviously designed to incentivise businesses to meet their obligations. How will these penalties be enforced in practice and are they really proportionate, particularly for industries already facing complex and burdensome regulatory frameworks? Additionally, the establishment of a flexible reserve to buffer against market volatility can be seen as a step towards ensuring stability in the carbon market, but can the Minister explain what assurances the Government can give that this mechanism will not inadvertently lead to market manipulation or instability, rather than solving it?
Requiring oil and gas companies to purchase allowances for CO2 venting could significantly increase their operational costs, placing UK producers at a disadvantage compared to international competitors in regions without similar emissions trading schemes. This could lead to carbon leakage. The Government must address how they plan to mitigate such risks.
Another concern is the regulatory burden. The introduction of additional regulations and financial costs tied to purchasing allowances may create a substantial compliance burden, particularly for smaller operators. It is essential that the Government provide clear guidance and support to ensure that businesses can adapt without undue strain.
On investment and mitigation technologies, while the scheme encourages decarbonisation, can the Minister outline how it plans to incentivise and facilitate the scale-up of carbon capture, utilisation and storage technologies? All these are said to be necessary to keep to the Government’s timetable. Further clarity is needed.
Market price volatility presents an additional challenge. Fluctuating carbon prices expose companies to financial uncertainty. While the flexible reserves aim to stabilise the market, further clarity is needed on how effective this mechanism will be in managing price volatility and ensuring long-term stability.
The introduction of penalties and enforcement provisions raises important questions about fairness and proportionality. Will penalties be applied equally to all operators, or will they be adjusted based on companies’ size or ability to comply? Can the Minister clarify how this will be structured?
It is essential that the Government spell out how they intend to carry through this order without unintended negative consequences for the industry.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who spoke in this short debate. I will first respond to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, on international co-operation on carbon pricing. I certainly accept that, as we transition to net zero, it is important that we work across international borders to drive climate ambition. Under the terms of the trade and co-operation agreement, the UK Government and the EU agreed to consider linking our respective carbon pricing schemes and to co-operate on carbon pricing. The noble Lord will know that we are working to reset our relationship with the EU and strengthen ties and improve trade and investment relationships with it, including promoting climate, energy and economic security, while recognising that there will be no return to the single market or customs union.
The Prime Minister visited Brussels on 12 December 2024, and the joint statement with President von der Leyen illustrated that the UK and the EU would take forward this agenda of strengthening co-operation at pace over the coming months. As set out in the TCA, carbon pricing remains an area where we will continue to co-operate, and it is right that we will continue to develop the UK ETS to support our climate goals and support sectors in the transition to net zero.
The carbon price within the EU emissions trading scheme is determined by the market, and it is designed this way because competitive markets are likely to deliver the most efficient transition to net zero across the economy. This will give emitters the flexibility as to how they abate their emissions, thereby allowing businesses to cut carbon where it is cheaper for them to do so.
I assure the noble Lord, Lord Offord, that, as I said earlier, we are here simply building on the work of his Government in just making a sensible adjustment to make sure that there is no free ride in removing the excess allocation of free allocations, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, suggested. When the production has been ended as part of a decarbonisation programme, allowing them those free allocations recognises that. We do not think that these rules will lead to disproportionate regulation or that there will be potential manipulation of the market.
On oil and gas, I will write to the noble Lord with further details on his specific question.
Lord Teverson (LD)
I am afraid I do have to come back to the Minister. Is it the Government’s intention to integrate, if they can, the two emissions trading systems? Is that a government goal or not? Also, do the Government still intend to do what the previous Government suggested—to introduce a carbon border mechanism for the UK at the beginning of 2027? This is pretty fundamental stuff that industry and the whole economy need to understand. If the Government do neither of those, how will they solve the problem of the EU carbon border mechanism from the beginning of next year?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am not sure that I can respond any further than I have already. Clearly, we are now working with the EU on some of those issues, and clearly we accept the point that we need the systems to work effectively together to deal with wastage. But I am afraid that I cannot give the noble Lord any more certainty than that.
Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority Regulations 2024
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority Regulations 2024.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, I shall also speak to the Hull and East Yorkshire Combined Authority Order, the Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority Regulations and the Lancashire Combined County Authority Regulations.
Regulations were laid before Parliament on 26 November 2024 for Lancashire, as well as for Devon and Torbay. The Hull and East Yorkshire Combined Authority Order was laid on 4 December and the Greater Lincolnshire regulations on 11 December. The other place debated these instruments on 21 January 2025. Knowing how much noble Lords appreciate brevity, I hope they agree—while recognising that combined authorities and combined county authorities are distinct legal bodies with different types of enabling statutory instruments—with me simply using “combined authorities”, unless there is a reason to be specific, over the course of our debate. I hope that that is okay with everybody.
In December 2024, the Government published the English devolution White Paper. At its core, the White Paper sets out how the Government will widen and deepen devolution across England as part of our central mission to drive economic growth and improve living standards. These instruments deliver on that ambition and are significant steps in the devolution journeys for these four areas. The instruments provide for the implementation of the devolution agreements confirmed on 19 September 2024 between the Government and the upper-tier councils in each of the areas concerned. On 18 November 2024, all the respective constituent councils consented to the making of these instruments.
The three sets of combined county authority regulations will be made, if Parliament approves, under the enabling provision in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. If approved, the combined authority order will be made under the enabling provision in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. The combined authorities will be established on the day after the day on which the instruments are made.
The Hull and East Yorkshire Combined Authority and the Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority have chosen to adopt a mayor for their combined authorities, with the inaugural elections to take place on 1 May 2025. The elected mayors will take up office on 6 May with a four-year term. The instruments make provision for the governance arrangements of the combined authorities. In each case, the constituent councils nominate one or more of their members to form the combined authority, alongside the elected mayor where a mayor is being adopted. Each place has specific arrangements, enabled by either the 2023 Act or the 2009 Act, as set out in these establishing instruments.
For the three combined county authorities, district councils will play a key role in ensuring the success of devolution in these areas. District representation and input to the combined county authorities is determined locally within the framework provided by the 2023 Act. The instruments confer public authority and local authority functions on the respective combined authorities, as agreed in their devolution agreements and set out in each area’s proposals.
Alongside the regulations, we have laid reports under Section 20(6) of the 2023 Act and, for the order, Section 105B of the 2009 Act providing details about the public authority functions being devolved to the combined authorities. These functions include Homes England’s concurrent regeneration functions and powers over transport, as well as mayoral development corporation functions for the mayoral combined authorities.
The agreements include the devolution of certain education and skills functions, together with the adult skills fund. The Government will devolve the adult skills fund to the combined authorities from the 2026-27 academic year. The Department for Education will work with the combined authorities to support their preparations and ensure that they meet the necessary readiness criteria; it will legislate in due course when the Secretary of State for Education is assured that the combined authorities are operationally ready and is satisfied that the required statutory tests have been met in each area.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I remind the Committee of my relevant interests as a councillor on Kirklees Council in West Yorkshire and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
These four statutory instruments are politically and historically interesting. First, they recreate in whole or in part the historic counties of Devon, Lancashire, Lincolnshire and the East Riding of Yorkshire. That is a positive change. It is another reversal of Thatcherite policy, which, in this instance, abolished county councils. Strategic planning and provision of such key local services as public transport, housing and economic development can be much better made across a larger geography. That change is therefore welcome. However, I am not letting the Minister off the hook that easily. I have a number of questions applicable to each of the relevant instruments.
First, on governance, can the Minister confirm that meetings of either the mayoral or the combined county authorities will be held in public and that scrutiny committees are a requirement, with powers for pre-decision scrutiny and to call any decision that is challenged under the relevant procedural rules?
The Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority combines two very unequal—in both population and geography—partners. Can the Minister say whether that disparity has been considered and whether any issues have been raised in the wider county on this point in the consultation, the details of which I obviously have not seen? I ask this because there will be inequality of representation on the authority from these very unequal parts, and I wonder whether that will result in a bit of friction when it comes to making difficult decisions.
I note at this point that, because of the efforts made during the passage of the then levelling-up Bill by the Minister, her team and me, district councils will have representation on the combined authorities by law. That was a very important change to the Bill.
I move on to the Hull and East Riding Mayoral Combined Authority. There will be a mayor from May this year; we will see how that pans out. I recognise the appeal to the Government of having a single person elected to lead a combined authority. However, I and my colleagues are not convinced that, from the residents’ standpoint, this is a positive move. Mayors will be tolerated—this is my experience; I live in a mayoral authority—while there is no mayoral precept and while they are basically determining the details of delegated powers and funding from government. However, when either of those things changes—if there is a mayoral precept of a considerable amount or when there are difficult decisions to be made on funding allocation, which I anticipate will come with bus franchising—I anticipate greater concern from residents that their voice is not being heard.
For instance, in the Hull and East Riding Mayoral Combined Authority area, which I know better, I can easily see that, with the rural parts of East Riding and the very urban area of Hull City Council, it could be difficult to make decisions on allocating funding under the bus franchising legislation, which I hope will be passed. Trouble is coming down the track, I think.
The Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority recreates the historic county of Lincolnshire, which is positive. It combines the seven district councils of the current county council, plus the two unitaries of North Lincs and North East Lincs. The issue I want to raise concerns transport funding. In this statutory instrument, the constituent authorities remain the highways authorities but central funding goes directly to the mayor, who then has the responsibility of cascading the funding to each of the three existing highways authorities. Can the Minister describe how fair allocation can be assured and whether using this mechanism will add to bureaucracy by adding yet another layer of governance?
The Lancashire Combined County Authority will, as we know, consist of the existing county council, the unitaries of Blackpool and Blackburn and Darwen, plus the 12 existing district councils of the current county council. We have had the devolution White Paper. If its proposals are accepted—I hope that there will be some challenge to them—this will result in the demise of district councils. For Lancashire and Lincolnshire, this would result in another wholesale local government reorganisation within a short period, with the added confusion that accompanies such structural change. Those of us who are involved understand what might happen; residents will not. Have the Government considered these two separate reorganisations and how they will be managed without causing confusion and additional costs?
As I said at the outset, this is the right move for strategic decision-making. However, I look forward to the answers to my queries from the Minister.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s exposition of these SIs. I completely understand why we are moving in this direction: greater efficiency and effectiveness. I very much hope that the Government can, as this process moves on, increase the level of effective devolution and perhaps even give some real independence over revenue to these authorities so that they can develop their full potential.
In addition, when we reach Committee on the hereditary Peers Bill, I will propose that, rather than hereditary Peers being the eligible candidates in by-elections, it should be people nominated by these new authorities and their mayors. We can use the existing mechanisms that we have to start to introduce a measure of regional representation into the House. I hope that the Government will have their imaginative hat on when we come to that. The mechanism is in place; let us use it to move in a direction that many of us would like to go in and to take at least a small step.
I am a resident of East Sussex, which is one of the candidates for the next round of this measure. I note that the local proposals involve a mayor for the whole of Sussex, thereby recreating not the original county council but the original kingdom of Sussex—perhaps we might have a prince rather than a mayor. What concerns me most is how the towns and communities in these new unitaries will come to cherish, assert and grow their own identities. I very much hope that I can persuade the Minister to circulate widely to all the councils that are candidates for this, as well as their constituent parts, examples of how communities flourish in unitaries, including what structures and relationships make that happen well.
The process of transition from “a county plus districts” to a unitary system will be hugely time-absorbing for the councils involved. They will have no space in their heads to do anything other than make that work well. The constituent communities underneath that need to understand how to play their part and how best to organise themselves so that they have a real role to play in what comes afterwards.
Looking in particular at East Sussex, along the seaside, we have Rye, Hastings, St Leonards, Bexhill, Pevensey, Eastbourne, Seaford and Newhaven. They are all immensely different places. Each has its own identity and its own way of doing things. In the interior, you have towns such as Lewes, which are really different, as well as ordinary country towns such as Uckfield and Heathfield. There is a huge variety of different communities within what will be one unitary: different histories, different spirits.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)
My Lords, I have spoken on many subjects in Grand Committee in this Room, and this is the first time that I have spoken on local government. In fact, there is a much better qualified inhabitant of Lincolnshire to speak on this subject—the noble Lord, Lord Porter of Spalding—but he must be away because I phoned him up at the weekend to check whether he was able to do this. However, I feel I should speak on this order because local government is, to my mind, perhaps the most important institution that affects people’s day-to-day lives. Governments talk about the big issues, but delivery of much of the Government’s policy is through local authorities, and it is very important that we get the balance of this right.
I speak as somebody who lives in an area of the countryside that is part of a small market town. I was born in Holbeach and I live in Holbeach—I live in the house that I was brought up in—so I have not moved very far, and the world has sort of moved around me, if noble Lords see what I mean. But I can see the change in local government from even when I was a boy in Holland County Council. Lincolnshire was divided into three parts, with the city, and it seemed to work because there was local interaction between citizens and the local authority. I am not talking about the councillors, but the staff of those councils were responsive to people making contact with them and telling them that there was a pothole in the road. Sure enough, somebody would come along and fix it. It was much more immediate.
There is an interesting thing in Peterborough station. An electrical board has been out of action since Christmas. The central heating in the waiting room has been out of action since that time, and there is a door that was working well before Christmas but is now closed. Fortunately, the door that was not working well before Christmas is now open. When I mention this to people, they all say, “Oh, well, it’s been reported”. How often that happens in life. If we can make local authorities really responsive to people’s convenience, we will do so much better.
I am speaking on this because Lincolnshire is a big county, and I am looking ahead at what will happen when we devolve government powers to the mayor and the mayoral authority, which is very good indeed—at least there is a bit of local knowledge there to help local government to apportion resources. But I represent a particular part that is quite removed from the Humberside end of the county. We are still very much one county. I was president of the Lincolnshire Agricultural Society and am proud to belong to it. I am proud to be a Lincolnshire horticulturalist and farmer, along with so many people in that most productive corner of the country.
I am also pleased to hear that the Humberside authorities are thinking of uniting together as a district of their own. If we are going to have three units in Lincolnshire, we will have to look at the numbers because, at the moment, I am told that 500,000 is the sort of population figure that the Government are thinking of. I hope the Government will be elastic in this area, if only to make sure that there is some sort of general practical application of boundaries to the new district authorities.
I mentioned the noble Lord, Lord Porter of Spalding. He was instrumental in setting up the confederation of East Lindsey, Boston and South Holland, where he and I come from. They have shared senior staff members of councils, co-ordinated activity and shared specialisms. We all know that a lot of the service in local government is quite specialised; if you are going to get good people, you have to pay reasonable salaries, and they are best shared if that can be done.
I hope that any new arrangement for Lincolnshire will have the north, including the Humberside, the west, including the city of Lincoln, the east and the North Sea coast, which will carry the electricity. We were talking briefly about energy beforehand, though I came in halfway through; we know that the power links to the North Sea come ashore in Lincolnshire, to be distributed through the eastern part of the county. It is also the home of the food valley, which stretches from Grimsby right down to Peterborough, the A1 and the road system that is the artery of the eastern part of the county. There is seafood transported from Grimsby and there is the production and distribution of the country’s vegetables and flowers—bulbs, to mention my own interest. We also have centres in the eastern part of the county, so getting communications right and enabling them through a combined vision of what the area represents economically is most important.
The Government are avowedly keen on growth. I support them in that venture. I hope that they set up a local government structure that encourages growth, where soil types and economic potential recommend themselves. In my view, that is how the authorities might develop in future. Surprising to say, I support this measure, as it is a good development. Local government can be reformed, but I hope that it will be in a way that brings it closer rather than further away, as much of the trend was before the last Government introduced the Act.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I am a Central Bedfordshire councillor and therefore have some interest in this, although not in these particular SIs. I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, about the importance of local government. Most residents see local government services on a daily basis, not central government services. I also echo his comments and those of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about the unique nature of all our local areas and, therefore, how much better it is for them to be run locally, in so far as is possible, rather than centrally. In that spirit, these regulations build on the work of the previous Conservative Government; we support this important devolutionary shift, but it is also important to go further.
However, before that, I want to assess some of the proposed changes. First, on the Devon and Torbay Combined County Authority Regulations—I shall say “combined authority” for brevity—that deal was signed in January 2024 by the previous Conservative Government, Devon County Council and Torbay Council to provide powers and funding to the new combined authority to
“improve the economic, social and environmental well-being”
of people in the community, as well as to devolve further powers locally and provide wider flexibility for local action.
The Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority, formed by Lincolnshire County Council, North Lincolnshire Council and North East Lincolnshire Council, will have authority over transport, housing and regeneration functions in the region. It will be tasked with transport planning, local transport services and highways maintenance, with a mayor due to be elected in May 2025.
I turn to the Hull and East Yorkshire Combined Authority, which comprises Hull City Council and the East Riding of Yorkshire Council and, again, will be overseen by a directly elected mayor. The mayor will govern and drive strategic development across the region, including in areas such as transport, housing and regeneration. Additionally, the mayor will have the authority to levy taxes, such as a precept or business rate supplement, to fund those projects.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for all those thoughtful points and for the general support that we have received for the instruments this afternoon. As noble Lords who have heard me speak on this topic before know, and to misquote a phrase terribly, I have always believed in devolution, which is more effective than revolution. I hope we will take this programme forward successfully, but there is a lot of water to go under the bridge—hopefully not so much for these local authorities, which have already taken some very important first steps towards the changes they want to see.
I will take this opportunity to address noble Lords’ contributions and questions, starting with the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock. First, she asked whether meetings and scrutiny committees would be held in public. Meetings of the combined authorities will be in public and, under the Combined Authorities (Overview and Scrutiny Committees, Access to Information and Audit Committees) Order 2017, amended in 2024, combined county authorities have overview and scrutiny committees with the usual call-in powers—so they will have call-in powers. I hope that is helpful from that point of view.
The noble Baroness asked whether the disparity between areas had been considered. She was referring particularly to Devon and Torbay, and the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, also referred to this. Devon and Torbay were already in the process of establishing their non-mayoral combined county authority prior to the publication of the White Paper and the announcement of the devolution priority programme. We see these steps as foundational. A list of all those that have applied for delays to their elections has been published on GOV.UK—no decisions have been taken yet—and Devon County Council has requested to delay those elections.
Matters to do with the distribution of funding, responding to disparity or the potential disparity between different constituent councils in an area, are for those constituent councils. It is for them to work out how they will work. That is devolution, but they will work it out between them. If they use that as a foundation step, they may wish to build on their authority in the future. Who knows? We will wait and see what happens with Devon and Torbay but, for today’s business, we are putting through the programme that was set before us previously.
The noble Baroness asked whether the change in Hull and East Yorkshire was a positive move from the residents’ standpoint. It is the Government’s ambition that all parts of England ultimately have a mayor. We recognise that non-mayoral devolution can be an important foundational step for areas, which would see the benefits from devolution in the short term as they assess all options to unlock deeper devolution. The instruments before the Committee to establish mayoral combined authorities and a mayoral combined county authority provide that some functions conferred on those will be mayoral functions.
I think the noble Baroness was particularly concerned with transport issues in Hull and East Yorkshire. I will point only to the significant steps forward that have been made in existing mayoral authorities. Manchester of course is always flagged up as the example of this, but it has done an exceptional job to create a transport infrastructure that, so far—touch wood—works much better for the people of Manchester than the situation they had before. I hope that that continues in these new areas as they continue to use and develop their powers. The combined authority will have responsibility for improving and maintaining local transport and for the creation and implementation of a new area-wide local transport plan. We will see what happens with that.
The noble Baroness asked about funding, I think in the context of transport. Funding is conveyed for transport issues in their area, including those that I just mentioned.
The noble Baroness knows that, in the past, I have spoken widely in the House about district councils and their role. When you look at this, you see that there is clearly an appetite for reorganisation in parts of England. I have seen that in my work with district councils and now in government. In the past, Governments have often not been brave enough to follow through and make this programme really work across the country, but we just need to get on now with delivering what areas need.
We expect all two-tier areas and smaller or failing unitaries to develop proposals for reorganisation. We are going to take a phased approach to that delivery, because not everyone is in the same place at the same time. We will have our priority programme for people who feel ready to move more quickly, taking into account where reorganisation can unlock devolution, where areas are keen to proceed at pace, or where they can be helped to address certain issues that they may have failed with in the past. For those that want to take a bit more time, we will do it at their pace. But it is important that this is driven by local areas, so we are working very closely with our colleagues in local government to make this work properly.
The noble Baroness asked about mayoral precepts, and I think the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, also related to that. Mayors can use their mandate for change to take the difficult decisions needed to drive economic growth. As I said, the Government’s ambition is for all parts of England to have a mayor of a strategic authority. They will have the standing and soft power to convene local partners and tackle shared problems, but it is also important that they have this additional ability to raise funds in a number of ways, of which the precept is only one. The Government will work with them as we devolve funds out of Westminster. This is not necessarily about new money; it is about money and decision-making going from here out to local areas. It is important to stress that about the programme we have set out.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for his point about hereditary Peers and having a regional element there. That is above my pay grade; I am not going to go there. But I will say that we already have a very effective chamber of national and regional leaders, which is now convened, and mayors from England attend. It is very important that all areas have a say in the Council of the Nations and Regions, as it will increasingly make a large contribution to what goes on in our country.
The noble Lord specifically mentioned Sussex in relation to local places. I think there is a genuine way of strengthening the role of local places within these wider authorities, where they have existed for a while. I do not want to keep citing Manchester, but there is still a very distinctive identity in Oldham, Rochdale and wherever you go around the Manchester area. Those areas still have their distinct identities. I know Sussex a bit and there are some wonderful places there. I am sure they will continue to be their own places, with their own strong identities. If mechanisms need to be put in place to do that, by strengthening local community councils and improving and strengthening the role of community councillors, the Government are there to assist with that. Boundary issues must be driven locally, but the Boundary Commission stands ready to do what it needs to do to help.
The noble Lord spoke about cherished assets, such as downlands, and how to protect them. There is always a place for a local voice. Mayors have been real champions of these types of local assets, and they will continue to be champions in those local areas. The noble Lord also spoke about independent local panels. We are currently conducting a whole review of standards issues. I have a round table tomorrow, I think, and another at the end of the week, with partners from across local government and outside. We are doing that work as we speak and, if the noble Lord would like to contribute to it, I would love to hear from him.
On the AI issue, I will have to refer to a specialist answer, because it is not my area of expertise. I will find it in a moment.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach—whom I always think of as Lord Holbeach, because he is Lord of Holbeach—for his huge contribution to Lincolnshire, in both business and horticulture. I agree with him about local government being the most important institution; I have spent most of my life in it. When you walk out of your front door, it is what you see, and what will you the impression of whether or not things are right with the world. That is the way I look at it; that is how important it is. The noble Lord spoke about the confusion between councils. I live in a two-tier area and it is very common to have that confusion between councils. That is one reason why we need to sort this out now: just get on with the job and do it properly.
The noble Lord asked whether there was flexibility with the 500,000 figure. There certainly is. We set the 500,000 figure to give a guideline about what we see as strategic. If something slightly less or more than that works better for the local area, that is fine. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Porter, for all the work that he has done. The federational, or shared, services that the noble Lord spoke about will form a good foundation for these bigger authorities.
On UK Food Valley, seafood farming, and flowers and bulbs, mayors are there to create the infrastructure that will make that work better than it does at the moment. They will have oversight of a strategic spatial plan and I hope they will do a great job on that.
I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson. I agree about the unique nature of local areas. I know that the noble Lord has made a huge contribution to central Bedfordshire, so I am grateful for that. Devon and Torbay and Lincolnshire have both applied for election delays, so they are obviously thinking through their next steps very carefully. Hull and East Yorkshire and Lancashire are going ahead with their programmes, as set out in these instruments.
The noble Lord spoke about mayoral precepts and asked whether they were for genuine additionality. That is certainly the idea; they are not there to fill gaps in local government funding but to drive the mayor’s priorities and ambitions for the area. As we have seen, the areas that already have mayors drive forward their own priorities—and they are very strategic priorities. Mayors are not there to run the councils that sit underneath them; they are there to drive the strategic capability of the area concerned.
I hope that I have covered everything. If I have not, I shall write to noble Lords—and we will look through Hansard to make sure that we have covered everything. These instruments deliver the commitment made in the devolution agreements with Devon and Torbay, Greater Lincolnshire and Lancashire to establish combined county authorities for their areas and with Hull and East Yorkshire for a combined authority. I beg to move.
Hull and East Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2025
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Hull and East Yorkshire Combined Authority Order 2025.
Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority Regulations 2025
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority Regulations 2025.
Lancashire Combined County Authority Regulations 2024
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the Grand Committee do consider the Lancashire Combined County Authority Regulations 2024.
House of Lords
Introduction: Baroness Brown of Silvertown
Introduction: Lord Jones of Penybont
Local Government: Funding
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitty
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether, before or alongside changes in local government structure in England, they will undertake a thorough review of the sources of funding, basis, and equity of local government financial resources at all levels, having regard to both the responsibility of individual councils and the balance of responsibility between central and local government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, before I answer my noble friend’s Question, I note that, 80 years ago this month, soldiers of the Soviet 60th Army of the First Ukrainian Front opened the gates of Auschwitz-Birkenau. It has been so moving today—Holocaust Memorial Day—to hear in our media the first-hand accounts of those who may be visiting Auschwitz for the last time. That infamous camp has become the symbol of the Shoah. Today, we remember the Jewish lives, and all lives, lost to genocide, and we remind ourselves that it is more important than ever to keep our humanity and respect for human dignity at the heart of all we do.
In answer to my noble friend: alongside our proposals to widen devolution and streamline local government structures, this Government are making good on their promise to reform and improve the local government funding system. From 2026, funding will be directed to where it is most needed, through the first multiyear settlement in a decade. By fixing the foundations, we will give better value for taxpayers and empower local government to provide high-quality services and support the delivery of the Government’s missions.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, first, I am sure that the whole House endorses my noble friend’s opening words. It is indeed a moving day.
On my Question, the biggest problem for local authorities is not structure or assessment. This Government and every other Government depend on local authorities’ ability to deliver many of their most important policies and strategies, and yet local government depends on an archaic system of local taxation—both council tax and business tax—and uncertain grants from central government. I hope the assessment that my noble friend refers to will begin to change that system, but does my noble friend not agree that a fundamental assessment of what local authorities need should be introduced so that we can start to improve the financial position of local authorities before the end of this Parliament?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. For 12 of the last 14 years, I was a local government leader, so his words definitely strike home to me. The Government are committed to local authority funding reform, with the updated approach that I spoke about from 2026 to 2027. We need to fix the foundations that he spoke about, so this will be developed in partnership with the sector and based on the principle of giving councils early certainty of their funding and a much fairer funding picture across the country. We are inviting views on our principles and objectives for funding reform through a consultation. We want to do this in consultation with the sector, and that consultation closes on 12 February. We will move towards an updated system and possible transitional arrangements to determine how local authorities reach their new funding allocations.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches share the view of the importance of remembering the Holocaust on this anniversary.
The Minister will be aware that centralisation of taxation in this country is far greater than in any other advanced democracy, and if finance is centralised, decisions will continue to be centralised. Is it not time for the Government to consider fundamental tax reform, in particular of the way local councils are funded? Will the Minister also consult her colleagues on whether we need a cross-party approach to tax reform for local authorities rather than having a tourist tax here and parking charges there, and otherwise depending on the Treasury to dole out funds?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very important point about working on a consensus, which is why we have launched the major consultation on how we should take this forward. In addition, our English Devolution White Paper, which we published in December, sets out our plans to reset that balance between central and local government. That includes both funding and powers, and it is a new framework for English devolution that attempts to move power out of Westminster and back to those who know their areas best. That is the whole purpose of the devolution agreement. We want to see that done on the basis of it coming from the local areas upwards. We are committed to fixing those foundations, and we will do that with the people in our local areas and not to them.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, on that devolution framework that the noble Baroness just referred to, the Minister in the other place said:
“That is why we are moving power out of Westminster and putting it back into the hands of those who know their area best”.—[Official Report, Commons, 16/12/24; col. 36.]
But power involving money was not devolved, leaving local authorities, as the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said, dependent on a council tax which is regressive and 30 years out of date and business rates which are killing the hospitality and retail industries. Do we not need a much more fundamental review than the one the Minister just referred to?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The English Devolution White Paper sits at the heart of the reform we want, and that will involve both funding and money. I understand the pressure for urgent reform of council tax, but we have to be committed to keeping taxes on working people as low as possible. It is for local authorities to decide where they set their council tax. The Government will consider longer-term options to improve council tax billing and all those things, but council tax is a well-understood tax and it has very high collection rates. In terms of business rates, we published a discussion paper, Transforming Business Rates, which set out the priority areas for reform. We have had very good engagement on that and we will publish our update in due course.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, what guarantee can the Minister give that the most locally funded arts and cultural services—including libraries—such as at district council level, will not be further lost in this reorganisation, against a background where, it has to be said, cuts to such services are continuing in many localities?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As the noble Earl said, arts and leisure services took an absolute bashing as local government funding was successively cut over recent years. The purpose of devolution is to put control for that back into local hands and to make sure that more of the money spent in Westminster gets spent in the local areas to protect the services that people really care about and feel are important to them. I hope that will include those key leisure, arts and cultural services that make life around this country so rich and wonderful.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I associate these Benches with the noble Baroness’s comments earlier.
I refer to my interests as a central Bedfordshire councillor. A recent survey published by Southwark Council revealed that 61% of councils have already cancelled, paused or delayed housebuilding projects and more than one-third have cut back on repairs and maintenance of council homes due to pressures on their housing budgets. In light of this and given the Government’s ambitions for housebuilding, will the Minister tell the House how this Government will support councils to build?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I have to say that it is very difficult to take lessons from the Benches opposite about local government funding, particularly in relation to council house building. The noble Lord will be well aware of the steps we have already taken to increase overall funding for local government but also that we have taken big steps to alter right to buy so that local authorities can keep 100% of the receipts they get from right-to-buy properties. We are changing the position on new properties built by local councils so they do not have to sell them at less than they built them for. We are fixing the foundations of a very broken system that we inherited from 14 years of the noble Lord’s Government.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the last Tory Government spent 14 years taking money from the poorest local authorities and giving it to the richest ones. Will the Minister guarantee that the system that comes forward will be fair and be based on the need to spend?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. The review that we are undertaking as part of the spending review in the spring will do just that. We made some steps forward in this year’s settlement; we need to take further steps in that regard, and the local government funding formula will be reset to take account of need.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. With Labour’s increase in employer national insurance contributions, LGA analysis confirms that the cost to local government will be around £1.7 billion next year. The provisional local government finance settlement confirms that councils will be compensated to the tune of £515 million for 2025-26, well short of the £1.7 billion. Can the Minister confirm from the Dispatch Box whether this compensation funding is a one-off, or will it be continued in future financial settlements? How does she expect local authorities to compensate for the shortfall?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
As I said, the decision that we took around national insurance contributions was to fill the gap from the £22 billion black hole that was left by the Government of the Benches opposite. We continue to work on fixing those foundations and making the economy stronger. The noble Baroness asked specifically about the £515 million of support that we have provided to local government. That is in addition to other sources of funding that we gave to local government. Whether that will continue into future years will be the subject of the spending review in the spring. We will look at all aspects of local government funding so that we continue to fix and sort out the mess that we were left with.
Avanti West Coast
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bradley
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the service provided by Avanti West Coast between Manchester and London.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
My department is clear that the performance of Avanti West Coast has not been good enough. Officials routinely meet Avanti and Network Rail as part of a relentless focus on improving railway performance, bringing together track and train far more than previously and holding both sides accountable. The Secretary of State met the managing director in January to understand Avanti’s plans to address industrial action. I will meet him, together with the Network Rail route director, on Friday, to further discuss performance.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply and note my interest as a weekly user of Avanti trains and praise the many excellent staff on these trains and the brilliant services provided by Stockport booking office. However, the performance during November and December 2024, as the Minister has mentioned, was utterly woeful and frustrating. Journey after journey was subject to huge delays, with numerous cancellations and subsequent declassification throughout the trains, standing room only or people sitting on the floor of the carriages, and no refreshments, not even the smallest bottle of water, throughout the train. On behalf of Avanti’s long-suffering passengers, will the Minister carefully study again the contract at his meeting with management later in the week, to end this misery and ensure that customers and taxpayers get the value for money that they so deserve?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I strongly sympathise with my noble friend on his experiences in his weekly travelling. My postbag, email and every other means of communication is full of criticism of Avanti West Coast. It was given a contract for three years in October 2023. I assure noble Lords that as hard as we look at the contract, the company has not yet failed to meet the performance target standards that the previous Government set it.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to Macclesfield station staff for their excellent work. I have an idea for how we can monitor the number of delays. There is something called Delay Repay. Does the Minister know much how is paid out by Avanti to passengers? If not, perhaps he could let us know. It may be a good thing for him to keep his eye on, for key performance indicators in terms of staffing and getting staff to work—particularly at weekends.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I will have to write to the noble Lord about the amount of Delay Repay. I have statistics here about the number of trains on time and the number of trains cancelled. Although the number of trains being cancelled has been reducing, it is still far too high. Passengers dislike cancelled trains even more than they dislike them being later than in the timetable. I will write to him and put a copy of that letter in the Library. However, I think that the evidence of Delay Repay is the same as the evidence of the performance statistics—that the performance is just not good enough.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
My Lords, Avanti has a simple objective in life: to supply three hours of train from Manchester to London. It is not complicated. It is a straight line. I will give a snapshot of this weekend. On Friday morning, the 8.43, a peak-time train, was cancelled with 20 minutes’ notice. On Saturday, five trains were cancelled due to a lack of staff or extra maintenance being required on trains. This morning, the 8.43, a peak-time train, was again cancelled. Five more trains back to Manchester were cancelled this afternoon. It is utterly unacceptable. I feel for the staff, who try to give us a good service every day on the up and down journey, but the management is lamentable. If you gave Avanti a local pub in London with a 24-hour licence, free beer and free food, it would still not make a profit. It is astonishing. I am lost for words.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I am rarely lost for words. Seriously, the customers are at the heart of this, day in, day out, with children, having the service that the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, has described. It is unacceptable. I hope that the Minister will take cognisance of what is going on. This is nothing to do with the weather, strikes or lines. This is incompetent management.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord is clearly not lost for words. However, it is not within my gift to award free tenancies of public houses in London—probably wisely. A lot of what he says is right, and I will reflect on that with the Avanti management on Friday. My only cautionary note is that the effect of the storms on Friday and Saturday has led to significant disruption to most of the railway in northern England and certainly in Scotland. I have some sympathy with train operators in those circumstances, because there are occasions on which their staff cannot get to work simply because of the effects of the wind and associated damage. One should therefore be a bit careful. As a former operator of public transport, I know that it is sometimes difficult to get the right staff in the right place at the right time, when those circumstances happen. When they do not happen, however, you would expect train operators such as Avanti to have sufficient staff to be able to resource the service and have some reserve of resilience to keep it going in difficult circumstances. I sympathise entirely with what the noble Lord says.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I speak as another regular Avanti user. Has my noble friend noticed that, increasingly, the company seems to regard the northern point of its franchise as Preston, without running trains on to Carlisle and Glasgow, which has very damaging effects for tourism in the Lake District and the Borders? Is this not a breach of its franchise obligations? I notice that Avanti is now telling us that, because of Network Rail improvements, the railway will be closed at certain points in the next two or three years. Is it not the case that it must be deprived of its franchise? It is just not doing its job.
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. Indeed, I have discussed with him and others the rather too frequent regularity of cancellations north of Preston. I will not reiterate what I have just said about the effects of the storms last week. There have been other occasions when the railway infrastructure has not been up to withstanding the weather and storms. However, I agree with my noble friend, as I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, that one expectation of those who run railway services for the department is that there should be sufficient resilience in what they do to cater for the exigencies of normal operation. It is this that I will be discussing in some detail with Avanti and Network Rail on Friday.
In respect of the future renewal and upgrade of the west coat main line north of Preston, the news that was in the papers in the past few days is premature because it was Network Rail’s proposition to renew the overhead wires between Preston and the Scottish border. The arrangements are not yet agreed, and the release of that information to the public—I think by one of the train operators—was premature. That was industry’s consultation, and there will be more to be said about it at a future date.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I would simply like to ask the Minister exactly the same question that many of his own noble friends felt it was fair and reasonable to ask us when we were working hard to solve the Avanti issue. The noble Lord, Lord Snape, asked:
“What will it take for the Government to do their job and relieve Avanti of any responsibility for being involved in our railway system?”.—[Official Report, 26/10/22; col. 1527.]
The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, asked:
“Why have the Government not acted, as a decisive Government would, and withdrawn the franchise from these disastrous operators?”.—[Official Report, 1/12/22; col. 1947.]
Finally, the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, asked
“why the Government are not doing something immediately to end this shambles and outrage on one of our country’s major lines?”.—[Official Report, 7/9/22; col. 261.]
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The answer to those questions is that the contract that these people have been given does not allow the withdrawal of the franchise for performance that many people in this House think is lamentable. Of course, the other action that the previous Government took was to allow Avanti to offer an extraordinary amount of money—£600 to drivers working rest days—which has been the subject of much criticism ever since, particularly recently, but is rarely attributed to the previous Government’s action in allowing Avanti to pay it.
Children’s Rights
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
To ask His Majesty’s Government what role children’s rights will play in their plans to improve children’s wellbeing and opportunities.
The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, children are at the heart of this Government’s ambitions. We will deliver lasting change for all children, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. From April 2025, we are nearly doubling investment in preventive services, with over £500 million to deliver family help and child protection reforms. Children should remain with their families, and where they cannot, we will support more children to live with kinship carers or in fostering families, helping to ensure their rights to loving families.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I warmly welcome the renewed commitment to child-centred government, although I am disappointed that my noble friend said nothing about children’s rights as such. In view of UNICEF UK’s statement that children’s rights should be central to plans to improve children’s well-being and opportunities and of the many criticisms made of the previous Government’s record by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, can my noble friend say what steps are now being taken to implement that committee’s recommendations to better protect and promote children’s rights and, in particular, its call for mandatory child rights impact assessments to improve policy-making and legislation relevant to children?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My noble friend is right that we must consider children’s rights in all our policy-making, and the Government recognise the importance of considering children’s rights in that way. That is why, in the department, we are continuing to encourage policymakers across government to carry out children’s rights impact assessments when they are making policy changes and, with respect to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we have conducted child’s rights impact assessments where children are directly impacted by the policies, or where there are particular groups of children and young people more likely to be affected than others, and we will publish those child’s rights impact assessments.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the most recent UN assessment of the UK’s compliance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child expressed concern about the large number of children living in food insecurity and recommended
“increasing social benefits to reflect the rising cost of living”?
In light of this, why has the value of free school meals not risen in line with the cost of food? In real terms, it is now worth 16% less than it was in 2014.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that, for many families and children, the availability of free school meals is very important. That is why we continue with the programme for all pupils in reception, year 1 and year 2 to be entitled to universal infant free school meals. In addition to that, 2.1 million disadvantaged pupils receive free meals on the basis of low income. This Government will also introduce breakfast clubs in every primary school. We will keep our approach to free meals and the quality and amount of them under continued review, including through the work of the Child Poverty Taskforce.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, the most fundamental right of a child in this country is to be protected from abuse and exploitation. Time after time, all the reports about this indicate that the collaboration between the front-line services has deteriorated markedly in recent years. Can the Minister assure the House that, in looking to the future, a great emphasis will be placed upon the different public services working collaboratively in the interests of the well-being of the child?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord has an important and distinguished history in challenging Governments and safeguarding children, and he is absolutely right that we must protect children at risk of abuse, particularly by stopping vulnerable children falling through cracks in services and ensuring that we always know where they are if they need protection. That is why, for example, in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we will support professionals to keep children safe, in particular by making provision for a consistent identifier for every child and for a requirement to establish multi-agency child protection teams for each local authority area, ensuring, as he quite rightly asked, that staff and agencies are working closely together to protect children most in need of that protection.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, we have one of the lowest ages of criminal responsibility in the world: in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, it is just 10, and in Scotland it is 12. Troubled children are children in need, not criminals. Will the Minister consider a potential review of those ages to make those children less vulnerable and better able to be protected by agencies and authorities in the future?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
In line with the UNCRC, we recognise the age of a child in the UK as being under 18 years of age. In that way, children are treated differently from adults. However, we do have an age of criminal responsibility of 10, and we do not intend to change that at this time.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln
My Lords, Article 28 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child recognises the fundamental right of all children to a free primary education and access to different forms of secondary education. Noble Lords may know that 1 million children are educated in Church of England schools at the moment, and the Church of England’s vision for education is rooted in a Christian ethos for the common good and the holistic well-being of every child, including those of all faiths and none. The Statutory Inspection of Anglican and Methodist Schools framework, which informs best practice in church schools, has a strong and effective focus on children’s rights in accordance with Article 28 in the UN convention. Will the Minister ensure that the substantial and compelling learnings from church schools can be highlighted and shared within her department’s ongoing review of potential reforms to current accountability measures?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate is right that there are very many children receiving excellent education in schools run by and sponsored by the Church of England, including the school that I attended—although I think that the accountability and inspection regime has probably been updated since then. I can certainly assure him that we will want to learn from good-quality inspection and accountability, such as he has outlined, in taking forward our reforms.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the Minister talked about the use of child rights impact assessments for the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. I want to raise the issue of the very concerning rise in deprivation of liberty orders for children, particularly their increasing use for very young children, apparently as young as seven. There is currently no age differentiation in the Bill and, unlike in the case of secure accommodation, a child can be deprived of their liberty without the authorisation of the Secretary of State. Can the Minister respond to that, and to the calls from the Children’s Commissioner that the legal framework should be strengthened to protect those very vulnerable children, particularly those with disabilities and at risk of exploitation?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness is right that the lack of suitable provision for children with complex needs, as well as some secure children’s homes, is a very key part of the reason why there has been a big increase in the number of deprivation of liberty orders. That is why our programme of work, including the legislative changes and capital investment, is focused on improving the outcomes for those children. We will, as she identifies, be looking at the legislative framework for deprivation of liberty orders, and I will take on board the point she makes about the particular challenges for very young children. I am sure that we will have the opportunity to debate this in more length and detail when the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill comes before this House.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, another right a child has is to have a good education. The number of absences, especially among young children, is becoming seriously worrying. Will the Minister—I know that she cares about these matters—assure the House that, in moving forward, real attention will be given to attendance at school, because it is in the law—since 1948? We have had a law for attendance for a long time in this country. Please make sure it happens.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right that we have a crisis of absence. Children cannot be properly taught, and in some cases they cannot be properly protected, unless they are attending school. That is why we have a wide-ranging set of policies to address that: the better use of data; the revised guidance; and a more granular focus on those schools that are doing well and those schools that are doing less well. The introduction of breakfast clubs in every primary school will also help to encourage children to arrive earlier in school and to be provided with the support to perform better when they are there.
Internet Activity: Energy Use
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Stansgate
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the amount of energy used in internet activity, and in particular in mining cryptocurrencies.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, the National Energy System Operator has estimated that data centres consume around 2.5% of the UK’s electricity. The UK is not a major centre for cryptocurrency mining. We estimate the share of power consumed in the UK for this purpose to be negligible.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I do not know whether the House quite realises the staggering quantities of energy involved in normal internet activity and, in particular, in crypto mining. It has been estimated that the usage is approximately the same as that of a mid-sized European country, such as the Netherlands or Denmark. How much of this activity is based in the UK? Who is doing it and where? Does my noble friend agree that it has an adverse impact on carbon emissions and brings with it electronic waste? Will he agree to undertake an assessment of the potential adverse effects on carbon emissions of internet activity and, in particular, of crypto mining, so that we can have an honest discussion about the future and the effect of this on our climate change objectives?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My noble friend is right to raise this important question. I should say that the Government keep this under review. In fact, we reckon that only 0.2% of global crypto mining takes place in the UK. The International Energy Agency has estimated that, in 2022, 2% of total global energy demand came from data centres, cryptocurrencies and AI. It expects that to double by 2026. However, it makes the point that it expects that doubling to be met by an increase in clean energy sources. The lesson here for us is that we need to power on with our aim to get to clean power by 2030.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Despite the Minister’s earlier Answer, nevertheless the Government are keen to see the building of data centres. Will the need for additional energy consumption form part of the National Energy System Operator’s strategic spatial energy plan and the centralised strategic network plan? What assumptions are being made about the sustainability of the energy sources needed for those data centres?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
The work of NESO in mapping out how we get to clean power by 2030 is the start of this process, and we will keep those matters within the review. We are working very hard with the network companies and Ofgem to accelerate investment and reform in the grid and in connection. That is a crucial matter in wanting to see an expansion of data centres in the UK where we have a significant advantage and an increasingly important market.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I declare my technology interests as set out in register. Does the Minister agree that, going broader, we need far greater transparency about all the power that it takes to fuel these new technologies—compute power, energy power, and financial and natural resources? Is it time that we reviewed the power usage effectiveness measure, or PUE, for data centres? Is it the case that all these new technologies need to be considered not just in respect of how efficient they are and how effectively they are fuelled but, crucially, that this is done in a sustainable manner?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I certainly accept the challenge from the noble Lord: as we wish to see the encouragement of data centres and the use and development of AI in the UK, clearly we want it to be sustainable. I make the point that, in the first place, newer cryptocurrencies use less energy than the original ones, and, secondly, that data centres are increasingly looking to energy efficiency methods. AI can be used as one way in which to improve our management of energy efficiency.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, the Minister said that current data centres use about 2% of total electricity generation. Can he quantify that in respect of how many terawatt hours are currently being used by data centres? With the Government’s ambition for AI and the development of more data centres, what will be the requirement in terawatt hours by 2030?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, my understanding is that NESO has estimated that 7 terawatt hours will be used by data centres in 2025, rising to 22 terawatt hours in 2030 and to 62 terawatt hours in 2050. As a comparison, it expects annual electricity demand in 2050 to be between 533 and 700 terawatt hours.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, the expansion of data centres will require a significant expansion of the grid and of energy sources. In a written reply to me, the Minister indicated that, for the high-level grid, there is something like a four-year lead time for securing equipment. Furthermore, on energy sources, data centres need reliable sources of supply. Inevitably, that will mean the development of nuclear power, including small modular reactors. When will the Government get on and make a decision about the future of the small modular reactor programme?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with everything my noble friend said. He knows that we have a programme within Great British Nuclear to appraise the technology involved in a number of shortlisted small modular reactors. It is making considerable progress. We expect further announcements to be made in spring. My noble friend will understand that there are discussions taking place within the spending review.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
We will hear from the Green Party.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, the Minister has already acknowledged the energy demands and pressures. The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, raised the issue of mining and the resource use going into data centres. I would add a further one to that: water use. A typical data centre uses the same amount of water as 100,000 homes. We have a situation where seven out of 17 regions in England are expected to have water stress by 2030, rising to 12 by 2040. Are the Government considering ensuring that all new data centres use closed systems for water, so that we do not put more pressure on this vital resource?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, in wishing to develop their projects, these are the matters that data centre operators have to keep under consideration. If we are interested in the growth of the UK economy, we should welcome the potential in the UK, and build on what has already been achieved, through data centres and through artificial intelligence. We should look at the amount of money that has been spent in those areas and at the number of highly skilled jobs that are being used to employ many good people.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister explain why electricity in this country is more expensive than in any other OECD country?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I think the noble Lord is in a better position to explain, since that was the position we inherited from his Government. It is our view, as well as that of the Committee on Climate Change, NESO and many other bodies, that the best way to get stability and then reductions in prices is to move fast to clean power.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, the stark reality is that the green policies of successive UK Governments, however well-intentioned, have come at a prohibitive cost to the UK economy. The average UK industrial energy price is now five times that of the USA and seven times that of China. The sad reality is that the UK is locked out of the digital revolution in crypto and AI. Does the Minister think there are lessons that can be learned from the new US Administration’s approach to energy supply? Does he agree with me that this is now the time for common sense to prevail? Will he please go to the Department for Energy and persuade his boss to drill, Mili, drill?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I suspect that the experience in the US will rather depend on the price of oil and gas than on any other intervention. Let me quote the figures. In the AI market, we have 3,000 companies, with £10 billion in revenues, and 60,000 people working in the industry. In data centres, 17,000 people are directly employed, with a total revenue of £4.6 billion a year. These are two very successful industries. Developments are taking place at the moment which will continue in the future. This Government will support them in so doing.
Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [HL]
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Malvern
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clause 2, Schedule 2, Clause 3, Schedule 3, Clauses 4 to 13, Title.
Competition and Markets Authority Chairman
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has called on the Government to conduct a meaningful consultation with businesses. Instead, the Government convened the regulators to seek advice on how to drive growth. Is the Minister aware that the union-authored Employment Rights Bill will create another raft of regulations which will further weaken an already damaged employment landscape? As a business founder and employer, does she believe that that Bill, which is due in your Lordships’ House soon, will really drive the growth agenda?
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade and Treasury (Baroness Gustafsson)
My Lords, commenting to the regulators about supporting the Government on their number one ambition of growth is entirely appropriate. Effective regulation is essential to delivering growth. The Prime Minister has been clear that regulators have a vital role to play, and that includes the CMA. I do not believe that working on things like the workers’ rights Bill is at contradiction with the terms of both powering economic growth and making sure that our workers are protected.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to Questions. The Chancellor has said that every regulator, no matter in what sector, has a part to play by tearing down the regulatory barriers that hold back growth. Given the Minister’s background, she will understand the benefits of strong and healthy competition in the digital economy, particularly for SMEs. What assurance can she give the House that the sacking of the chair of the CMA and the appointment of Doug Gurr, a former country head of Amazon, which itself is subject to current and recent CMA investigations, will not lead to weaker competition and consumer protection enforcement? Are the Government still committed to the new digital markets regime that we have all taken several years to install? Are they now going soft on US big tech in a whole range of digital services—operating systems, app stores, browsers, search engines, digital advertising and cloud services—or are we meant now to include our UK SMEs among the so-called blockers?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question, which I have broken down into four points that I hope to address. First, I thank him for his welcome; it is very much appreciated, and it is a pleasure to be here answering questions in front of noble Lords. Secondly, I do not accept the characterisation of us sacking the chair of the CMA; Marcus Bokkerink resigned as chair and the Government are committed to the operational independence of the CMA. Thirdly, on whether the CMA is going soft, especially regarding digital markets, the CMA has new powers under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act and is already using them fervently for investigations into Google and Apple. The Government are committed to the independence of the CMA and making sure that we create an industry that is open to free and fair competition.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, the newspapers all seemed to think it was relevant to cite the decision of the CMA in relation to Microsoft and Activision in the Government encouraging the chairman to step down. Does the Minister agree that, in standing up to Microsoft over Activision and the cloud gaming market, the CMA was doing what it ought to do, which is promoting and maintaining effective competition in cloud gaming services?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
I agree that the role of the CMA is to make sure that it is providing fair, open and transparent competition within all industries. While I will not comment on the specifics of any individual case, I think the CMA in that example is doing its best to represent that competition. The Government will continue to stand by that; supporting the CMA’s operational independence, so that it can carry on doing that role as effectively as it can, is something that this Government prioritise.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
How does the Minister expect the CMA to balance the desperate search for short-term growth with the long-term needs of consumers? Is there not a risk of a repeat of what light-touch regulation in financial services produced, leading to the 2008 financial crash?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
I do not think this is about short-term growth. This Government are committed to prioritising long-term sustainable growth, and I think that goal unifies us all. The regulators have a part to play in that, which is making sure that they are reviewing the regulations through the lens of growth and understanding whether they are still fit for purpose. This is not about tearing down regulation for regulation’s sake; it is about viewing it through the lens of our goal as a Government and making sure it is aligned to that.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, many of us think it is about time that we had accountability for regulators. The regulators appointed by the previous Government failed to protect the public or boost the economy. Do we not need proper regulation to be applied and to make sure that the regulators are on the side of the public?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. He is right; regulation and growth need not be mutually exclusive. This is about creating sustainable long-term growth that protects not only consumers but businesses, so that they have a fair, competitive and open ground on which to compete.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, whether you characterise the change in chairmanship of the CMA as a sacking or not, all the government statements are clearly designed to create a change in behaviour within the CMA. If this change of behaviour had been applied for the past two years, say, could the Minister tell us which decisions the CMA made would have been different? How much more growth would we have had over those two years, had the CMA been applying the Government’s new strictures?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
I come back to a prior answer; this is not about how we look at independent tactical decisions on a case-by-case basis and reflect on what would or could have been. This is about no longer accepting dormant growth within the economy, viewing our regulators through the lens of how we create long-term sustainable growth and making sure that we are aligned with that. To that end, we are consulting on a new strategic steer regarding the CMA, which is expected soon.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the CMA’s recent commitment to review its approach to mergers and acquisitions and would welcome any further moves in that direction. Can the Minister tell the House what, in the implementation of the digital markets and competition regime, she has asked the new chairman to prioritise in support of UK businesses and economic growth?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
As has been referred to, the CMA has new powers under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act. There has been no change regarding that specific policy. We have a consultation open around the strategic steer for the CMA as a whole. That is something we are expecting soon, but is more around the ongoing direction of the CMA.
Lord Bridges of Headley (Con)
My Lords, last weekend at Davos, the Chancellor said that growth trumps net zero. If that is the case, will the Government review and revise regulators’ remits to reflect that?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. As I reflect on my experience in driving investment, I do not think the two need to be mutually exclusive. When I reflect on our successes with driving investment, the green energy sector is a region in which we have seen considerable successes. This does not need to be a choice between one or the other. Executed correctly, there is an opportunity for us to drive growth while supporting sustainable energy initiatives.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, a large number of SMEs supplying Amazon have been complaining about its attitude, saying how very unfair it is and how anti-competitive some of Amazon’s policies are. Given that the new chair comes from Amazon, can the noble Baroness say that he will not bring those bad tendencies from Amazon into our wider competition environment?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
I can hopefully provide some reassurance to my noble friend. There have already been instances where we are investigating Amazon regarding the supply of knives. There is no indication that we have any intention to go soft on these big technology companies. The new chairman’s role and experience within this industry, as well as other experiences such as the directorship of the Alan Turing Institute, will provide a wide raft of experience, which can only be advantageous and beneficial to the role.
Attorney General’s Office: Conflicts of Interest
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, in the other place, the Solicitor-General said that there was a rigorous system for managing conflicts of interest, but she did not say what she meant by a conflict of interest or who decided when one existed; nor did she say whether, because of his work for previous clients, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has in fact recused himself from personally giving advice to the Government on any current issue. Policy Exchange’s paper has comprehensively shown that none of this involves any breach either of legal privilege or of convention, so please may we have some answers to these questions? What precise definition of an actual or potential conflict of interest is used by the Attorney-General’s Office and who decides when one exists? On what matters has the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General recused himself from personally advising Ministers?
The Attorney-General (Lord Hermer) (Lab)
My Lords, it is vital that the public are reassured that the highest standards of propriety are applied by my department, and I welcome the opportunity to answer questions today. As the House will be aware, I am constrained by the law officers’ convention, which prohibits me identifying particular instances in which law officer advice has been sought, even by implication. But I hope that reassurance can be found in the description of the rigorous system for managing conflicts provided by the Solicitor-General in the other place.
May I make it plain that if ever there is or will be reasonable doubt as to whether a law officer should be recused, my department will always err on the side of caution. Compliance with that process has led me to recuse myself from certain matters. As I said, the convention precludes me identifying in those instances, because to do so would inevitably reveal the issues on which advice has been sought. I can assure the House that recusals have no material impact on my department’s work. Where one law officer is conflicted, another is asked to act instead, and I am fortunate to have the support of a Solicitor-General and an Advocate-General for Scotland with highly successful careers in law.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, two years ago, the Constitution Committee of which I was a member concluded that the law officers’ convention not to disclose advice was based upon legal professional privilege and the possibility of future litigation. With the Diego Garcia 61 matter, which has been in the press, the conflict of interest is so obvious that I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will not have advised on the special permission to permit their entry into the UK when he has acted professionally for them in private practice. Legal privilege in future litigation will not be applicable if he simply informs the House that the issue did not cross his desk. I ask him to do so.
Lord Hermer (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. The law officers’ convention is not a convenient rock for law officers to hide behind; it is an essential principle that allows law officers to properly discharge their functions by providing legal advice to the Prime Minister and to government, and for that advice and the contents of that advice not to be revealed, because to do so would fundamentally undermine the efficacy of our work. I understand the basis of the noble Lord’s question, but I do not think I can properly answer that question directly, save to reiterate that we have in place a rigorous process for the identification and management of conflicts.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General, not least for bringing such a distinguished career and experience to this vital role. Can he reassure me that the processes that are currently in place for dealing with conflicts are the same as were in place under the last Government and their law officers? Does he agree that if we examined commercial conflicts of interest with the same zeal and enthusiasm that we assign to legal professional interests, that would be great for trust in democracy and would definitely assist the Government in pursuit of what went wrong during Covid, with corrupt contracts and other favours given to certain individuals and organisations?
Lord Hermer (Lab)
It is my understanding that the same rigorous process has been applied to me and my fellow law officers as was applied previously under Governments of all different colours. As to pre-existing experience, Parliament and various Governments have been lucky to enjoy the assistance of lawyers with a range of experience of public, commercial and criminal law. I anticipate that the same rigour has been applied to identify conflicts for all of them.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure whether the Government I served thought it was an advantage to have me in office, but there you are: I was once a law officer. The convention is that a law officer should not disclose his work in such a way as to embarrass his client. The client in his case is—and in my case was—the Government. The Prime Minister could release him from that convention if he thought it appropriate. Has he asked him to help him?
Lord Hermer (Lab)
The noble and learned Lord served with great distinction as a law officer and will know that the question as to what I may or may not have advised the Prime Minister is itself covered by the law officers’ convention.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, nobody doubts the integrity of my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General, nor that he has complied with the conflicts principles, as has been attested to by the Cabinet Secretary. Can my noble and learned friend say what effect seeking to undermine the convention by scraping the bottom of the barrel in this way has on the good functioning of government and of his office?
Lord Hermer (Lab)
I have two answers to that. In terms of the current law officers, it has none, because we will not be distracted in the work that we seek to perform with this Government to enable them, through law, to deliver on their objectives. My concern is not for myself nor my colleagues; it is that, where people seek to scrape the bottom of the legal barrel in order to drive short-term political point-scoring, it undermines this country’s important institutions in the eyes of the public.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, as Advocate-General for Northern Ireland, the noble and learned Lord might well have to advise on matters relating to highly sensitive national security interests in legacy cases, as happened when I was in government. Would it not serve the interests of transparency and public confidence in his office in Northern Ireland if he were to state unequivocally, yes or no, that, in any cases that might involve known associates of people he has acted for, or indeed those individuals themselves, he will simply recuse himself?
Lord Hermer (Lab)
I can assure the noble Lord that in those instances, and, indeed, in any subject matter that I am asked to consider as Attorney-General, we will apply the rigorous conflict process to identify and manage conflicts. Beyond that, I am afraid I cannot go.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has described the rigorous system that is in place and has been for some time, but he is, of course, the chief government legal adviser and head of the Government Legal Service. As in private practice, ultimately, the decision is his. Does he feel it is in the public interest not to release any information about whether he was recused from these vital matters?
Lord Hermer (Lab)
My Lords, I do. We have set out, and the Solicitor-General set out in the other place, details of that rigorous process. We have explained it and I consider that, without offending the law officers’ convention, that is as far as we can properly go.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, so that the noble Lord does not have to comment on particular cases, could he just say, as a general principle, whether there is a conflict of interest when a law officer is asked to advise on a matter in which he has been retained in a private professional capacity?
Lord Hermer (Lab)
I hope I manage to capture the noble Lord’s question. I do not think it possible, without offending the law officers’ convention, to identify circumstances and instances in which I have recused myself because in so doing, it would identify matters upon which my advice was sought. However, I have made it plain to the House that, as a result of the application of the rigorous system we have in place for the identification and management of conflicts—and what I have described as the conservative approach we apply to managing those conflicts, erring on the side of caution—there have been matters, since coming into this office, on which I have recused myself.
Agricultural and Business Property Reliefs: OBR Costing
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my register of interests: a third share in two small Wiltshire fields—what is left of the marginal family farm of my childhood.
I am not surprised that the increases in agricultural and business property taxes in the Budget have proved to be friendless, except in some deeply urban areas. This was demonstrated in last week’s debate on this Question about costs in the other place.
The truth is, the Government have miscalculated. They expected a vindictive tax grab on large estates to be welcomed by those of an envious disposition. Instead, the difficulties faced by the working family farms which produce so much of our food have been noticed, even by the supermarkets. Elderly farmers are especially desperate.
The Government have the ghastly choice of brazening the matter out or making some sensible concessions. There are already whisperings about the latter. Will the Minister help to ensure that the Government reduce the harm to agricultural investment and food security of this misguided policy?
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. I do, however, totally dispute her characterisation of this policy. At the Budget, we had to take some very difficult decisions on welfare spending and tax that were necessary to fix the public finances and support our public services. We had to do that to address the mess that we inherited from the previous Government. We took those decisions in a way that makes the tax system fairer and more sustainable.
As a result of the measures we are taking, individuals will continue to be able to claim 100% relief for the first £1 million of combined business and agricultural assets, and 50% thereafter. Given the nil-rate bands, that means a couple can pass on up to £3 million between them to a direct descendant inheritance tax-free. In answer to the noble Baroness’s question, the measures will go ahead as planned.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, my colleagues on these Benches have made it clear that we oppose this tax change; we are concerned about the impact of it on family farms and the rural economy, and the knock-on effect on food pricing and food security. We have proposed alternative taxes in lieu. However, in the spirit of compromise, I propose that the Minister looks at lifting the individual thresholds for inheritance tax and agricultural property to £3 million. It would provide great relief for the genuine small farms and would still capture those who are seeking to use investment in farm property as a loophole for tax avoidance. Frankly, having seen the OBR numbers, it would be a very little loss to the Exchequer.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very grateful, as always, to the noble Baroness for her spirit of compromise. As I said in answer to the previous question, given the nil-rate bands, a couple can pass on up to £3 million between them to a direct descendant inheritance tax-free.
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, growth, a government priority, requires investment. What assessment have the Government made of the effect of reducing the reliefs on investment in farming?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
The Government set out their modelling at the Budget and, more recently, the Chancellor provided very extensive additional details to the Treasury Select Committee on exactly that point, including in her follow-up letter. That modelling was backed up by the OBR, as shown in the publication last week.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister say how much the Government expect to raise from the abolition of APR and its consequential impact on inheritance tax relief? The Office for Budget Responsibility, in its Supplementary Forecast Information Release of 22 January, stated very clearly, in paragraph 1.11 on page four:
“The central estimate for the costing is an increase in revenue of £0.5 billion by 2029-30”.
Is that really all that the Government expect to raise from this very cruel measure?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Yes, it is—and it will go a very long way to help our public services after years of neglect. I completely disagree with the noble Baroness’s characterisation of this policy.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that big supermarkets could do more to support farmers in Britain, who are under pressure from the squeeze on prices that big supermarkets are setting? At least one big supermarket achieved more than £2 billion of pre-tax profits—an increase of 15%—last year.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I certainly agree with my noble friend on the specific point that farmers’ incomes are under pressure, and we must do everything we can, as a Government, to support farmers in that respect. It is worth adding that we will continue to work in partnership with the large supermarket chains. We are determined to work with businesses right across the country to drive economic growth.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the OBR note confirms that farmers and businesspeople have a large number of options for reducing their inheritance tax liability? Does he agree that, in so far as the measure encourages farmers to pass on their farms to younger, more dynamic successors, it is as likely to increase productivity as to reduce it?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I absolutely agree with everything that the noble Lord said. Last week’s publication from the OBR does not contain any new information about its view on the fiscal impact of this policy; it remains the same as it set out in its Economic and Fiscal Outlook for the 2024 Budget. The noble Lord’s question relates to that of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. The OBR described this as “highly uncertain” because such a wide range of tax planning options are available to respond to this policy change, including being able to pass on up to £3 million tax-free. The noble Lord was also correct to say that the current system, particularly the extent to which it drives up land prices, has locked out young farmers from being able to own property—and them being able to do so is undoubtedly a good thing.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the costings we have seen for this policy tend to put APR and BPR together. Can the Minister provide figures for the effects of each separately?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
They have been costed jointly at £0.5 billion, as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, while I am not entirely happy about this policy, I recognise that it has been done and that it will stand. However, I suggest to the Treasury and Defra that, if they are looking for taxation from landowners, they should look at the companies, individuals and institutions buying agricultural land to set against their profits elsewhere—or indeed to greenwash their carbon-creating activities elsewhere—and at those who make a killing from a change of use, rather than directing their tax increases at small family farms.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Just to be clear with my noble friend, we are not doing what he says at the end of his question. I think it is worth revisiting the rationale for this policy in the first place. Of course, the Government recognise the role that reliefs play in supporting farms and small businesses. Importantly, the reliefs will continue to play that role, but the reality is that the full, unlimited exemption, which was introduced in 1992, has become unsustainable. Under the current system, the 100% relief on business and agricultural assets is heavily skewed towards the wealthiest landowners and business owners. According to the latest data from HMRC, 40% of agricultural property relief is claimed by just 7% of estates—that is just 117 estates claiming £219 million of relief. It is neither fair nor sustainable to maintain such a large tax break for such a small number of claimants.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
Can I ask for clarification on one thing? Using the Minister’s figures, if a farm was worth, say, £2 million or £3 million—and of course many farms, and I would say most, are worth at least that, if not a great deal more—what would be the situation if the farmer is unmarried or does not have a civil partnership? That is not a farm that he would then be able to pass on to the next generation, given the Minister’s figures. Am I correct?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
They would, absolutely; of course they can pass that farm on. To be very clear: there is 100% relief for the first £1 million of combined business and agricultural assets. Above that amount there will be 50% relief. This means that inheritance tax will be paid at a reduced effective rate up to 20%, rather than the standard 40%. The reliefs also sit on top of all the other spousal exemptions and nil-rate bands. So full exemptions for transfers between spouses and civil partners will continue. I accept that in the example the noble Lord gives that is not the case, but any inheritance tax liability after that, on relevant assets, can be paid in 10 annual instalments, in most circumstances completely interest-free. All those circumstances are vastly more generous than in other parts of the tax system.
Southport Attack
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I think I can best begin by repeating the opening sentences of the Statement:
“None of us will ever forget the events of 29 July. The school holidays had just started, and little girls were at a dance class to have fun, dance and sing. A moment of joy turned into the darkest of nightmares”.
This was one of the most despicable criminal acts in my lifetime. In my previous career—32 years as a detective policing in London—I saw some of the most violent and atrocious criminals at work, but this certainly ranks as the most heinous of crimes. Let me be clear: Rudakubana should never be released from prison. His age means he has not been given a whole life sentence, despite the countless lives he destroyed on that dreadful day and the legacy of mistrust he has sown across the country.
My heart goes out to the victims and families. Not a day has passed since the sentencing that they have not been in my thoughts and in the thoughts and prayers of the nation. I could not possibly imagine their pain but, as a father, albeit of a grown-up family, I can only send them my heartfelt condolences and offer any support I can give. We owe it to the victims, their families and the wider public to ensure that justice is not only done but seen to be done.
In this vein, I must express my grave concerns about the limitations of our current sentencing framework. The public will rightly question how someone capable of such monstrous crimes could one day walk free among us. This is undoubtedly a question of moral clarity and public confidence in our justice system, as I am sure noble Lords will agree. There is a strong case here for amending the law to give clear judicial discretion to award whole life sentences to under-18s. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government will conduct a full review of sentencing guidelines for the most serious offences committed by under-18s? Will he also commit to consulting with legal and policing experts, as well as the victims’ families, to ensure that our laws reflect the severity of such crimes and the need to protect society from those who commit them?
Furthermore, this case has highlighted the importance of support for victims and their families, both immediately following an attack and in the years that follow. Perhaps the noble Lord can outline what specific measures the Government are taking to provide such support, including access to counselling, financial assistance and legal advice where needed.
It is right that the Prime Minister highlighted the sale of knives, and we took action on this when in government, banning the sale of zombie knives. As the leader of the Opposition rightly said, we also need to understand issues relating to integration and British values. Can the Minister confirm that integration issues will form part of the Prime Minister’s review into this?
The people of Southport, and indeed the entire nation, are watching. They expect action, accountability and assurance that this will never happen again. We on these Benches are committed to working constructively with the Government to ensure that the lessons of this tragedy are learned and that justice, in its truest sense, is achieved. Let us honour the memory of those we lost by striving for a society where such horrors are not only condemned but prevented.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for this opportunity to discuss the Statement on the Southport attacks that was made in the House of Commons last week.
It is hard to find the words to describe the truly awful brutality that resulted in the violent and shocking deaths of Alice, Bebe and Elsie last summer in Southport: three little girls who set off to enjoy the innocent pleasure of dancing—something which so many children enjoy—only never to return. My heart goes out to their families and friends left behind, as well as to the many left physically, emotionally and mentally scarred after the barbaric events of that day.
From these Benches, we welcome the announcement of the inquiry. A public inquiry is necessary because the Government have a duty to the families to learn the lessons from what happened. An extremely violent young man was identified, by many different people and organisations, yet he was still able to carry out these abhorrent attacks.
Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements exist to enable the police and other relevant agencies such as youth offending teams and social services to manage the risk presented by violent offenders, but many are underresourced and lack experienced or qualified participants. Can the Minister say whether the inquiry will aim to establish whether the risks presented by such cases are best managed through MAPPA teams? What are the Government doing to ensure that MAPPA teams are properly staffed and resourced?
Last September, the Committee on Statutory Inquiries of your Lordships’ House published its findings. Paragraph 46 of that report says:
“Ministers should keep in mind the option of holding a non-statutory inquiry (given its relative agility) and then converting it if witnesses fail to cooperate. Ministers should also consider selecting non-judge chairs or appointing a panel. Ministers should meet and consult victims and survivors’ groups before publishing the terms of reference”.
I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that this is in line with the approach that the Government intend to take on the public inquiry.
The announcement last week of the introduction of greater checks on age before buying knives online is to be welcomed. As the Home Secretary said last week, it is truly shocking that Axel Rudakubana was easily able to buy knives on Amazon when he was only 17. However, can the Minister clarify what is the current situation for buying knives online from an outlet based outside of the UK? Can he confirm whether it is the intention to introduce age verification for the import of knives to this country?
A great deal has been written and said about the effectiveness of Prevent and the definition of terrorism since the Prime Minister’s and Home Secretary’s Statements last week. It is welcome that there is to be another review of Prevent. I believe the Prime Minister’s Statement raised some important questions. Is a lone attacker—unfortunately, usually a young man—who is obsessed with terrorism and previous terrorist attacks but who is not ideologically driven or working within a recognised terrorist organisation, a terrorist? It is important to consider what would be the consequences of changing Prevent’s engagement in such cases.
Does the Minister agree with Neil Basu, the Met’s former head of counterterror policing, when he said last week that a “Prevent for non-terrorists” is now necessary and will require a “big bill” if we want to be safe? Will the Home Office carry out an assessment of the risks of diverting counterterrorism officers from their core task if the definition is expanded to include extremely violent, physiologically disturbed people who are clearly a danger to society but not necessarily a threat to the state?
The brutal murders in Southport raise questions about dangerous individuals and the internet, as Rachel Reeves acknowledged yesterday and as is made clear by the Home Secretary’s letter to the many tech companies appealing for a change in their attitudes. There have always been dangerous and violent individuals who pose a risk to society, but society now faces an additional threat from individuals who have easy access to radical, violent and extremist views on the internet, which can provide an incentive for attacks and sometimes an utterly misguided sense of identity and justification. Do the Government intend to take further measures to remove such dangerous content and to work with search engines such as Google to divert searches to more positive content, with signposting to organisations that can help such individuals?
The misinformation spread on social media after the attacks last summer in Southport, including from Elon Musk, was truly sickening and shocking. It did absolutely nothing to help the victims and survivors, and had much more to do with identity politics and a right-wing agenda. These are not simple matters with quick-fix solutions. We should be wary of knee-jerk reactions which result in bad legislation. However, the victims’ families deserve to know that we will ask the difficult questions and try to find workable solutions, and, most importantly, learn from the mistakes.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, in addressing the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the House of Commons, our first thoughts have to be with the victims of this horrendous incident: Elsie, Bebe and Alice. Our thoughts are also with the people who were attacked, their parents and the brave people who ran to the defence of those young children, both those at the playgroup event and, later, the security forces, the police, the fire services and others. All of them showed that this horrendous crime will remain with us for years to come.
I will try to answer in detail the points from His Majesty’s loyal Opposition’s Front Bench and the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. So the House is aware, the Home Secretary’s announcement last week ensured that we will have an independent public inquiry which will look not just at what happened in Southport but at the issue of rising youth violence and extremism. It will look at the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, in relation to the Online Safety Act and the importance of taking action to remove content. Members will wish to know that, on 17 March, illegal content removal comes into effect. We have written to online providers to ask them to speed up their response, as is their statutory responsibility, prior to that date.
We will undertake a learning review of the organisation of Prevent generally, which has now been in operation for well over 20 years. The situation within the terrorist community and the areas that Prevent relates to have changed in that time and we need to make sure that it is up to speed. We have appointed the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, as independent commissioner of Prevent and to review this case on a temporary basis.
We will look at knife sales in the police and crime Bill which will come before this House shortly. I will reflect on the points that the noble Baroness raised in relation to overseas sales, as well as the verification of sales that have been brought to the door.
We must remember that the individual who committed these crimes faces a life sentence, given down last week, with a 52-year minimum sentence. The issues that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned about the whole-life sentence are tempered by the fact that the UK Government have signed up to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which means that we cannot currently give a whole-life sentence to somebody under the age of 18.
The House should not be confused by this regarding our commitment to the victims of this crime, which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, spoke of. We will give them full support. That is why, taking on board the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, we will take some time to appoint the chair of the inquiry and to consult with the coroner and the victims’ families, and to look at the terms of reference for the inquiry. All the points made from both Front Benches are important to be considered by the public inquiry.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned integration. That is key to the assessment of Prevent and to how we tackle those issues generally. I remind him that the perpetrator of this crime was a British-born, British citizen. There are multilayered complexities in the issues that led to the appalling incident in Southport.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness made points about the review of legislation generally. We have asked the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation to see whether we are up to speed at the moment. That again will be a considered process, but one which I hope will add value to the work that we need to do.
The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, mentioned a range of issues regarding multi-agency teams and their determinations. These are all extremely important. I assure her that we will be examining all this in relation to the response as a whole.
I hope noble Lords will recognise that, for those of us who were Ministers in the first few weeks of office, this was a tremendous challenge. We have to look in slow time at how we best respond to this challenge. We have looked at the incidents that have been referred to and at the sentencing that has now happened in relation to Southport, but we have also had a review of the consequences, post-Southport, of the disorder that took place in the light of that event. As Ministers, it is important for us to get to the stage of looking at what we can do to help prevent incidents like the one that happened in Southport occurring in the future.
I hope that, as a start, the points that my right honourable friend mentioned in the Statement last week and in this updated Statement, post-sentencing, give this House the assurance that this Government will be looking at how Prevent is operating, the incidents surrounding this crime and why the multi-agency support mechanisms did not identify interventions earlier, the Online Safety Act and how we can improve those issues, and at all this as a whole, to ensure that if there are things that we can do in the future to prevent this type of atrocity, we will do them.
Lord Walney (CB)
The Minister has pointed to a number of reviews that have been put in place in the wake of this appalling crime. Can I ask him for as much clarity as he can give on the Government’s attitude towards the Shawcross review of Prevent? Obviously, the new reviews will respond to this changed picture, but a programme of work was being enacted by the department to implement those recommendations. Has that now been paused or scrapped, or is it continuing in the interim?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his question and for the work that he has done in this field. He will know that 33 of the 34 recommendations from the Shawcross report have already been fully implemented. We have one outstanding recommendation. We have already launched new statutory guidance and new training for front-line professionals, including on Islamist extremism. We are overhauling our decision to take in non-Prevent referrals that enter the system. We have launched pilots to tackle online radicalisation, to support those that do not meet the Prevent thresholds. We have recruited, as I mentioned in my initial comments, the first independent Prevent commissioner.
Everything will be kept under review, but I hope that the Shawcross recommendations that are implemented will make a difference. Self-evidently, failings have happened and, therefore, we need to review those failings independently of ministerial action and, in doing that, bring forward—sadly—further recommendations to tighten and improve the system.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, the Intelligence and Security Committee showed in its 2022 report, Extreme Right-Wing Terrorism, the toxic nature of how online extremism is affecting young minds. I accept what the Minister said, that there rightly has to be a threshold for something to be deemed terrorism, but does he agree that the real gap is that, for those individuals who are affected by these images and propaganda online, there is nothing currently in the mental health services that they are referred to for dealing with that?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend raises an important issue. This is an important part of the process that we need to review now: if individuals are being radicalised in their bedrooms in whatever way—right-wing, Islamist or just for the purposes of enjoying killing—we need to try to find a mechanism to remove the content that is leading to that radicalisation. Equally, if people come into contact with social services, the police or other agencies—as indeed the perpetrator did in this case—that needs to be sensitively picked up and support, whether mental health, directional or another form, needs to be given to help change that behaviour. That is the purpose of Prevent and of the regime that both Governments have had in place over a long period of time. Self-evidently, in this case, it failed. The purpose of our public inquiry is to look at why it failed and at the interventions that happened, why they did not work and why they were not picked up and developed further. We need to ensure that, from whatever background violent behaviour is being directed, we take action to mitigate against it.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I accept what the Minister is saying but, on this Holocaust Memorial Day, the Times reports the findings of a Channel 4 survey which found that 52% of young people aged 13-27 said that they thought
“the UK would be a better place if a strong leader was in charge who does not have to bother with parliament and elections”,
while 47% agreed that,
“the entire way our society is organised must be radically changed through revolution”.
Not only did the internet apparently incentivise or motivate the Stockport murderer, it is producing wider, very worrying, attitudes. What will the Government do to counter these dangerous ideas; for example, by supporting the production of positive content?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We have to do two things. First, we have to look at where there is material online that breaches criminal thresholds and then work with the hosts of that material to take it down. That is what the Government are trying to do with the Online Safety Act. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the DSIT Secretary, Peter Kyle, will be looking in the longer term at that type of illegal material which fosters, for example, ideas of using ricin, promoting potential attacks or encouraging violent behaviour. That has to cross a criminal threshold.
There is also a wider point about promoting a decent society and the values of tolerance, understanding, respecting differences and allowing people to live their lives with tolerance. My parents’ generation saw great loss fighting fascism in the Second World War—members of my family died. I grew up in the knowledge that my family and their generation had fought fascism in the Second World War. The Holocaust memorial services today remind us of where fascist ideology leads. We need, in my view, to gain an open, tolerant society. That is the second half of what I hope all of us can do to make sure that we respect and celebrate our differences.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
Does the Minister agree with me that, leaving aside our obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child, it would be unwise of us to use an incident as extreme and horrifying as this as a ground for changing the law to enable a judge to impose a whole-life sentence on an individual aged under 18? The problem is that if the law is changed, it is changed generally, applying over a wide range of cases. It would not capture, without a very difficult definition, a case as extreme as this. It would be wiser to leave the matter as it is and of course go along with what the convention tells us.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble and learned Lord speaks wise words. He will also note that Justice Goose indicated in his sentencing that it was likely to be a whole-life term, even though he could give only a 52-year sentence. The perpetrator will not be considered for any form of parole, at any stage, until he is 70; he is currently 18. That is a severe sentence, for which I am grateful for the work of Justice Goose and the judiciary in dealing with this difficult case in a sensitive way.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, on the Statement’s points on contempt of court, will the Minister comment on the CPS’s refusal to release full background details about Rudakubana, even after his guilty plea? This led the Crime Reporters Association to note
“a worrying pattern whereby forces wanting to provide information to the press have been instructed to stay silent”.
I raise this because I want to know what the Minister thinks about the information vacuum that followed the incident. Yes, some bad-faith players stirred the pot, but most of the people who were speculating and asking questions about, say, terrorism were parents who were just sickened by the carnage of those little girls, and I think felt resentful, frankly, at being called out as either far-right or somehow the problem themselves. Can we have more openness and information, not less?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The Government have tried to be as open as possible at every stage of this process, which is why we made Statements to the House of Commons when the incident occurred, on sentencing and now. I hope the noble Baroness will recognise that the Government have a duty also to make sure that information does not prejudice a trial and/or a sentencing result, even after a guilty plea.
If information that the Government held, or were party to, or had already prepared to begin to promote ideas that we are acting on now, had been put into the public domain at a time when the Government either became aware of that information or acted upon it, we may have had a situation whereby a trial would not have been a fair and open trial; a conviction may not have happened in the way it has happened; and, even after the guilty plea, which the Government were not expecting on that day, we may have had the sentence subject to potential appeals because of anything the Government had said.
Certainly, the Government’s role is to now have an inquiry, for all the reasons I have mentioned, and to look at all the issues that noble Lords and noble Baronesses have raised today. But the Government also have a responsibility to make sure that members of the judiciary fulfil their job appropriately.
Lord Goodman of Wycombe (Con)
Further to the answer that the Minister has just given, Jonathan Hall, the Government’s independent reviewer of counterterror legislation, said, in the aftermath of these heartbreaking killings, that
“if there is any information you can give, put it in the public domain, and be really careful that you don’t fall into the trap of saying ‘we can only say zilch, because there are criminal proceedings’”.
He continued:
“Quite often, there’s a fair amount … that can be put into the public domain”,
and that
“just saying ‘there’s a charge, we can’t say any more’, is not going to cut it these days”.
I appreciate, as the Minister says, that the position is very difficult, and one does not want to prejudice a trial. But will he reflect on what the independent adviser said, and did he agree with it?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the way in which the noble Lord has put his question. We have now charged the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation to examine the lessons from this case. He is responsible for the comments he has made. But he will present a report, which this Government will publish and present to both Houses in due course, on the issues that he thinks are relevant; we will respond, and that is the right and proper way to do it. I am not about to make policy now at the Dispatch Box, nor is my right honourable friend, on issues which demand and need reflection, and I hope the noble Lord understands the reasons I have responded in that way.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, I beg the indulgence of the House, as I missed the opening statement from the Minister. I recognise the difficulties that he faced. Although, obviously, as the previous speaker said, a fair amount can be put into the public domain and, equally obviously, everyone wants as much as possible, nothing would have been more disastrous than if Ministers had put information into the public domain that put the trial in jeopardy and this man got off completely. May I say to the Minister in solace that whatever criticism he and the Government have had for the actions they have taken or not taken, it is as nothing to the criticism that he and his colleagues would have received if they had put that trial in jeopardy and this murderer had gone scot free?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My noble friend has faced decisions such as those that we have faced in these past few months, and he knows the difficulty of dealing with incidents such as the one that happened in Southport in the summer of last year. I understand and take his point, and I am grateful for his support. I hope the House will understand that the Government not commenting on certain issues is not about them trying to cover up or be secretive or not divulge information; it is about ensuring that that information is divulged at a time when it is most effective to secure convictions of individuals such as the one responsible for an atrocious act that took three lives.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, I have two quick questions for the Minister. First, obviously, the state has failed with horrific consequences here. The Minister mentioned a review. Can he set out what the timeline is? How fast can it be done? How thorough will it be? Will the Government undertake to accept any recommendations or changes that are suggested? Secondly, there have been a few comments about the rights of a child, which are obviously important, but there are also the rights of the victims to consider. If there are, sadly, future incidents such as this, and if the Government go ahead and lower the voting age to 16, does that then mean—and this is not a political point—that a 16 year-old is considered to be an adult, or is a 16 year-old who is able to vote still a child?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
On that latter point, the Government’s legal binding for this potential area of policy is signing up to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. We are determined by the convention that is signed, so that any change in the voting age would not impact on the convention unilaterally by the United Kingdom as a whole.
The noble Lord mentioned the inquiry. I hope he understands that this relates partly to the speed of the events of last week, with a guilty plea and the sentencing on Thursday. With the sentencing having taken place, we want to establish the inquiry that my right honourable friend has mentioned, but we want to take time for three reasons and in three areas. We want to take time to consult the families to ensure that they understand what is happening and that they are brought onboard, because the victims are not just the children who died but their relatives. We have a coroner’s inquest, which is ongoing, and we need to consult the coroner on these matters. We have to ensure that the chair has the right skills for this inquiry, and that is not going to be a quick, easy fix. Therefore, much as I would like to give the noble Lord an easy answer on the timescale, I say to him that I will bring back to this House at some point, in a Written Statement or on the Floor of the House, the details of that inquiry, but as yet we are working through those things. We want to make sure that we get it right. We want the families not only to feel ownership of the inquiry but to understand its objectives and terms of reference, to have contributed to them and to have confidence in the chair that we ultimately select.
Mental Health Bill [HL]
Monday 27th January 2025
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Mental Health Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Mental Health Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 47-IV(Corrected) Fourth marshalled list for Committee - (23 Jan 2025)
“30AA Overruling a nominated person(1) The appropriate tribunal may, on application made in accordance with this provision, make an order overruling a decision of a nominated person.(2) An order under this section may be made on the application of—(a) the patient,(b) an approved mental health professional,(c) any person engaged in caring for the patient or interested in the patient’s welfare, or(d) any person with parental responsibility for the patient.(3) An application for an order under this provision may only be made on the grounds that—(a) the nominated person unreasonably objects to the making of an application for admission for treatment or a guardianship application in respect of the patient,(b) the nominated person has, without due regard to the welfare of the patient or the interests of the public, exercised the power to discharge the patient under this Act or is likely to do so, or(c) the nominated person unreasonably objects to the making of a community treatment order in respect of the patient.(4) In this section “patient” includes any person by or for whom a nominated person is appointed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would give the Mental Health First-Tier Tribunal the power to overrule decisions of a nominated person.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I shall also speak briefly to the other amendments in this group. I warn those who are planning to speak after me that I will be brief, because this amendment is self-evident and set out in our papers. I begin by reflecting on the fact that I think there is universal welcome for the creation of the nominated person situation. This is a good step forward and widely welcomed. What your Lordships’ Committee is trying to do is perhaps to fulfil its traditional role to make sure that it is set up in as watertight, practical, useful and effective way as possible.
This amendment did not originate with me; it originated with the Law Society. It provides for a mental health First-tier Tribunal to overrule the power of the nominated person. I note that the next amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, suggests not the county court but the Court of Protection. I do not have any particular position on any of these things. It is useful for us in Committee to discuss this in detail. People far more expert than me will outline that, so I shall not go on at length.
I will note for the Committee’s understanding that my Amendment 71 was withdrawn, because it was doubled up with someone else’s but was put in a different place. It was just one of those technical juggles that happens. With that very brief introduction, I beg to move.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 69, which would replace the reference in the Bill to the county court with reference to use of the Court of Protection to deal with applications to terminate appointments of nominated persons. The single reference to the county court, currently in Schedule 2, is the only place where the county court is given jurisdiction to do anything in this legislation, which I suggest makes it something of an anomaly as well as an anachronism.
The reference to the county court simply carries forward the use of the county court from the 1959 and 1983 Acts, which provided for that court to deal with applications to displace nearest relatives. When I was first appointed a judge, I well remember being presented with an urgent application to displace the nearest relative, of which I then had no experience and in which I had never had any training. In the days before judicial computers, I had no access to anything but out-of-date and very limited books in the small court, no longer in existence, where I was then sitting for a few weeks and without help from any legal representatives. Few learning curves have been more rapid.
Since then, I would like to think I developed some expertise, but my later experience of those applications has led me to question whether the modern equivalent in this Bill concerning nominated persons would be better dealt with elsewhere. Such applications can involve detailed understanding of psychiatric reports and of the family dynamics for the patient concerned, particularly if the nominated person is unco-operative or disengaged. At the time when the earlier legislation stipulated the use of the county court, there was neither a separate family court nor the Court of Protection, which was created by the Mental Capacity Act 2005.
Of course, I do not suggest that county court judges could not deal with these applications—my life with my present and former judicial colleagues would probably not be worth living if I did so. A judge has to be prepared to turn his or her hand to whatever comes their way. However, I do suggest that the Court of Protection is now better equipped to deal with these applications with its specialist expertise and specifically nominated judiciary.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 77, 82 and 84 in this group. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for mentioning my amendments in advance. I am adding the other choice for His Majesty’s Government, which is the mental health tribunal, on the basis that the Court of Protection deals with the Mental Capacity Act and, obviously, at the moment, the mental health tribunal deals with claims under the Mental Health Act.
However, there are one or two points of clarification on the process on which it would be useful to hear from the Minister. As I understand it, for the county court to take an application to displace the nearest relative involves means-tested legal aid, whereas the mental health tribunal, I believe, has Legal Services Commission funding—I am talking in old money here—so it is non-means-tested. I am not aware of what the situation is with the Court of Protection. However, an important concern of people making these applications is whether their legal representation is funded. I expect they are in a situation similar to that outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Meston, when he spoke of getting one of these applications for the first time; for many people making these applications, it will be their first time not only making such an application but being in front of any kind of court or tribunal, and at a time of great distress with a relative detained under the Mental Health Act.
Given that the policy document disclosed last week references this process as the solution to certain situations, could the Minister please outline, either today or in a letter, how many county court applications there are, how long people wait for such applications and what the rate of success is? How many of those who go to the county court currently get legal aid?
Is the Minister satisfied that the county court can act swiftly enough to remove a nominated person who is a risk to the patient? An example given, I think either in the review or in the response to the White Paper, is that, if you have a coercive, controlling boyfriend of a 17 year-old girl as the nominated person, or someone who is suspected of having trafficked that young person to the UK, then time is of the essence for practitioners to have that person removed—on evidence, obviously—from having such powers as, for instance, to apply to discharge the patient from hospital.
At this stage, it might also be appropriate to ask the Minister what is meant in the policy document by the concept of “temporary” nominated persons? We had interim nominated persons in the review, but there is no concept that I have seen in the Bill of temporary nominated persons.
Finally, Amendment 82, although it may be in the wrong group, talks about parental responsibility. We have had other discussions in Committee about this, and I think it was in the review; we must make sure, at the very least, that appropriate people with parental responsibility have the relevant information. That is a baseline. Whether we go on to consultation or being able to apply to remove a nominated person, I would submit—and Amendment 82 outlines this—that they should have all the relevant information. I have exempted the person with residual parental responsibility under a special guardianship order. This reveals some of the complications of the Children Act. In this type of situation, the child has been removed to live with someone else; it is similar to a care order, in that the people with parental responsibility remain there, unless there is an adoption order. One has to be careful even about the rights to information, and who with parental responsibility receives that.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, if I may, I shall start with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Meston. I agree with almost everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, has said. I will talk first about which court it should be in. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Meston, had said. Oddly, the county court was one of the only courts in which I did not sit, but I have never heard a circuit judge who was very keen on dealing with these particular applications.
Judges of the Family Division sit in the Court of Protection. As I would hope noble Lords would agree, they are somewhat expert in family law, and they do a great deal of mental care and medical cases. As president of the Family Division, I spent probably 50% of my time doing one sort of medical case or other, quite a lot of them mental health cases. The Court of Protection is probably the best court to deal with this. I do not feel very strongly against the mental health tribunal—I just do not think it would be quite as good. Legal aid is an issue, and I assume that it probably would not be automatic in the Court of Protection.
I turn to my Amendment 70. I entirely share what the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, has just said. The law is that, until the age of 18, one is a child, regardless of the Gillick case, regardless of being 17 and very nearly grown up. Until a person is 18 they remain, technically, in law, a child. I am very concerned about a child of any age, living at home with parents, who has a mental health problem sufficiently serious to require attention and a nominated person, who is at odds with the parents or guardian and chooses somebody who is totally unsuitable. The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, pointed out that this could be someone who might be trafficking, or an unsuitable boyfriend.
The one group of people not included in new Section 30B(2) in Part 1 of Schedule 2 where it says that, to discharge a nominated person,
“An order under this section may be made on the application of…”
is anybody who has parental responsibility for the child. This means that when a child who is at odds with their parents goes into hospital, when those parents know the boyfriend and that he is unsuitable, those parents have no voice whatever in saying that he is not suitable to be a nominated person. Subject to the important points that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, has made, it seems that there are certain cases where, in what used to be called a custody order or a special guardianship, the parental responsibility of the natural parents is limited.
I would have hoped that the Government would see that, however much they want to empower children, including children under the age of 16, they cannot take away 100% the responsibilities of parents. Under Section 2 or 3 of the Children Act, parental responsibility is defined as having rights as well as responsibilities. I am really talking about the responsibility whereby parents may really want to be able to tell someone, “Look who my daughter is going out with”, but under the Bill they have no right do so, and as far as I am concerned that is utterly wrong.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may quote from our report on the draft Mental Health Bill on this point, while agreeing 100% with both previous speakers. During our evidence sessions, we heard from a number of people who had real concerns about the issue of nominated persons for young people. We heard
“that choosing a Nominated Person outside of the family can put pressure on family relationships. Respondents also noted the importance of ensuring that the families and carer are still given a voice in a patient’s treatment even if they are not chosen as the Nominated Person. This is particularly important for children and young people. Additionally, one respondent who identified as a carer of someone with a mental health condition expressed their concern that not all nominated people may know the patient well enough to assist in making decisions in their best interest … Another respondent noted that, for those under 18, there may be overlap between the rights of those with parental authority and those of the Nominated Person”.
Our belief during that whole process was that this all seriously needs to be clarified, either in law or in the code of practice. I remember that one respondent was very concerned that young people would assume that a nominated person could be a friend and that the friend would really understand their role, but in some cases that just was not happening.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I hope I may be forgiven for getting up again, because I completely forgot to refer to Amendment 76. It would come in under paragraph 3(2) in Part 1 of new Schedule A1, where the parents and any person with parental responsibility are not even consulted on the appointment. That is exactly the same point as I made earlier.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, with this group of amendments, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, my noble friend Lady Berridge, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, have exposed a crucial set of issues: in my judgment, one of the two or three most important issues that we shall be dealing with during our debates on the Bill. At their heart, I suggest, is the conflict, or perhaps I should say the high risk of a conflict if nothing is done, between the arrangements that the Bill seeks to put in place for the creation of nominated persons on the one hand and, on the other, the law of the land as set out in the Children Act 1989.
Both this group of amendments and those in the next group in the name of my noble friend Lady Berridge focus on matters of the highest significance for child protection and child safety in all its aspects. The assumption inherent in the Bill’s provisions for nominated persons is that the process for appointing a nominated person is rigorous enough to ensure that someone unfit to be appointed to that role will not in practice be appointed, or that, if they are, the system will find them out. I believe that it is evident from what we have heard in this debate that that assumption is a highly dangerous one.
A nominated person will be someone in a position of considerable power. They will be able to exercise all the functions exercised currently by a nearest relative, as well as availing of additional powers as set out in the Bill. Children and young people under 18 will be able to appoint a nominated person. That person will be someone of their own choosing. It could be a parent or someone other than a parent, but the principal qualification for such a person is that they must have the child’s best interests at heart.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for an extremely helpful debate. I want to say how much I understand the concerns around the nominated person regarding children and parents, and the great need to get this right in the way that noble Lords have rightly unpicked today.
It is very important that parents are involved in a child or young person’s care. I say to noble Lords, as this has come up before, that we do not intend or wish to undermine the rights or responsibilities of parents. In the vast majority of cases, the nominated person for a child or young person will be their parent or whoever has parental responsibility, either because they have decided that themselves, with the relevant competence or capacity, or because they are appointed by the approved mental health professional.
For under-16s the Bill sets out that if they lack competence to make this decision, the approved mental health professional must appoint a parent, or a person or local authority with parental responsibility. The Bill aligns with the Mental Capacity Act on decision-making capability, with young people aged 16 and over considered to have the capacity to make relevant decisions. We think it is important, as I know noble Lords do, that children and young people have the right to choose a nominated person, and I understand the need to get the nominated person right. Some 67% of over 1,200 respondents to the White Paper consultation supported extending this right to under-16s.
We must have the right processes and safeguards for all patients, and additional protections for children and young people. These safeguards will cover the nomination process and the ability to overrule the nominated person or remove someone from the role if they are not acting in the patient’s best interests. The noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Berridge, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, have all put forward amendments to give responsibility to the tribunal or the Court of Protection in these matters. The county court already has a role in displacing the nearest relative. We believe that it has the expertise, procedural tools and legal framework to handle sensitive disputes involving external parties, such as conflicts of interest or allegations of abuse. I emphasise the word “sensitive”. I believe that the debate today has acknowledged that we are in very sensitive territory and that we need to get this right.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, mentioned the training of judges. I can confirm that we will be working with the county court to ensure that it is aware of and can fulfil the requirements of the new provision.
The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, asked for figures on county court applications, and I will be very glad to write to her and answer her fully. Similarly, I will be very pleased to write to her in detail on the matter of legal aid.
The Act and the Bill allow for someone who is not acting in the interests of the patient to be overruled or removed from this role. On Amendment 68 specifically, the Bill enables the responsible clinician to overrule the nominated person on the grounds included the amendment, so I am grateful for its being brought before us today. This will be quicker and will avoid burdens on the tribunal.
On Amendment 69, transferring the role of the nominated person to the Court of Protection would expand the court’s remit to under-16s. Currently, the court can deal only with the financial affairs of under-16s. The Court of Protection makes decisions for those lacking capacity, but patients need to have capacity to have appointed their own nominated person. Where they lack capacity or competence, the approved mental health professional will appoint, and the Bill sets out the grounds for them to terminate the appointment.
On Amendments 77 and 84, the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, asked about the concept of a temporary nominated person. This is in recognition that such an appointment by an approved mental health professional is only until the person concerned has the relevant capacity or competence to choose their own—that is what is meant by the word “temporary” here.
The First-tier Tribunal (Mental Health) in England and the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales are focused on reviewing detention under the Mental Health Act. The provisions of the amendments would add additional burden on that tribunal. My concern is that it would risk undermining its core function and delay detention reviews, which I know is not something that noble Lords would wish.
Amendment 70, tabled by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, would specify that parents, guardians and anyone with parental responsibility can apply to the court to displace a nominated person. The Bill already allows anyone involved in the patient’s care or welfare to apply to the county court to terminate the appointment of a nominated person. This includes parents, guardians and anyone with parental responsibility, as her amendment seeks.
On Amendments 72 and 73, in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, I wholeheartedly agree that the law has to prevent exploitation and manipulation. The nomination process is indeed intended to ensure that the decision is the patient’s own. I recognise the circumstances that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and other noble Lords described as possibilities. We have to consider all the potential scenarios, which are very real challenges to us. A health or social care professional, or an advocate, must witness the nomination and confirm in writing that the nominated person is suitable and that there has been no fraud or undue pressure. On the point the noble Earl raised, the code of practice will include guidance on how to determine this.
Amendment 76 was tabled by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. We understand the desire to involve parents in the decision, and for the vast majority this will be appropriate. We are concerned that the amendment’s requirement to consult a parent, guardian or someone with parental responsibility could risk undermining the principle of giving children and young people a choice. It could also, in a different way, pressure the child into choosing the parent, in circumstances that might be far from desirable. Although we do not think that we should require consultation with the parents in all circumstances, we would expect the witness to discuss the nomination with parents and others with interest in the welfare of the child as part of the assessment of suitability. We will consult on guidance in the code on how practitioners should encourage the child or young person to involve their parents, even if they are not the nominated person, unless it is inappropriate.
On Amendment 82, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, I agree that parents and carers are to be given information about the care and treatment of their child. If a child nominates a person other than their parent as their nominated person, their parents retain legal rights under parental responsibility. These rights include the right to be consulted on certain decisions and to receive information about the child’s care. The Bill also introduces a duty on the responsible clinician to consult with people involved in the child’s welfare on care and treatment planning, which includes parents and carers.
With those comments in mind, I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her careful and detailed response to an important group of amendments. It may affect only a small number of cases, but they are cases where we really need to get this right. Those two adjectives apply very well to this whole debate.
I will make a couple of comments in response. We have had three suggestions about where the applications to remove the nominated person should be. Personally, I do not have a strong view. I thought the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, about legal aid was important. Justice unfunded is justice denied, so it really is important that there is that full and necessary support, wherever they end up.
With that, I pick up the important point made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about the witness being such an important person to ensure that this process goes well. The noble Earl talked about making sure the guidance is right. I add that we have to make sure that the resources are there, thinking about our overstretched mental health services. We need to ensure that the person who will be the witness has the time to put in the resources to ensure that they can properly be a witness. It may not be a subject of law, but it certainly needs to be thought about.
Baroness Berridge
“(3) Regardless of whether a person is appointed as a nominated person, if they have parental responsibility that person must be given appropriate and relevant information about care and treatment of a relevant patient.(4) Subsection (3) does not apply to persons with residual parental responsibility for the relevant patient when the patient is subject to a special guardianship order under section 14A of the Children Act 1989.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, along with another amendment in the name of Baroness Berridge, seeks to ensure that regardless of whether persons with parental responsibility are appointed as the nominated person, they should have access to the appropriate and relevant information about care and treatment of the relevant patient (unless a Special Guardianship Order has been made).
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 74 properly sits alongside Amendment 82 in the previous group, so I rise to speak predominantly to Amendments 75, 78 and 79A to 81. This group seeks to ensure that the expansion of choice and autonomy for children and young people under the Bill sits consistently with the child protection law of the Children Act, which I believe the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, was involved in creating.
This is not a new issue. The independent review way back in December 2018 stated:
“There needs to be careful consideration of how the powers and rights of the NP”—
the nominated person—
“will interact with other areas of the system, including care orders, guardianship and child arrangement orders, where the overlap with parental responsibility is particularly important”.
Parental responsibility has been dealt with in a series of amendments by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, so I will not address that. It is regrettable that over six and a half years later, we still have not sorted this matter and there is no draft code of practice for noble Lords to refer to.
However, I am grateful for the meetings the Minister has had with colleagues, and for the policy document disclosed last week, which made small steps. I hope the Minister can confirm that she has met the Minister for Children and Families and DfE officials regarding this matter, as they hold responsibility for the Children Act. I am also grateful that the Children’s Commissioner has now stated her concerns in this aspect, as well as for the excellent work of the Children and Young People’s Mental Health Coalition.
To avoid this being dry law, I will give two quick examples that illustrate the conflict remaining between the proposed reforms and the protections under the Children Act.
First, a 15 year-old child is Gillick competent but still does not quite understand why she has not had any contact with dad. However, there are days of evidence in the family court showing that dad is violent, controlling and coercive; a child arrangements order was made, giving him only what is called letterbox contact. The child appoints dad as the nominated person, and dad of course now has contact. Cannily—these people are canny—on the Thursday before a bank holiday weekend, he applies to have the child discharged. The 72 hours to bar this application pass by the locum’s staff, et cetera—we can all imagine the inquiry—and dad has now taken the child and disappeared. I leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, to outline what mum, who has parental responsibility under this Bill, knows is going on. Children and young people should of course be given choice and autonomy—my amendments do not seek to undermine either that or Gillick competency—but surely we must consider circumscribing that when the family courts have, for child protection reasons, restricted the role of adults who should normally care for and love that child or young person.
I turn to the second scenario. A 17 year-old lacks the capacity to appoint so the AMHP is making the decision to appoint the nominated person. However, the 17 year-old is under a special guardship order—maybe they ran away from the special guardian—and was picked up by the police while trying to find dad, whose address they had on them. Dad still has parental responsibility, of course, so the AMHP contacts him and appoints him as the nominated person. Again, he applies for discharge. The child tries to return to the special guardian, who has no idea that the child is about to return home, so no one is there to receive them. The child leaves in distress and harms themselves.
The AMHP can be forgiven for thinking that child special guardianship orders end at 16 years old, as I cannot find them mentioned at all in the Bill. The same scenario would apply to a child in care as paragraph 9 of Schedule 2 to the Bill is blissfully unaware that 16 and 17 year-olds can be under a care order. The AMHP, according to the Bill, is under no duty to appoint the local authority for a 16 and 17 year-old under a care order or a special guardianship order in this scenario.
The solution to the second scenario is in Amendments 79A and 80A; I am grateful that the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, has added her name to the latter. Where any person under the age of 18 is being detained—that is about one-third of young people—the AMHP is given a list of people who must be the nominated person, not just those with parental responsibility and the local authority in relation to care orders, as in the Bill and as outlined in the policy document.
Dominic Marley, the co-chair of the AMHP Leads Network, has written to me. He says that he
“fully supports the amendment … In its current form, the Bill conflicts with other legislation affecting children, such as the Children Act 1989. The Bill fails to consider the various orders relating to parental responsibility as outlined in the Children Act 1989”.
He goes on to say:
“This is a deeply concerning omission and is likely to give rise to confusion and uncertainty in practice. We believe the amendments you have tabled will provide clarity in this regard, clarity which should be provided by primary legislation”.
My final point on this second scenario is that the Minister’s policy document states that, for under-16s who lack competence, as in this scenario, the AMHP will appoint the special guardian as the temporary nominated person. Can the Minister explain why the Bill says that the AMHP must choose the local authority if there is a care order in place, but not if there is a special guardian? I repeat the point made in the previous day in Committee: the mental health code cannot create a “must” unless it is included in the Bill or secondary legislation.
The solution to my first scenario is more difficult, and I accept that it is less likely to occur in practice. Most of the one-third of young people who are detained under the Act will lack capacity by the time they are detained but, if we want to maintain as much of a child’s or young person’s choice and autonomy when they have capacity, we must act when they have capacity. Amendments 75, 78, 80 and 81 disqualify certain people, such as the no-contact parent under a child arrangements order or the residual person with parental responsibility when a special guardianship order has been made. The amendments also mandate certain people who have to be chosen, such as special guardians.
I accept that that is a very clunky way of doing it. Another option is for His Majesty’s Government to forbid certain people rather than mandating anyone. Another option would be to give the job of disqualifying people to the family court by amending the Children Act. Therefore, the court, on making a care order, a child arrangements order, or a special guardianship order—for which it often hears evidence—would name certain people as being disqualified from acting as a nominated person.
So I hope the Minister can clarify her policy document, as it includes the child-in-care scenario where the nominated person is a parent—usually where the child resides—who has their parental responsibility limited. It states that the witness—the person involved in the process—
“would assess the appointment of such an individual as unsuitable due to the potential risks to the child and therefore prevent this”.
Is that mandatory language? If it is, why not use “must” and put it in the Bill? Are the Government actually giving the AMHP, the young person or that witness the ability to go behind the care order of the family court? If the Mental Health Act code says that the witness just has to document that, if it is “should” rather than “must”, do we really want to enable that?
The policy document then immediately says:
“We will set out in the Code of Practice considerations for the witness to make beyond those set out in legislation”—
I am not sure that makes sense—
“including how to make these judgements”.
That now seems to be truly discretionary language. I again outline the three categories from the code: “must”, “should” and “may”. Which one is this? If this is “should” then, as I say, the child can go behind the family court order as long as the witness writes down the reasons. I expect the Minister to be very clear in her response, if we are undermining the authority of the family court.
Amendment 79 is a quick clarification of whether the child or AMHP can appoint more than one person as the nominated person. Amendment 85 adds the grounds of
“not acting in the best interests”
so that the AMHP can remove the nominated person—for instance, if they discover that they have trafficked the child to the UK. That is not just for children and young people but for all patients.
I return to the risks to children and young people in both the scenarios I have outlined. These are not triggered by the AMHPs, and they will not be triggered by poor training, a lack of resources or levels of staffing—nor triggered by those who the family court said could pose a risk to the child or young person. These would be triggered by how His Majesty’s Government currently propose to change the law. In the worst-case, but sadly foreseeable, scenario where a child dies at the hands of a nominated person who had already been known to be a risk, as outlined by the family court, I expect that the Chief Coroner would need informing of your Lordships’ debate. Otherwise, professional and other staff might take all the blame. Also, would the Secretary of State for Education in fact still be able to do a serious case review of the death of that child, or would she not be conflicted? A dangerous person got access to a child because the nominated person process was a backdoor to the Children Act. So can the Minister outline whether the nominated persons part of the Act will be enforced before the consultation on the code of practice she is so often relying on?
Finally, I quote from the policy document again:
“We appreciate that there are complications inherent in the complexity of modern family structures, (e.g. separated parents) in addition to the existing system around children’s legislation (e.g. special guardianships, child arrangement orders). These are not complications which have been created by the Nominated Person policy and they exist in the context of Nearest Relative as well”.
Yes, of course the current situation is complex, but this view in the policy document is not shared by the independent review, by the response to His Majesty’s Government’s White Paper—where these concerns were also raised—or by the Joint Committee, civil society or the Children’s Commissioner. The Minister is alone in this view. I know that, in your Lordships’ House, we are not entitled to see legal advice that His Majesty’s Government obtain, but I hope the Minister can assure the Committee that Treasury counsel with specialisms in the Children Act and mental health have been asked to give an opinion.
The child protections that the Children Act has upheld for decades are so vital. I hope we will come back to this on Report, when I hope the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and the Secretary of State for Education will lay the necessary government amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 80A, to which my name has been added.
I did not intervene in the first group but I share the general view expressed, which is relevant to this group of amendments, that not enough thought has been given to the interaction between the Mental Health Bill and other key legislation, particularly the Children Act 1989. That concerns me, because that is where really key and important child protection sits. That is a general concern I have.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. Indeed, we should be grateful to her for exposing the complexity and variety of situations which may arise and of which mental health professionals must be made aware, so that the decisions they have to make are properly informed by knowledge of the operative orders and the terms of any orders made by the family court. That seems absolutely fundamental. It reinforces the point I wanted to make at the end of the last group before I was very properly curtailed. It applies not only to the county courts if they are to retain some jurisdiction in this area but to the family court. Some serious thought must now be given to judicial training.
Has the Minister considered an approach to the Judicial College with a view to ensuring that both county court and indeed family court judges will be properly trained with regard to the obligations that will arise under this new legislation?
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, for the reasons that have been given I also support the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. Just to add to what the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, I respectfully point out to the Minister that if she does get in touch with the Judicial College, which I think would be a very sensible move, she should also let the President of the Family Division know.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, in this group of amendments my noble friend Lady Berridge has raised an armada of issues which I think it is clear to all of us cannot be ducked. These issues, as she said, were examined at length both during the independent review and by the Joint Committee, but it has to be said that in both instances it proved too much of a challenge to identify a satisfactory resolution to them. For that reason, as we observed in our debate on the previous group, the weight of these matters now rests on the shoulders of this Committee and of the Government.
In summary, we need arrangements that are robust enough to ensure that a nominated person’s appointment can be effectively challenged, and that, in certain circumstances, where necessary, the exercise of their powers can be legally contested and blocked. Without those measures, we shall leave an unacceptable lacuna in the law and, more pertinently, run a high risk of exposing children to personal danger.
My noble friend is to be thanked for assisting this Committee’s deliberations with the clear way in which she has set out the challenge, and I hope and trust that the Minister will wish to grip the challenge with her usual vigour.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for introducing an appropriately wide range of scenarios, questions and testing. That is important for the Committee but also for our ongoing work. As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said, to describe this area as complex is to use too small a word, and I think we are all wrestling with that to get it in the right place. I know that noble Lords are aware that the work is ongoing, and I thank them for their engagement and interest in this issue. As I said previously, I very much understand the need for a robust process to keep children and young people safe and ensure that only appropriate individuals can take on the role of nominated person, while giving children and young people that right to choose.
I will respond collectively to the amendments put forward in this group. As I set out earlier, we agree that in the vast majority of cases there is an expectation that a parent or whoever has parental responsibility would take on this role, and that would include consideration of special guardians and child arrangement orders. We also agree that, where parental responsibility has been removed due to care proceedings, in the vast majority of cases it is unlikely to be appropriate for such a person to take up this role. My reference to this being a complicated area—
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Perhaps the noble Baroness will let me make a bit of progress.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
I think I need to clarify a point of law—I am looking to the noble Lord, Lord Meston. In care proceedings, is parental responsibility removed? I do not believe it is; it remains with the parents. That is very important.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for that exchange, which brings me to my repeated point about the complicated area in which we are treading.
As was highlighted by the pre-legislative scrutiny committee, we will set out our expectations in the code of practice as to whom approved mental health professionals would appoint, or the witness would confirm suitability of, in a range of circumstances, including in the more and most complex cases. We will consult on this to ensure that we cover as many scenarios as we can.
I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, that we are working with NHS England, the Department for Education, the Association of Directors of Children’s Services and others to ensure that our policy and guidance reflect what can be a very complex arrangement for some children under the Children Act.
The Bill is clear that where an approved mental health professional is appointing a nominated person for an under-16 they must appoint someone who has parental responsibility, and the amendments extend this approach to all under-18s. As I said previously, we are allowing more flexibility for 16 and 17 year-olds rather than prescribing in legislation who this must be.
While the amendments put forward a wide range of circumstances, we all know—and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, demonstrated this—that there will be nuanced and complex cases, especially for 16 and 17 year-olds. Someone outside the proposed list, such as a step-parent, may be the most appropriate person, or a kinship care arrangement may be in place. These amendments propose regulatory powers in recognition of this but we feel that updating statutory guidance will allow us to keep this up to date and in review as new policy is implemented.
The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, asked about differences between special guardian orders and special care orders. The Bill says that the approved mental health professional must appoint the local authority or anyone else with parental responsibility as the nominated person. The special guardian, as someone with parental responsibility, would be appointed if a special guardianship order was in place. In relation to the proposal for two people to take on this role, as the nominated person exercises specific statutory functions under the Mental Health Act, we feel it is right that only one person has these limited powers, to avoid the potential for disagreement and confusion about who can exercise the relevant power.
We recognise that there will usually be more than one person with parental responsibility and that the approved mental health professional will need to determine who should be the nominated person. Under the current system, this would be the older parent, which we do not think is necessarily appropriate. We will provide guidance for approved mental health professionals in the code of practice. This may include which of the parents is recorded as the child’s next of kin, who the child lives with and who is accompanying the child.
The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, helpfully inquired about the status of the nominated persons paper that was sent out in an attempt to be helpful. It was developed very much to support the debate, which it certainly has done, and we intend to develop it further. I very much welcome the further engagement from Peers and we will continue to formally consult as part of the code of practice so that it is an aid to the considerations of noble Lords. I hope it is doing that.
In the current nearest relative provision, only one parent will hold this role. As I mentioned in the previous debate, this will not exclude the other parent from being involved in their child’s care. Whether or not they are the nominated person, parents and carers should be given information about the care and treatment of their child, unless it is inappropriate. This is reflected in the Bill. We absolutely agree that someone should be removed as the nominated person if they are not acting in the interest of the patient. Criteria are included in the Bill for when an approved mental health professional may terminate an appointment, one of which is when the person is
“otherwise not a suitable person to act as a nominated person”.
On the points made by a number of noble Lords, suitability includes whether there is any risk to the patient. This may include if the person is behaving in a way that indicates they are unsuitable for the role; for example, if they are exercising their powers without due regard to the welfare of the person.
Baroness Browning (Con)
Reflecting on what the Minister has just said, would that close the Bournewood gap, which we tried to close in earlier legislation, where a professional carer cared for an autistic man who was not able to articulate for himself, but was overruled by the clinician? I am just trying to get my head round what she has just said because that was the Bournewood gap and, as the Minister will know, it ended up in the European Court before it was resolved.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We need to be considering that as one of the scenarios and I would certainly be very glad to give the noble Baroness and noble Lords a more considered response to the very important point that has just been raised.
Under this policy, an approved mental health professional would terminate their appointment if the nominated person is not acting in line with the patient’s interests. I really wish to emphasise this.
For all these reasons and the responses I have given, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken and for the considered nature of the response and the clarification regarding the special guardianship. However, as we have outlined, other people remain having parental responsibility and it seems that under the Bill, as it is only one person, it could be that the residual person still has parental responsibility. It could just be that person under the Bill and not, in that situation, who is appointed.
I am concerned, not only by the outline at the beginning in relation to parental responsibility being removed. I just feel that there is a lack of understanding—with all due respect to the Minister’s diligence, thoroughness and engagement with colleagues—about the depth of the issue that we have here. She mentioned “would” appoint. That seems something that can be under the Mental Health Act code—“would” seems to be that as long as you document your reasons for that, you can move. It seems that from the situation I have outlined, in which the 16 or 17 year-old has been removed from the dad’s care because he has been shown to be, and proven by the family court to be, a danger, he could be appointed as the nominated person. Then we are relying on a speedy process in the county court—which we are not sure we always get legal aid for—to remove him. I am concerned by phrases such as “more flexibility for 16 and 17 year-olds”. Does that include the 16 and 17 year-olds who are under special guardianship or where there is a care order?
It seems that there is a conflict, based on what the co-leader of the AMHPs is saying, what the review has said and what the response says. We have a conflict between two pieces of legislation that we must continue to grapple with. On phrases such as “working with the DfE”, I asked specifically whether there had been a meeting with the Minister for Children and Families. The responsibility for a serious case review sits with that department. If we are to some extent right, this risk to children will manifest itself in an imperfect system. Obviously, there are professionals and clinicians, but we all know of cases that have gone wrong and ended up in inquiries.
I remain concerned by the lack of clarification on legal advice. Legally, in some ways this is fascinating—but it is not fascinating because it involves child protection. I welcome the engagement and I am sure that we will meet again in regard to this, but the severity of the risks that we are exposing, and allowing young people and AMHPs to go behind findings of fact in the family courts made under the Children Act is an incredibly serious issue. I hope that the Minister will be furnished with that kind of geeky legal advice, because for the children’s sake we need that.
However, I am grateful for the manner of her engagement and of course beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Merron
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, my other amendments to Clause 31 and my new clause inserted after Clause 31 would provide for commencement two months after Royal Assent of provisions about tribunal reviews concerning patients subject to conditions amounting to a deprivation of liberty.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Clause 31, page 42, line 37.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Clause 31, page 42, line 37.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Clause 31, page 42, line 37.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Clause 31, page 42, line 37.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Clause 31, page 42, line 37.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Clause 31, page 42, line 37.
Baroness Merron
“References: restricted patients not subject to deprivation of liberty conditions(1) The Mental Health Act 1983 is amended as follows.(2) In section 71 (references by Secretary of State concerning restricted patients), for subsection (2) substitute—“(2) The Secretary of State must refer to the appropriate tribunal the case of any restricted patient detained in a hospital if—(a) the patient’s case has not been considered by the appropriate tribunal within the last 12 months, whether on the patient’s own application or otherwise, and(b) there is no pending application or reference to the appropriate tribunal in relation to the patient’s case.” (3) In section 75 (applications and references concerning conditionally discharged restricted patients)—(a) before subsection (2C) (as inserted bysection 31(3)(a)of this Act) insert—“(2B) Where a restricted patient has been conditionally discharged, is not subject to conditions amounting to a deprivation of liberty and has not been recalled to hospital, the Secretary of State must refer the patient’s case to the appropriate tribunal on the expiry of—(a) the period of two years beginning—(i) in the case of a patient who has previously been subject to conditions amounting to a deprivation of liberty, with the date on which the patient most recently ceased to be subject to such conditions, and(ii) in any other case, with the date on which the patient was conditionally discharged, and(b) each subsequent period of four years.”;(b) in subsection (2D), after “subsection” insert “(2B) or”;(c) in subsection (2E) omit “, is subject to conditions amounting to a deprivation of liberty”;(d) in subsection (2F), after “subsection” insert “(2B),”;(e) in subsection (2H), after “subsection” insert “(2B),”;(f) in subsection (3), after “subsection”, in the second place it occurs, insert “(2B),”.(4) The amendments made by this section apply in relation to any person who is a restricted patient within the meaning given by subsection (1) of section 79 of the Mental Health Act 1983, or is treated as a restricted patient as a result of that subsection, whether the person became such a patient (or treated as such a patient) before or after the coming into force of this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Clause 31, page 42, line 37.
Baroness Murphy
Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of the amendment is to query the necessity of expanding on “appropriate medical treatment”.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
My Lords, noble Lords will be pleased to know that this is a very small, probing amendment, on a matter that was brought to my notice by some forensic psychiatrists. One of their responsibilities is to train young psychiatrists in the use of the Mental Health Act as it relates to patients who have been engaged in criminal proceedings. In this group of amendments, we are talking about transfers between hospitals and prisons and the use of Sections 47 and 48.
Amendment 96 concerns Section 47 removals from prisons to hospitals. The original Act was very straightforward, stating that
“the said person is suffering from mental disorder; and that the mental disorder from which that person is suffering is of a nature or degree which makes it appropriate for him to be detained in a hospital for medical treatment; and that appropriate medical treatment is available for him”.
The new version expands the clause by stating that
“treatment can be given for the relevant disorder from which the person is suffering”.
This is repeated in Clause 34(3).
My immediate thought on reading this was, “What else can an appropriate treatment be except one for the relevant disorder from which the patient is suffering?” Also, why is it necessary to expand this clause at all, on the basis that we should be as straightforward as we possibly can, particularly with people who are using this on a day-to-day basis? If the patient is suffering from another disorder, or the patient is not suffering, how could the treatment possibly be “appropriate”?
I understand from the Explanatory Notes, and from what Ben Coffman, special adviser to the Minister, told me about what the Bill team is trying to achieve, that Sections 47 and 48 are generally interpreted to mean that hospital managers are not formally required to provide evidence that a hospital place is available. If an order is made, the hospital specified is under a duty to admit the patient.
However, there was an immigration case, R (ASK) v SSHD, in which the Court of Appeal ruled that, because specialised provision is required for restricted patients, a physical hospital place must be identified for the detention criteria to be met. This did not reflect the government position at the time, which was that “available treatment” should be interpreted to be the same for all Part II and Part III patients. Therefore, the Government are now changing the wording of this to ensure that a physical hospital bed does not need to be identified. This is how “available” treatment is currently interpreted for the detention criteria across the rest of the Act.
With these few words, therefore, Clause 34 aims to correct the divergence in the detention criteria, as opposed to creating one. Well, I must say that I still do not understand why these few words change the detention criteria. They just add more complexity to the wording. I do not understand why they have the effect that the Explanatory Note says they do. I am asking for greater guidance, because I just do not get it. I wrote to my colleagues saying, “This is the answer I’ve got, so maybe this doesn’t need to be asked”. I got a single line back, saying “What?” They simply did not understand the response. So I am asking again.
Those are all my questions on Sections 47 and 48, relating to Clause 34. There are other amendments in this group to which I will say something, in the interests of not having to bob up again. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, has two important amendments on the reciprocal nature of transfers between prison and hospital. If what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and if we are going to make it a lot easier to transfer people from prison to hospital, which I very much hope we will, we must be able to transfer people back in the other direction.
I know that this was an issue very close to the heard of the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, who is not able to be in her place today. She has run wards where that very frustrating situation arises where you have somebody desperate to come into the ward from a prison who has been identified by the consultant, but no space can be made available because somebody is blocking that place. I will therefore be giving my support to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, on those amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 96A to 96C and 163A in my name in this group. They deal with the transfer of prisoners from prison to hospital in a specified timeframe of 28 days. I am obviously pleased that this has been included in the Bill under Clause 35, but I briefly give some background.
I first recognised a need to incorporate a time limit in legislation in my independent report to government in 2009. At that time, the Department of Health had piloted a 14-day waiting limit with strong support from stakeholders to roll this out nationally, and I recommended this in my report. Although it was accepted in principle, it was not implemented. However, Sir Simon Wessely’s review picked it up again with a more realistic 28-day time limit, which was then included in the draft Bill and now in this Bill, ensuring a statutory requirement rather than relying on good practice guidance.
My amendments are therefore probing amendments to understand how the 28 days will work in practice—essentially, when does the clock start? First, Amendment 96A would replace the words “As soon as practicable” with
“No later than two days”.
HM Inspectorate of Prisons found that one factor contributing to delay was confusion around when the 28-day transfer period starts, with 34% of patients not referred on day zero of the 28 days. This amendment would ensure that the referral notice is made no later than two days after an initial request, therefore clarifying on what day counting begins.
Secondly, Amendment 96B would change “must seek to ensure” to “must ensure”. The scrutiny committee, of which I was a member, heard that “seek to ensure” is quite vague and open, and therefore recommended this amendment. I believe, as do many organisations such as the Prison Reform Trust, that the inclusion of “seek to” in the current wording of the Bill implies only an attempt to successfully transfer within the 28-day time limit, rather than it being the guaranteed outcome, save for exceptional circumstances. It would provide a clearer, more definitive commitment to adhere to a 28-day time limit for referral.
Amendment 96C would require that a specified, accountable person be appointed by the relevant referring body to ensure that the specified 28-day transfer period is met. While there are many agencies involved in arranging prison transfers, I am concerned that there should be a person to whom accountability is assigned. As it stands, the Bill lists in new Section 48A(3) the persons to whom the referral notice must be given—the notified authorities—but there is no person, agency or authority assigned, either with overall accountability or accountability for each part of the process. I believe that there is significant merit in creating a single role to help increase and assure accountability—for example, a dedicated official whose primary function would be to ensure efficient transfers with the ability and power to liaise and intervene at the most senior level where necessary.
The amendment would clarify accountability and support the desire expressed in the impact assessment to increase,
“accountability for all agencies involved in the transfer process to meet”
the deadline. This was supported by Sir Simon Wessely’s independent review, which stated that it would help
“unblock the institutional barriers and … give … the teeth it needs to push the transfer through”.
I absolutely agree with this, and I hope that the Minister will too in his conclusion to this debate.
Finally, Amendment 163A would require the Government to publish guidance on what counts as “exceptional circumstances” specified in new Section 48A(4) and (5), as inserted by Clause 35. That provision provides for a 28-day transfer period for acutely mentally ill patients held in prison to be transferred to hospital. Examples are given in new subsection (5) of what exceptional circumstances are not, for example:
“a shortage of hospital accommodation”
or
“a shortage of hospital staff; unless occurring as a result of other exceptional circumstances”.
This amendment would provide an opportunity to clarify what does constitute exceptional circumstances. This would help to avoid doubt, confusion and subjective judgment over what may or may not be an exceptional circumstance and to help ensure smooth and efficient transfer. Again, I hope the Minister will be able to respond positively to that, perhaps with examples of what are exceptional circumstances.
Finally, I just note that, for transfers to be successfully completed in the 28-day time limit, the Government must ensure that appropriate bed provision in psychiatric intensive care units and secure care settings in every geographical area of the country is developed, together with a skilled workforce. I am sure that we will return to this topic at a later stage in our debates.
In conclusion, as I mentioned earlier, it is 16 years since I made my proposals on transfers, and I hope that that they are now coming to fruition. I am grateful to the Government for that and for not trying my patience any longer.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, I too support the aim behind Clause 35, which is to ensure the speedy access to specialist mental health support for people in prison. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, I also think that there is great merit in his Amendment 163A, which seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State produce statutory guidance on the definition of what will count as exceptional circumstances for the reasons that the noble Lord has given.
The Explanatory Notes give examples of what might count as an exceptional circumstance where the 28-day standard would not apply: prison riots, hospital floods or exceptional clinical reasons. Those are three examples, but it would be good to see more precision on this question because, as the Government’s Delegated Powers Memorandum says, the meanings of these words will be litigated. They will show up in judicial review and private law action. Therefore, the clearer the Government are prospectively, the less frictional cost and time there will be through the justice system and health system in giving effect to the new standards that are set out here in what hopefully will become the Act.
However, having supported the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, on that amendment, I will disappoint him now by just injecting a note of caution on his Amendment 96B. As we have just heard, it would leave out “seek to” in respect of delivering on the 28-day standard; excising those words, as he said, would in effect make it an overarching requirement—a “must”—even if there is a shortage of hospital accommodation or no staff available.
If the thought behind this is that the principal drivers of delays are essentially administrative processes then a “must” on 28 days can, in a sense, be given effect without a downside. But I wonder whether we actually have sufficient evidence to know that that is the root cause of such delays as occur. As I understand it, about four-fifths of the transfers from prisons to our specialist mental health facilities in the first half of the current financial year were to psychiatric medium-secure units and psychiatric intensive care, both of which are in very high demand and incredibly expensive resources, with highly constrained supply.
The impact assessment rather glosses over this question. When describing whether this new standard for transfers to hospital from prisons might introduce additional cost, it says at paragraph 169:
“Costs for the measure have not been monetised because they are principally driven by wider systematic changes which are supported by the legislation”—
that is, its administrative friction. It goes on to say something which I do not quite understand. I would be grateful if the Minister could interpret for us what the department meant when it wrote that an additional reason the costs were not being monetised was to ensure that
“resources are available to achieve transfers within the time limit in a greater proportion of cases”.
What are these “resources available to achieve transfers”? Are they additional or substitute resources? What is the scale of them? What was meant in the drafting of that paragraph?
My hypothesis is that this is not just about administrative friction. It is actually due to constraints on the supply in expensive and specialised mental health services, and therefore the unintended consequence of mandating, through excising “seek to” and making 28 days a trump card for people coming from prisons, would be one of three consequences.
Prisoners with severe mental health needs would find themselves in unsafe and poorly staffed facilities; or, by virtue of being in prison, you would displace a non-prison-based mental health patient who might have higher needs, as that is what the statute requires; or, under the Clause 49 powers, you would, effectively, see the Department of Health using the Henry VIII power, which it has in this Bill, to quickly rewrite 28 days and make it 180—or something else—because, as the delegated powers memo said, it might do so in that circumstance
“where insufficient beds are available to meet demand over a sustained period of time”.
For all those reasons, there may be unintended consequences of Amendment 96B which require further scrutiny.
However, in the spirit of wanting to make this work practically, I have laid down Amendments 97 and 98, which, essentially, as the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, said, look to reciprocate the 28-day requirement. If you are aiming to get prisoners transferred to mental health facilities in 28 days or, similarly, when their treatment is complete, one should expect that the Prison Service or Immigration Service will ensure the return the prison estate to free up those scarce and specialist beds for other prisoners or patients who require treatment.
In a way, my amendment is a very gentle one. All I suggest is that if there are people stuck in specialist mental health beds who ought to be being returned to prison, that would constitute an exceptional reason for being unable to accept new intakes of prisoners being transferred. The reason this is such a gentle amendment is, of course, that the Government pray in aid the June 2021 best practice guidance for the transfers, which says that, although it should be a 28-day standard for moving from prison to mental health facility, it should be 14 days if moving back the other way to free up the bed. I have not proposed a 14-day requirement on the Prison Service, just the reciprocal 28 days, so, in that spirit of joint working, I hope these amendments will find wide support.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, briefly, I am with the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, as opposed to the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, on the “seek to” question. When I read Clause 35, I was very excited about what it promised; I thought that, at last, this was being taken seriously. I talked to a range of people who worked in criminal justice, and they said: “Oh, it is not going to happen; what are you excited about?”—they just did not believe it. At Second Reading, I cited Richard Garside from the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies saying that Clause 35
“while welcome, feels aspirational rather than practically implementable in the current system”.”.—[Official Report, 25/11/24; col. 549.]
I started to look at it again and thought that the danger for those of us who are following this debate is that we get bought off by this aspiration, and that, in practical terms, it will not mean what we all thought it was meant to. I am quite keen that we toughen up the statutory requirements.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I will just add a couple of brief points. This is a really important set of amendments and the issue of making it easier to transfer people between prisons and hospitals is critical. If you like, it is at the heart of some of the reforms that we are looking at. I have a lot of sympathy for the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bradley. I am also aware that he has waited a very long time. Did he say that it was 28 years?
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
Just the 16. Anyway, it is a long time to wait.
The amendments aiming to make it clear, as the noble Lord said, when the clock starts ticking are really important, so that there is real accountability injected into the system. Often, when things go wrong it is where no one really feels responsible for something, so it does not happen. I will also be interested to hear what the “exceptional circumstances” do and do not include—I hope we will get some examples—because if they include just things such as shortage of staff or beds, we will not get very far at all, given the current state of mental health beds.
I understand the rationale behind the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens; the reciprocity is a really important point to make. I just have slight concerns that we might be saying that this cannot happen in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, wanted to see, because we know that we have not got the scarce and specialist beds. They are just not available; it is very important to be practical about it.
It comes to the heart of the matter of this whole Bill: we know that, unless proper resource is put into the implementation of the Bill, it is not going to work at all. We know that, with mental health provision, particularly a secure unit, particularly with the state of the estate, the shortage of staff and all of that, there has to be wholesale investment in it for these things to work. I think the time has come. I simply add my voice to others to say that I hope the noble Lord practises patience—but I think he has waited long enough so I hope his patience will not be tested any longer.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke to the amendments. I also thank the Government for allowing the Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending to reply to this group. That is very much welcomed by the Committee. I think it was the noble Lord’s father who once said, “Kindness is good for business”. In this case, he might find that kindness is good for his noble friend the Minister. Given how hard she has been working on the Bill, I think she deserves some respite, so I am sure that that is very welcome.
So far, we have debated the importance of limiting detentions for those with autism or learning disabilities without co-occurring mental disorders. We have also debated the community treatment orders. But until now, we have not covered the provisions of the Bill relating to this new statutory 28-day time-limited period for transfers from prisons to hospitals. As the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, has said, he has been very patient. Therefore, the Government enshrining this target in law is welcome. Unfortunately, progress towards the goal of 28 days, as set out in the 2021 guidance and the White Paper, has been slower than anticipated.
His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons, in its 2024 report The Long Wait—I am sure the noble Lord is aware of this—said that
“people linger in prison for weeks, often months and even, in the worst cases, for more than a year waiting for their transfer to be completed”.
Unfortunately, even though the 28-day guidance was there from 2022-23, only 15% of patients in that period were transferred to hospital within that timeframe. Sadly, the average wait was 85 days, and one prisoner was identified as waiting 462 days for transfer to hospital.
These Benches welcome the 28-day limit being put on a statutory footing, but, as other noble Lords have said—not only on this group of amendments but on others—once again, there is an issue of implementation here. Just because it is in legislation does not mean it will deliver the improvements that are necessary.
The noble Lord’s colleague—the noble Baroness, Lady Merron—has been very candid with noble Lords, saying that not everything in the Bill will be delivered now, and that there is a 10-year timetable for implementation. Given that, will the Minister say, at this stage, whether the 28-day limit is an aspiration or something that could be delivered immediately? If, at this stage, it is an aspiration and—understandably so—awaiting future spending reviews, is he able to give an indicative timeframe? Is the hope for the next 12 months, the next five years or, perhaps, up to 10 years? That information would be very welcome to noble Lords. Many noble Lords have been asking this throughout this debate. We understand that not everything is going to be solved overnight, but it would be good if we could have as much information as possible on the Government’s intentions and aspirations, including indicative timetables, where they are possible. We also understand that not everything is going to be clearly tagged at this stage.
Another finding from the prison inspectorate’s report was that there were serious flaws with the data held on patients who were awaiting transfer. I understand that there is no publicly available data describing the access and waiting times for beds. The Minister might be able to correct me on that. Some of the data on the numbers of prisoners awaiting transfer obtained from providers had significant gaps, due to a lack of consistent and accurate reporting, and some data contained errors and unreliability. This might also impact on Amendments 97 and 98 from the noble Lord, Lord Stevens.
The noble Baroness, Lady Merron, may well tire of hearing me repeat the importance of collecting accurate and complete data, but, as I and many other noble Lords have said on many occasions, we really cannot solve many of the problems we face without data that is as accurate and timely as possible. Therefore, I urge both Ministers to take up the issue of data reporting for patients awaiting transfer from prison to hospital with their respective departments.
Turning to Amendment 96C in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, which creates an accountable person who will be appointed to oversee the transfer process and ensure that the statutory 28-day limit is completed, I think this, once again, speaks to the point of implementation. This could be a sensible way of holding providers to account and working with them to address the shortcomings in patient transfers. Given the Government’s 10-year timeframe for implementation, noble Lords have raised the importance of oversight and accountability. Therefore, in the remarks from the Minister and in any subsequent letter, I hope that the Government will be able to address the issue of implementation and to give an indicative timetable. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
My Lords, this is the first time that I have helped take a Bill through Committee, so I am grateful to noble Lords for bearing with me while I acquaint myself with the procedures. I appreciate the questions and suggestions from noble Lords because this is a subject that is very close to my heart, as someone who has recruited many of the people whom we are talking about, over many years. I have always thought it was very sad when colleagues whom I had recruited often had to leave because of their mental health problems and other complexities that they then found themselves in within the system.
Amendment 96, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, would remove the change to the detention criteria in Clause 34, provided for prisoners who become mentally disordered in prison and require transfer to hospital. This would mean that a physical hospital place must be identified before the detention criteria are met for transfer from prison to hospital under the Act. This differs from how “available” treatment is interpreted across the rest of the Act, and therefore risks delaying access to treatment. It would also affect the implementation of the statutory time limit in Clause 35, as the Secretary of State would not be able to issue a transfer warrant until a bed is identified, regardless of the patient’s needs.
Clause 34 aims to correct a divergence in the detention criteria, as opposed to creating one. I appreciate that the noble Baroness is seeking further clarity on how Clause 34 will operate and the intention of the wording. My officials would be happy to hold a teach-in with the noble Baroness on this. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
I turn to Amendments 96A to 96C, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bradley. We have known each other for nearly 10 years, six years after the important topic came on to his radar. Amendment 96A would place a legislative time limit on the referring body to issue a referral notice within two days of receiving a request for an initial medical report to assess whether an individual meets the criteria for transfer. The timing of the statutory referral notice being issued will not impact when the time limit begins. This starts from the day that the healthcare team requests the assessment, referred to in the Bill as “the initial request”. This amendment would therefore not benefit transfer timeliness. Additionally, placing a statutory time limit on the healthcare team in a detention setting to issue a referral notice would not be operationally viable, because not all services operate seven days a week. The current wording of “as soon as practicable” accounts for this and encourages the referral notice to be issued at the earliest point for each case.
Amendment 96B would place a duty on all relevant agencies to ensure, as opposed to “seek to ensure”, that the transfer is completed within 28 days. Due to the multiagency co-ordination required in the transfer process, there is no one body that could ensure punctual transfers. This is why we softened the duty, so that those in receipt of a referral notice must seek to ensure that the patient was transferred within 28 days. Having consulted with relevant agencies, we are confident that this is appropriate, given the complexities in the transfer process.
Amendment 96C, also mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Kamall and Lord Bradley, would introduce a “specified accountable person”, appointed by the healthcare provider for the relevant place of detention, who would be responsible for ensuring that people are transferred within the 28-day time limit in Clause 35.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
Can I just make sure I heard the Minister correctly? I think he said the that one of the reasons it would not be appropriate to do as the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, suggested—that is, to set out a statutory definition—was because it would take too long to do it and would delay implementation of the 28-day standard. I think he now just said it is intended that that will come into force in 18 to 24 months, the implication being that he thinks it would take 18 to 24 months to produce a piece of statutory guidance about what constitutes an exceptional circumstance. Is that correct?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
Having been in discussions with colleagues over the past couple of weeks on this point, I tested with them the processes involved in making sure that we can make this as robust as possible. One of the issues surrounding exceptional circumstances is the need for flexibility so that some of our professionals do not unwittingly break the law in exceptional circumstances. I am happy to write to the noble Lord with further details.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
Before my noble friend completes his summing up, I welcome him to his first Committee session. He kindly offered to meet me to discuss the accountable person for the process of transfer. Can he assure me that that meeting will take place well before Report?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I will very happily meet as soon as possible and well before the next stage.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I appreciate that this is this Minister’s first time, but I would like to speak to his team in the department through him. I find it very difficult to understand why the Minister’s team thinks it is necessary or, indeed, appropriate to invite my noble friend Lady Murphy for a “teach-in”. Does the Minister really mean that? It seems to me utterly inappropriate, and my noble friend could not say it.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble and learned Baroness for her comments. I hope the noble Baroness accepts my apology for the way it was phrased. As this is my first Committee, I have been getting a number of messages from officials, and I was trying to work out what I said at which point. I apologise. I will very happily meet the noble Baroness.
Baroness Buscombe (Con)
At the risk of giving the Minister a rather hard time on his first outing in Committee, on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about people saying that it will not happen, is he not fearful, as I am, that, given the way life is, if we do not rid ourselves of words such as “as soon as practicable” and “seek to”, as suggested in Amendments 96A and 96B, in practice it really will not happen?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for the question. One of the questions that I have been asking colleagues is on exactly this point around whether this will happen. I have been reassured by asking policy colleagues many probing questions that the points in the Bill make it as tight as possible without conflicting professionals in the way they are going about their role.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I welcome the Minister to his first Committee. Clearly, a lot of work has been done on this to work out within 18 months what is required. Will the Minister let the Committee know what the gap is between existing provision and what would be required in terms of beds and staffing for this 28-day provision to come into force? That is an important piece of information that the Committee needs to understand to see whether it is just an aspiration or there are the resources needed to make it real.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I will ask officials to get me that information and to pass it on.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
My Lords, it is my great pleasure to respond to the Minister. I will keep it brief. I have been using this Act for 40 years since 1983, and I assure the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, that this is the only clause which is interpreted, before the amendment, as somebody can apply for transfer and you have to find a bed. It is only the very new immigration Act that has led to this extraordinary transfer of information that has enabled somebody to put in these extra words, but they do not relate in any way to the immigration Act on which the amendment is based; in other words, it seems to me that we should just stick with what we have. I was trying to say that in as easy a way as I possibly could. It just seems to me that it is making it complex at a time when we need to be simple. There is a lot to learn in this Bill. There is a lot to be done. Nevertheless, if the Minister would like to give me a “teach-in”, I shall be delighted. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kamall
“Duty to record patients not in the criminal justice system escorted to hospital by police(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision to require the police and hospital trusts to record the number of patients who are not in the criminal justice system but are escorted to accident and emergency departments in hospitals by the police for treatment for mental disorder.(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 99 in my name and to speak to my further Amendment 137; both are also in the name of my noble friend Lord Howe.
Our Amendment 99 places a duty on the police and on hospital trusts to record the number of patients not in the criminal justice system who are escorted to accident and emergency departments by the police for treatment for a mental disorder. The reason behind this amendment is that a number of people are taken into accident and emergency by the police because they exhibit behaviour that is a cause for concern, resulting from a diagnosed, or even an undiagnosed, mental disorder or learning disability. These patients are not necessarily placed under arrest, since they may not have committed any crime, but they are escorted to hospital by police.
Once in A&E, it is quite common that they could wait for six, 12 or even more hours before they see a clinician. This is obviously not an efficient use of police time; I know that my noble friend Lady May spoke to this earlier in Committee. More importantly, a police officer escorting a patient who is demonstrating challenging behaviour could exacerbate the problem. Also, a patient who arrives with or without a police officer may behave in a way that is seen as threatening by other patients, which could lead to their being arrested, as they are seen as at risk of harming themselves or others. The patient then finds themselves in the criminal justice system.
To avoid situations such as this, we are probing the Government to try to understand how often the police take patients into hospital for treatment for a possible mental disorder when they are not under arrest. This data should help us to understand how much police time is being spent accompanying these patients. This is not to take a particular view one way or the other; rather, it is to say that we need to have this information available so that we can fully assess the situation.
Our Amendment 137 states that the Care Quality Commission
“must publish a report on the efficacy of systems designed to prevent the introduction of illegal drugs into mental health units”.
Hospitals are entitled to prohibit patients from misusing drugs or alcohol on their wards, but what they can do to enforce those requirements is less clear, especially with detained patients. We accept that informally admitted patients can be asked to leave by hospital managers or even escorted off-site by security if they do not abide by a hospital’s rules on illegal drug use. However, patients detained under the Mental Health Act cannot be forced off premises for violating these rules.
The risks of illegal drugs being used in mental health units are obvious and severe. There is a possibility of those drugs interfering with prescribed medication, which could make that medication ineffective or even harmful to a patient’s physical or mental health. Further risks include the effects—such as psychosis or aggravating effects—of certain drugs, which could potentially lead patients to become more violent and cause harm to themselves or to staff. Whatever the result, the use of illicit drugs in mental health hospitals does not contribute to the treatment or therapeutic benefit of patients; I suspect that is a British understatement.
Much of the information and literature on substance misuse in in-patient mental health settings seems to be out of date. The major studies that we looked at were conducted in the early 2000s; these included a paper published by the Psychiatric Bulletin in 2000. I am happy to be corrected if there is more up-to-date data, but it seems that we do not have enough adequate and up-to-date data available concerning the prevalence of illegal drugs in mental health units. Can the Minister tell us whether the department has up-to-date figures? If not, does it have any intention of collecting these figures? Once again, this would help us to understand the scale of the problem.
Whether or not we are fully aware of the prevalence of illegal drugs in mental health units, there must be adequate safeguards in place to ensure that their use is as limited as possible. This amendment probes the Government for some answers on how they are trying to achieve this. By requiring the CQC to publish an annual report on this matter, we hope that a fuller picture could emerge, which would, we hope, inform the development of procedures and processes to reduce the harms related to illicit drug use. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 151 in this group, which is in my name. It is a slightly diverse group, in that the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, has just set out his two amendments, which are very focused on specific areas, while mine is a very general one. However, they fall under the grouping as provided to us by the Whips; they are about monitoring and reporting, so there is some kind of sense here.
I start with the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, who in the previous group said that, without proper resources, this Bill is not going to work at all. That is what this amendment aims to address. I think the reason why it was regarded as within the scope of the Bill without any wrestling from me is that, specifically, the aim of this Bill is to have fewer people sectioned and fewer people under compulsory treatment orders. It aims to reshape and have earlier interventions, so that we do not see problems get so bad that we get to that point.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, this is an interesting collection of amendments. I suggest that they are all slightly flawed but with good intent behind them.
In relation to Amendment 99 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, as members of the scrutiny committee will know, we spent a long time talking about what happens in A&E departments. Our committee was very lucky to have Rosena Allin-Khan as a member; she is not just the MP for Tooting but a practising A&E doctor at St George’s Hospital. When we were wandering off into theoreticals, she managed to drag us right back to what actually happens.
The key issue that we returned to, as a committee, was that no matter what the police’s formal position is about their involvement in mental health crisis treatment, they will be there. First, people will go to A&E because the lights are on and, secondly, some of them will be very distressed, so members of the public and members of staff will expect the engagement of police officers. A lot has been said about the particular legal status of somebody who is detained in hospital. They are not technically detained, because they are not in a mental health facility. Yet we know that there is a need for spaces within A&E that are properly built and staffed as safe havens for a time, so that somebody who arrives in a state of distress can be in an appropriate place where they can become calm and, therefore, not be taken off inappropriately into the criminal justice system.
I can see what the noble Lord’s amendment is getting at. It deals with it in a very partial way. Following our discussions, and the discussion we had the other day with the noble Baroness, Lady May, on her amendment about police involvement in crisis moments for people with mental health problems, I hope that we might be able to come up with an amendment which is a bit fuller than the one which the noble Lord has put forward.
Amendment 137, the second in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, is about monitoring what is being done about the use of illegal drugs and substances in mental health services. I listened carefully to what he said. Does he think that this does not happen already? I have been to a number of acute mental health services in London. It is clear that staff have to deal with very difficult situations. This cannot be an issue that does not happen; it must be part of the daily risk assessment of anybody working there. Does the noble Lord think that it is extensive enough to warrant this kind of reporting and is this another legal duty that we want to put on staff? Is it the best use of their time, compared to other things? I am in no way against getting good data out to solve problems, if that is the best way to do it, but I am not entirely sure that his amendment does that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, is absolutely right to focus us again on a question that we have never had answered since 1983, about which resources go into acute services and which into community services. When we have a legal change, as we did in 2006 with the move to community treatment orders, what happens to the flow of resources? Crucially, what is the impact? We just do not have the answer. We have a health system which is very good at delivering itemised care. I suggest that it does not actually deliver that many care pathways. Even when it does, I have never seen any clear evidence that patient information and money flows are sufficiently sophisticated to explain to us whether any of the policy intents that we want to see—that all noble Lords who have ever spoken on mental health in this place have wanted to see—will come about. Her amendment may not be perfect either, but I certainly support the noble Baroness and her intent.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, I also support Amendment 151 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Whether such reporting should be specifically confined to community mental health services or be more expansive than that is obviously for debate. Whether it should be bi-annual or more frequently, or once a Parliament, does not really matter. The point is to try to continue to put a spotlight on the gap between need and availability in mental health when, for all the reasons that we have talked about, there is sometimes a tendency to downplay that aspect of health and what the health service does.
As the noble Baroness said, if we cast our minds back to last Wednesday when we had that debate about whether the apparent increase in demand for children and young people’s mental health services was real or not, it was paradoxical that, later that evening, the embargo dropped on the Lancet Child & Adolescent Health paper on mental health. It showed that there had been a genuine and unparalleled increase, particularly in younger women’s needs for specialist eating disorder services. Having young people who are severely ill is not an artefact of culture.
Having those kinds of data brought together in one place and published with the imprimatur of the Government would be helpful, rather than as a sort of periodic post-election exercise of the sort that the noble Lord, Lord Darzi, provided. He, of course, also drew attention to the gap that exists between need and the availability of mental health services. I think he used a figure from April 2024 to point out there were more than a million people waiting for mental health, learning disability and/or autism services, of whom 345,000 referrals had waited longer than a year and 109,000 of those were for children and young people under the age of 18. There is a real gap here and a need to continue to put the spotlight on it, to mobilise attention and resource. I welcome the spirit behind Amendment 151.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I have spoken a lot about the dangers of medicalising ordinary life and giving it a mental health label. The contribution I made in the previous Committee day on ADHD managed to get picked up by newspapers and generally cited as, “Cruel Baroness hates everybody that says they have ADHD”, so I have become even more infamous.
I welcome the call by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for a review, because the more information and data we have about what is available in the community, the better. My only word of caution is that we should also recognise that, although we need more data, sometimes that data can be used as part of an advocacy for more resources and that data can be unreliable. My only caveat is that whatever the review does, it should not just take superficial headlines or self-diagnosis and self-ID as the truth, and that we should have some scepticism in that regard. We are going to have to understand the implications of this Bill when it is enacted for community care and provision. Therefore, I would welcome any attempt at getting to grips with the reality of that.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I briefly want to support Amendment 151 in the context of the delays experienced by CAMHS—delays in obtaining appointments and assessments, and in getting treatment. When I last had to look at this, only recently, those delays were still very serious. They are distressing for the children concerned and for their parents. They are also frustrating for local authorities, social workers and the courts, which need to make informed decisions but are unable to do so because they are still waiting to understand what CAMHS have to say about a particular child’s problems.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their amendments and considerations, including the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for her observations on the group before us.
On Amendment 99, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, services already capture data on instances of police using relevant powers to take patients to emergency departments. The Home Office collects national policing data on detentions under Section 136 of the Act and removal to a place of safety, including the number of times that A&E has been used. NHS England’s emergency care dataset includes data on mental health, including how patients are referred to hospital and their conveyance methods. I understand the points that the noble Lord was seeking to probe, but we feel that it is not necessary to create a new legislative requirement.
My response to Amendment 137, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, will focus on the position in England, because I imagine that that is what the noble Lord is particularly interested in, and of course different arrangements apply in Wales. We recognise the importance of preventing illegal drug use in mental health units and take the issue extremely seriously. All units must have robust policies in place to prevent the introduction of illegal drugs. To pick up the point that the noble Lord put to me about the recording of drug-related incidents, I assure him that such incidents would be recorded as a patient safety incident. While published data does not break down the nature of an incident to get an aggregate view at national level, details of incidents will nevertheless be shared with NHSE and the CQC to allow appropriate action then to be taken.
As I have referred to, providers must inform the CQC of certain events affecting their services. Inspectors review all reported concerns, as I have said, and that is important to determine the necessary follow-up actions. Issues that relate to the introduction and use of illegal drugs in an in-patient setting would be reflected in the CQC’s regulatory inspection findings where concerns have been identified, with potential consequences for ratings and for regulatory sanctions. We believe that there are already processes in place for the CQC in England to receive information about drug-related incidents. We feel that this is a better use of the capacity—which is not infinite, as the noble Lord knows—of the regulator, rather than having a national report on the overall efficacy of the systems that are in place.
Amendment 151 was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and spoken to by a number of noble Lords, and I am grateful for their input. A number of other amendments have called for statutory reports on current community services. As I have said previously in response to those debates, we recognise that reducing detentions cannot be achieved by legislation alone, and will absolutely depend on the right services in the community. The CQC publishes an annual survey on community mental health support, and we will be publishing a 10-year plan for the NHS later this year. Progress in community mental health services is already being made. In the last 12 months, more than 400,000 adults have received help through new models of care, which aim to give people with severe mental illness greater choice and control over their care. However, we recognise that more needs to be done.
I want to pick out a particular focus on innovation in this amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred to the fact that the impact assessment does not include costs for community services. That is not quite the case. There are significant costs associated with the changes to learning disability and autism, which are included in the impact assessment. I agree that wider reforms in community mental health services are needed for the reforms to achieve their intended benefits in full, but they are not a direct consequence of this Bill. That is why they are not costed in the impact assessment. I hope that will be a useful clarification for the noble Baroness.
As I mentioned last Monday, NHS England is already piloting the 24/7 neighbourhood mental health centre model in England, building on learning from international exemplars, some of which have been brought to the attention of your Lordships’ House by various noble Lords, and I have welcomed that. Six early implementers are bringing together their community crisis and in-patient functions into one open-access neighbourhood team that is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. That means that people with mental health needs can walk in, or self-refer, as can their loved ones or concerned professionals. We are currently commissioning an evaluation of these welcome pilots, which is due to report in June 2026.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred to reports last week of an increase in the number of young people admitted to general hospital wards with mental health concerns. NHS England is in the process of developing a new model for specialised children’s and young people’s mental health services, supported by a new service specification and quality standards. That new model would support the delivery of specialist services in the community and in-patient settings to ensure that children and young people are treated in age-appropriate in-patient environments, as well as the least restrictive environment close to the child’s or young person’s family and home. The noble Baroness’s point is well made, and I hope that will be helpful.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I welcome what the Minister has said about the pilots and the significant changes being made to existing mental health services. Short of someone putting down an Oral Question or securing a debate, how will Parliament be able to monitor that? We know that, in the health service and more broadly, successful pilots happen but then disappear without trace and never get implemented. How will Parliament be able to assess progress from the pilot stage to implementation, along with broader changes? What mechanisms are there?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a fair point, and that is something I shall return to later in Committee. I am keen, as I hope noble Lords know, to speak in your Lordships’ House about progress that is and is not made, and I will continue to do that.
Overall on this group, given the amount of plans and reporting already in place, we do not think that additional statutory review, particularly in relation to Amendment 151, is necessary. For all the reasons that I have put to the Committee, I hope noble Lords will be good enough not to press their amendments.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this group. I should have also mentioned that I am very sympathetic to the intention behind Amendment 151 from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Noble Lords throughout this debate have been speaking about community resources and accountability for those resources; indeed, I have a related amendment in the seventh group. In some ways, the Minister has partly answered that probing amendment.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and will reflect on the points she made. As the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, said previously, this was a probing amendment to see what data was being collected. Noble Lords will understand that, if we want to improve a situation, we need to collect data. It may not be perfect, and perhaps we can have some conversations between now and Report about that. I am very grateful that the Minister said that this data is collected. I wonder if she could write to us with links to where it can be found. That could address some of the concerns raised by stakeholders who wrote to us, which led to this amendment being tabled.
I remember that, when I read the work of the pre-legislative scrutiny committee, the Metropolitan Police service’s submission said that, in 2021, for the first time more patients were conveyed to a health setting in a police vehicle than in an ambulance. I wonder if that is still true or if that situation has been reversed. The purpose of these amendments was to seek what data was available, so that we can address the problems that Amendment 99 and 137 sought to address. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Howe
“(1) An eligible patient shall have a right to create an advance choice document.(1A) For the purposes of this section, an “eligible patient” is a patient who—(a) has previously been detained under Part 2 or Part 3 of this Act, or(b) has been diagnosed with a mental disorder which may lead to the possibility they will be detained under this Act in the future.(1B) NHS England and each integrated care board must make such arrangements as it considers appropriate for—(a) ensuring that all eligible patients for whom it is responsible for the purposes of this section are informed of their right to create an advance choice document, and(b) helping an eligible patient to create an advance choice document.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment gives all eligible patients the statutory right to create an advance choice document if they so wish.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 115 takes us to one of the features of this Bill which has been universally welcomed: the creation of advance choice documents or ACDs. An ACD is a means by which a person can record in writing their decisions, wishes and feelings about their treatment, should they be admitted to a hospital or a mental health unit as an in-patient, whether informally or detained compulsorily.
On that account, ACDs are a major component part of one of the Bill’s key strands, which is to give mental health patients better control over their own care—which, of itself, carries a therapeutic value. Giving that element of extra control also reduces the risk of discrimination creeping into any decisions about care and treatment.
The Explanatory Notes say that the people most likely to benefit from an ACD are those who may be detained in a mental health unit or who are likely to be hospitalised at some point in the future. This is because research has shown that ACDs have the potential to reduce time spent in hospital and, significantly, to reduce compulsory detention rates by up to 25%. So the creation of ACDs carries enormous potential.
Clause 42 sets out the duties of NHS England and integrated care boards in making the necessary arrangements for facilitating ACDs. Each of them is required to make information about ACDs available to the people for whom it is responsible, as defined in the clause, and to help such of those people as it considers appropriate to create advance choice documents.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 117 and 125 in this group are in my name. I tabled them in part to reflect what happened during the work of the scrutiny committee. We had long discussions about the benefits of ACDs, which were originally brought in under the Mental Capacity Act. I speak as the person who spent an awful long time trying to get them into that Act. They were brought in in the face of some resistance from practitioners. In fact, they have worked extremely well. It has been helpful to both patients and practitioners to know in advance, particularly for people who may have fluctuating illnesses, what it is that they want to do.
I point out yet again to the Committee that often, these are referred to as a decision to refuse treatment, but they are not always that. In the case of some advance choice decisions, people may say to their healthcare providers, “At the moment I am well. I know that, when I am ill, I may try to refuse treatment, but I want you to override that; I want you to carry on the continuity of my care”.
My amendment reflects something we were told. It will be no surprise to people that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, drew attention to the work that has been done in palliative care not only to make sure that people are aware of their right to make an advance choice decision about what they may wish to happen to them as their care continues, but to make it electronically. That was found to be one of the biggest barriers for practitioners, who would say, “We were in a crisis, and we couldn’t see it”. A lot of work has been done within the palliative care world to bring in new standard ways of doing things electronically. There is a pilot going on with the assistance of a private company, Thalamos—I think King’s has been trialling it—and it has so far been found to be extremely successful.
On a very prosaic level, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, is absolutely right that the more that patients feel empowered, particularly in mental health care, the better they do. There are also rather simple things: it takes a lot less time on the part of staff to read the stuff and not to be for ever filling in endless bits of paper. There are time and money efficiencies that can be put into front-line care.
All I ask is that, in addition to what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, we go one stage forward. Let us be honest: some mental health patients can have quite chaotic lives and they might not be the most tech savvy, but they need the same opportunities as anybody else to get on to a system that we know works and which needs to become the default position for all practitioners, rather than, as it is at the moment, an aspiration.
Lord Stevens of Birmingham (CB)
I strongly support the amendments in this group, particularly that in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. I share the concern, as I think I mentioned at Second Reading, that as currently drafted this proposition could amount to an unenforceable, verging on vacuous, set of requirements, be it noticeboards or helplines. I very much hope that, between now and Report, Ministers will look to adopt the alternative proposition that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has put forward. If, for whatever reason, that is not the case, I hope that collectively we might return to the question.
I have two small further points. I think I am right in interpreting the Bill as saying that guidance will be issued as part of a Section 118 code of practice which will give clarity on the duties of ICBs and NHS England in relation to the ACD part of the new Bill. I hope that that will, among other things, specify in more detail the categories of people who must be offered an ACD in accordance with the new statutory right which we will, I hope, have created; by whom the offer may be made; the fact that it should be recorded digitally, for the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, has set out; and a number of other elements. Expecting individual ICBs to figure it out is a recipe for a subtherapeutic dose, shall we say.
My third and final point is that early evidence suggests that if the benefits described in the impact assessment come to fruition in the real world then there will be a positive impact, including on reduced compulsory admissions. Admittedly these are small and non-UK studies, as the material makes clear, but there is nevertheless a case for getting on with ACDs at scale, if the benefits that are hypothesised might actually be obtainable. It is therefore surprising to see in Annex C III of the impact assessment the suggestion that ACDs will not actually come online until 2029-30. It will take relatively marginal additional staff costs and time to do this, for a relatively small number of people. The suggestion is that it will be a surprisingly precise 55,071 people who might get a new ACD in 2029-30 and about 8,000 people who will get an updated one. These are not huge volumes, and we may be under-egging the pudding, but if the benefits are potentially there to be had, why on earth should we assume that we do not get going on this until 2029-30?
For all those reasons, I support the amendments in this group, particularly that from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Kamall.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Amendment 121 seeks to add financial circumstances to the advance choice documents. I spoke in the last session of the Committee about the importance of the link between financial problems and mental health problems. I draw attention again to work that has been undertaken by the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute, which suggested this amendment, and declare that I am a member of its advisory committee.
It is very welcome to see, in Clause 40, that health commissioners will have a duty to ensure that services inform people about advance choice documents. I listened to the speeches of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, about extending the reach of these documents. I very much look forward to the reply from my noble friend the Minister, because they sounded pretty convincing to me.
Ensuring that everyone has access to an advance choice document is something that the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute has called for previously. We believe that this clause must go further to advance a specific prompt about people’s financial situation. It may seem a small matter, but for people who have been detained under the Mental Health Act, who are possibly too unwell to keep themselves safe, finances are understandably often the last thing on their mind. As I mentioned in a previous session, this does not stop bills needing to be paid, debts mounting and collections activities being escalated. Including a section on money in the document would help people have greater choice and control over their finances when they are in crisis.
A person recalling their experience of receiving treatment for their mental health shared this comment with the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute:
“I was never asked if there was anyone who was opening mail and keeping on top of my day-to-day living stuff … It’s always the same. I go in for treatment and come out to find my financial world is in a bigger mess than when I went in. The resultant terror, shame and guilt undoes all the work of the treatment and I am back in crisis again”.
This section should include explicit prompts which encourage people to reflect on and stipulate their preferences around finances. That can include consideration of how priority bills will be paid; preferences around access to credit; and advance planning to identify and empower a third party to manage their finances on their behalf, such as a lasting power of attorney or third-party mandate.
By including a systematic consideration of finances in ACDs and offering explicit prompts, people can be supported to have greater control and choice. It would better enable healthcare professionals, as well as the individual concerned, to put in place preventive measures to safeguard individuals from the financial harm that can be caused by, and exacerbate, mental health crises.
As mentioned previously, this is not about requiring healthcare professionals to support people with financial advice, or to deal with issues they have neither the expertise nor the capacity to deal with. It is about empowering them to identify people in need and refer them to the appropriate existing support.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 122 is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. When I read through the Bill initially, it concerned me that there was no mention of lasting power of attorney, which, of course, is a legal document under the Mental Capacity Act. A registered lasting power of attorney for health and welfare will appoint attorneys chosen by the patient—the donor—at a time when they had capacity, to speak and act on their behalf if they lose capacity. This is particularly important for people who may periodically lose capacity due to mental disorder. The attorneys, of course, could also provide information about the patient, which is essential in distinguishing behaviours that may be associated with autism or learning disability but are not mental disorders. This does not, of course, apply to children, who cannot make lasting powers of attorney, but it would be remiss of me not to raise it with the Committee, because I have become rather concerned.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I will very briefly underline my very strong support for Amendment 121 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies. I remind noble Lords of my relevant interests in the register.
The noble Lord set it out very clearly so I do not need to add to what he said, other than to say there is a great opportunity for us to ensure that, for the first time in legislation, finances are considered a key part of supporting recovery from a mental health crisis. I am aware of far too many stories of people suffering from severe mental health crises or who are detained whose finances go into complete and utter freefall. It is so difficult for them then to recover their finances. That often means, in turn, that they have further mental health problems. That is all I wanted to say. I support the noble Lord, Lord Davies, very strongly.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
In the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, I will just say that I support all these amendments. I expressed concern about under-16s and those aged 16-18, but that does not stop me thinking that these advance choice documents are an excellent plan. However, I am concerned about the point that the noble Baroness makes with Amendment 120. An independent mental health advocate would be extremely helpful, because there may be quite a lot of people who really would not know how to make an advance choice document, would be very concerned about it and might write down some really not very sensible things, when they could have help as to what they really wanted. I strongly support the noble Baroness’s amendment.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for all the contributions in this group. I will start with Amendment 115, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Kamall. Under the Bill, services should not only offer individuals who are likely to benefit from making an ACD information and support to do so, they should proactively support such individuals. This is functionally equivalent to a right to request an advance choice document.
The amendment applies to large groups. We have concerns that, for example, it may be practically challenging or sometimes inappropriate to contact people who were detained some time ago. We intend to identify groups in the code of practice that services should target; it can then be updated in response to changing best practice and emerging research.
On the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, and the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, about how advance choice document information is made available to patients, we will set out in the code of practice detailed guidance on how services should discharge their duties under the Bill to inform and support individuals to make an ACD. Any failure to implement the duty in this aspect of the code could ultimately be challenged in the courts. I hope that gives some indication of the strength of that provision in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, raised the implementation timeline, as outlined in the impact assessment. We want to ensure that there is appropriate resource in the system before ACDs can be brought in. I am sure noble Lords understand that this is critical, for ACDs to have the right level of impact. For example, the effect of ACDs is dependent on the expansion of the second opinion appointed doctor service. In the meantime, services can, of course, progress with putting ACDs that deal with patient needs and wishes overall should they become detained. That would very much build on the work that South London and Maudsley, and others, have done.
I turn to Amendments 117 and 125 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. I confirm that we are committed to mitigating the barriers that get in the way of creating an advance choice document. The code will make it clear that commissioners should provide accessible information in response to individual needs, with flexibility around how individuals make their preferences known—the point that the noble Baroness raised. We plan to create a standard advance choice document template for people to complete, with supporting guidance. That should prompt thoughts about the things that an individual may wish to consider and decide before they become unwell. I can assure noble Lords that the template will be available digitally as well as in hard copy. Our intention is that a digital version of the document will be created for easy access by professionals as needed.
Amendment 120, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and spoken to by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has the stated intention that mental health in-patients create an ACD. While the Bill does not prevent this, in most cases it will not be the best time, as patients may be very unwell and lack capacity. Insights from the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust with King’s College London suggest that encouraging people to create an advance choice document after discharge—when their health has improved and the support network can help—can be useful. The person’s community mental health team is best placed to provide support, rather than an independent mental health advocate whose role is to support people who are detained. The duty on commissioners in the Bill is intended to focus on the community and other contexts outside of hospital. We feel that this is more likely to increase the uptake of advance choice documents.
Baroness Barker (LD)
The crucial question that the noble Baroness is asking is around which staff can access this information and where. That means that the information in the ACD has to be always available to whoever is seeing the patient, wherever they happen to be. Does that mean that, as in palliative care, the ACD will become part of an electronic patient record, and that there will be an expectation that all practitioners, wherever they are, will refer to it all the time?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes a good point. I am sure she is aware that one of the main pillars of change as we move towards the 10-year plan is shifting from analogue to digital. I am sure that this will be part of those considerations.
I now turn to Amendment 121, tabled by my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton and supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Tyler and Lady Neuberger. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, spoke to this very amendment. We know that financial problems can worsen or trigger mental illness. We agree that individuals should be encouraged to include in their ACD any care and support to help them manage their financial circumstances when unwell. The code of practice will include guidance from professionals on this point, while the template will prompt people to consider financial matters.
On Amendment 122, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, it is important for practitioners to be aware of, and, where applicable, to consult with, the person’s attorney. However, we do not agree with requiring people to include all of the information contained in the lasting power of attorney in their ACD. The document is owned by the individual, who should be free to include what matters to them. Some of the information in a person’s lasting power of attorney may not be relevant, and copying over its contents may introduce inaccuracies due to human error. We intend to encourage service users to include the existence of an LPA where applicable in their advance choice documents, and practitioners can then be made aware and take the relevant steps.
On Amendment 123, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, we agree with the aim that is stated here. The code of practice will set out all of the groups which services should proactively target to make an advance choice document, including people on the dynamic support register. The code can be updated in line with emerging research and best practice, as I have said a number of times before, and can include detail and nuance that is not possible in primary legislation.
With those remarks from me in mind, I hope that noble Lords will feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I have one very quick question. Throughout the whole of Committee, since day one, the Minister has referred to the code of practice being updated. Can she tell us the date by which it will have been updated? It is quite important for implementation and some dates that the Minister keeps referring to. If she cannot let us know now, she could write to the Committee.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I would be very glad to share the date if I could put a date on it. It will be after Royal Assent, and I will keep noble Lords updated.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I very much appreciate the support from around the Committee for my Amendment 115. I support all the other amendments in this group, each of which is designed to bolster the rigour and thoroughness of the advance choice document process.
It is good to hear from the Minister that the code of practice will include guidance on how information on ACDs will be made known to relevant would-be patients. I shall need to reflect on this, but I confess I retain a worry in this area. The CQC in its annual report of 2020-21 on monitoring the Mental Health Act reported that many patients do not have their rights explained to them during their treatment. This is despite the existing requirement in the Mental Health Act code of practice for hospital managers to provide information both orally and in writing. Clearly, if someone without an existing ACD is admitted to a mental health unit for treatment, it will be too late for them to execute a valid ACD during that episode of care. The time to be informed that an ACD could be an appropriate thing for them to draw up is once they are discharged, to cater for possible future contingencies.
I suggest that the CQCs finding is still relevant, its point being that the NHS is not all that good at providing information to patients in a timely or appropriate way. Therefore, I think that creating a duty to do so would add value—perhaps not in the precise terms I have used in the amendment, but in similar language. That could, incidentally, be achieved quite easily if mental health patients were automatically invited to complete a debriefing report following discharge from hospital in the way that I suggested in an earlier amendment.
The prize, let us remember, could be significant. I refer noble Lords back to remarks by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, in an earlier debate, where she indicated that independent advocates have been proved as central to the success of advance choice documents—a facilitator, in other words. She referred to a study in North Carolina that showed that providing a facilitator in the form of an independent advocate increased the number of people making a psychiatric advance directive from 3% to 60%. That is a very powerful set of figures.
I hope the Minister will be open to further discussion on this and the other amendments in the group between now and Report. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 115.
Baroness Merron
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for my amendment to Clause 4, page 5, line 20.
Inheritance Tax, National Insurance and VAT
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Morrow
To ask His Majesty’s Government what consideration they have given to the different impacts in the nations and regions of the United Kingdom of the removal of the agricultural property relief for inheritance tax, the increases to employers’ National Insurance contributions, and the extension of VAT to private school fees.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, the government-proposed changes that will come into effect from April of this year present a glaring threat to food security across the United Kingdom. For example, Northern Ireland’s agricultural industry provides food for over 10 million people throughout GB. Over 24,000 family farms in Northern Ireland will have no certainty about their futures, and therefore no certainty about the contribution they make to our food production and security. As farmers struggle to maintain the cost of uptake, little by little farms will be subsumed by the economic burdens, ending the line of succession necessary to continue feeding our country.
Figures from HM Treasury illustrate the impact that our Northern Irish farmers have among the nations and regions of this United Kingdom, contributing £1,333 million to the UK’s total agricultural GVA—gross value added—the highest proportion of all. They give so much to our economy, yet the Government are content to deprive them of succession and stability. The Prime Minister said last year,
“losing a farm is not like losing any other business—it can’t come back”.
How right he was. Their contribution is woven into the social and economic fabric of this country; the farming community gives so much and is rewarded so poorly.
The changes put forward by the Chancellor last autumn will be the death knell for many farming families. Recent years have been characterised by difficult circumstances for the agricultural community, be that unprecedented weather extremities or rising prices amid the cost of living. In Northern Ireland, our agricultural sector has been held in a chokehold by the Windsor Framework, as farmers are subject to onerous regulations and red tape. These inheritance tax reforms compound a serious negligence of the agricultural community, as family members who have worked on farms all their lives will be forced to sell land and assets to cover the bill of a parent’s death. Can the Government in all conscience accept that their reforms will end innumerable careers?
As we consider the impact of the changes to agricultural property relief on inheritance tax across the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, it is worth noting that Northern Ireland will be disproportionately hit by these policies. Although £14,000 per acre is reported as the average price—and I could cite some instances where £24,000 has been realised for the same size of land—an acre of ground is much more expensive in Northern Ireland than in any other region of the United Kingdom. I know that because I worked on that for some 30 years of my life. Many of these small to medium-sized family farms will be made subject to the new rules, with DAERA reporting that 36% of farms in Northern Ireland own more than 27 hectares of land.
I have in my hand an advertisement from one of the local farming papers in Northern Ireland, which is offering an agricultural holding extending to just over 37 acres, with a residential farmhouse. The asking price is just £1,035,000. Yet we are told that most farmers will not be caught in the £1 million trap. I think the advertisement dispels that claim; if anyone wants a copy of it, I am happy to give it to them.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies rebuked any suggestion by the Government that the national insurance increase will lead to anything close to the £25 billion revenue claimed, stating that this move
“will result in lower wages, reducing the amount raised from employer NI and reducing employee NI”.
In reality, the Chancellor has put before business a choice between product prices and staff. This is wrong and immoral. Sainsbury’s announced at the weekend that the Government’s plans will compel it to cut 3,000 jobs, slash 20% of senior management roles and close 61 hot food cafes around the country. Other leading grocers have made similar statements and have announced that job cuts will follow. In the case of Sainsbury’s, 3,000 people’s livelihoods, 3,000 sources of income and 3,000 jobs will now be culled thanks to Labour’s plans. Although the second-largest grocer in the United Kingdom is facing grotesque choices such as these, we ought to spare a thought for the small and medium-sized businesses which cannot afford any remedial measures.
The Government’s plans are detrimental in many ways—not least the reality that many businesses will simply be unable to absorb the increased cost of national insurance contributions or the inflation-busting wage increases—but the bill still has to be paid, and that will be shifted on to the consumer, who will have to contend with higher prices amid an extremely difficult time for many families across Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, the rise in the national insurance contribution rate from 13.8% to 15% will hit our agriculture sector hard. Labour has dealt yet another blow to our industrious farming communities, as this will directly impact the security of thousands of jobs and pay conditions. The Government, through their combined economic assault on agriculture, have opened the door to rising food prices, a threat to food security, inflated consumer prices and the dissolution of many farms across Northern Ireland.
At the beginning of this month, a 20% standard VAT rate charge to private, boarding and independent schools came into effect. The Government expect private school fees to increase by around 10%, and it is envisaged that some 37,000 pupils will leave the private sector. It is patently obvious that this is an ideological move by the Labour Government, ending parental choice as to where their child may be educated, out of a fear of inherited classism. This is nonsensical and designed to fit Labour’s plans to redesign the national curriculum; it is a fear of dissidence.
However, Labour has not given consideration to the disproportionately negative impact this policy will have on Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the UK’s nations and regions. Currently, about 2,500 pupils in Northern Ireland attend grammar school preps and Christian and other independent schools, according to the BBC. While some places in England, such as Eton, charge around £50,000, private schools in Northern Ireland charge a substantially reduced amount, often as low as £2,000. The parents of these children will inevitably face a stark increase in their school fees, as principals will have little to no choice but to up the fees they ask for, meaning that many children will have to be taken out of their schools, and that their education will be disrupted.
Of most concern is the Government’s lack of care for the independent Christian schools throughout Northern Ireland, of which I understand there are nine. These schools do not have the same volume of money that others have and, instead, offer a much smaller fee. The Reverend Brian McClung, administrator of Newtownabbey, an independent Christian school in County Antrim told the BBC that they already fundraise to cover the total cost of running the school in order to keep fees affordable, but in this scenario they have no option but to charge parents more.
Religion is a protected characteristic in Northern Ireland, no matter what side of the divide you might come from, and if parents wish to send their children to a school where they can be taught under the auspices of Christian values, then surely that is their right. No Government have any right to infringe upon the practices of Christian schools, by inflating their fees just to appease an ideological battle against class. We know that these schools are far from being classist echo chambers, as the Government might label them. The removal of the VAT exemption for private schools could see funding challenges, followed by a massive enrolment decline and potential school closures, which will reduce educational choice and place greater strain on the already oversubscribed waiting lists.
The voluntary sector does not escape either. I am sure many noble Lords have read the excellent briefing paper produced by Age UK. When asked, Age UK said it may well have to reduce the level of service that it provides because of these costs—it will have to reduce its service offer and seriously consider if it can continue to deliver contracted services without realistic uplifts.
I see that the Whip is looking sternly at me and I do not want to fall out with her, so I will listen intently to what everybody else has to say.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
We need to thank the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, for introducing this debate. I admire the passion and clarity of the arguments he presented; unfortunately, I just do not agree. I think the Labour Government’s adjustment—the Motion says removal, but of course it is not being removed; it is being cut back—of APR for inheritance tax, the increase in national insurance contributions and the extension of VAT to private school fees are all steps towards greater economic fairness in funding for public services.
We had a debate on the school fees issue, in which I spoke and I do not wish to repeat what I said there. We are having an apparently endless debate in the Committee on the national insurance contributions Bill, and I will save my remarks on that for that arena. But I will add that the point that the money will be spent on improved public services—providing jobs and buying in services from suppliers—is always ignored by the opponents of the increase in national insurance contributions. Perhaps my noble friend could say something about the positive impact that will have on the economy, as reflected in the figures from the OBR.
I am running out of time, but I will say something about inheritance tax. I do not give advice on inheritance tax, but I do read the financial pages. Clearly, until this whole debate took place, the general view was that inheritance tax was essentially voluntary; you paid it only if you did not arrange your affairs appropriately. Now is not the time to provide advice but, given succession planning and insurance, the problems can be overcome.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, on securing this debate. I will focus my remark on the Budget proposals threatening to break up and cause the collapse of family farms, in turn taking land out of food production while also threatening prospects for tenant farmers.
This proposal is economically illiterate. The current policy was permitted in the first place precisely because farms are capital rich and cash poor. Farmers contribute significantly to the UK economy. The figures from the ONS demonstrate that, in 2022, agriculture contributed £12.7 billion to England’s GVA—of which Yorkshire and the Humber contributed almost £1.5 billion—and in Scotland agriculture contributed £2.5 billion. So why would any Government imperil that part of the economy, and how much would it raise?
In the Urgent Question repeat today, the Minister admitted that figures from the OBR show that these proposals for APR and inheritance tax, taken together, will raise only £0.5 billion and not before 2029-30. As the OBR Supplementary Forecast Information Release of 22 January shows:
“the yield from this measure is not likely to reach a steady state for at least 20 years”
and that
“This policy costing was assigned a ‘high’ uncertainty rating”,
owing to the uncertainty of how farmers would respond to the measures
“given the range of options potentially available. This in turn adds uncertainty to the modelling of the behavioural responses”.
You could not make it up. It is a highly uncertain as well as highly undeliverable policy, representing a complete onslaught on rural life from a metropolitan elite, on top of the cancellation of the rural services delivery grant and planning laws leading to the destruction of the countryside. This is a cruel, nonsensical policy and should be reversed.
Lord Morse (CB)
My Lords, I will focus on employers’ national insurance exclusively in my three minutes of stardom.
An employer’s national insurance has no direct relationship to that employer’s profitability and thus to that employer’s ability to pay more tax. If an employer happens to be in an industry that habitually has payroll costs at a relatively high proportion of its total expenditure, it will necessarily attract a higher cost from the increase in employers’ national insurance than if it had the same turnover but spent a lower percentage of its outgoing costs on payroll but, for example, a higher amount on technology, data and other non-labour costs.
If a business has a very substantial turnover but relatively low margins, such as a lot of the major construction contractors—and, in the past, Carillion—then its ability to pay more national insurance may be much less than it would be in another more profitable sector. Not all big businesses have equally broad shoulders—I know that is a popular government expression—and some big businesses may find the additional NIC charge very much more damaging than others. It may even be the final straw that breaks the camel’s back in some cases.
Different industries form larger or smaller proportions of economic activity in different areas of the UK, and they tend to be concentrated. If a high proportion of local business activity happens to be in a high-payroll model of business, this means that the local economy is likely to be disproportionately impacted. We are hearing examples of that in Northern Ireland, but it is not just there.
What I am saying is not rocket science, I must admit, but I am not sure that HM Government have considered these points of differential damage. If not, they should do so.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln
My Lords, it is entirely legitimate for the Government to target rich business owners and billionaires who have bought farmland for the sole purpose of avoiding inheritance tax, However, Jeremy Moody of the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers said recently that the reform of APR
“hits the people it is supposed to protect, and protects those it is supposed to hit.
In doing this, we are jeopardising our food security, the resilience of our farming sector and the very livelihoods of many farmers and their families.
On Saturday last, I visited Henry Ward, who farms with David, his 85-year-old grandfather outside Lincoln. They own half the land they farm. David paid off the mortgage only last year. Five generations of the family have farmed there, and now David is made to feel a burden and told me it would be best if he were to die before next April. With an ageing population of farmers, this is a widespread feeling.
The likelihood of the break-up of farms makes tenancies uncertain and undermines the job security of agricultural workers. Inheritance tax would be about £1.5 million for Henry, on a farm that had a net income last year of £45,000. Land only recently finally secured would have to be sold.
The Country Land and Business Association, a rural membership organisation representing half the rural land in England and Wales, has called for a review of the changes to APR, and last week several major supermarkets echoed this plea. Will the Minister commit to further consultation and engagement with stakeholders across the sector, including family farmers, to mitigate what might otherwise be a truly disastrous negative spiral?
Lord Thurlow (CB)
My Lords, I will focus my comments on small farms, and refer to my entries in the register.
The impact of removing APR will engineer the collapse of many small family farms, as we have heard. They struggle to survive as it is. Who would have believed that our own Government would be the assassin? In our fragile countryside, the wider impact will include, among others, schools, shops, pubs, and rural engineering and other small businesses. We will witness the slow destruction of the social cohesion of these communities, which have survived for centuries. Small farms are not an anachronism; they are vital and important contributors. What do the Government think they are doing? This is a clear example of national self-harm from those elected to defend and protect.
It is also economically illiterate, as we have heard. It will raise little money spread over many years, yet the damage to families and communities will be irreversible. This astonishing naivety betrays ignorance of the sector within government. We should not forget that these families work longer hours than any politician or Defra bureaucrat. They are unpaid, often husband and wife teams simply trying to make a profit. They have no paid holidays and no index-linked pension. Government is responsible for assisting small farms with help and encouragement, not wilful destruction, and Labour promised it was business friendly.
What of food security and food miles? Have the Government forgotten climate change: the impact of aeroplanes criss-crossing the world every day, delivering food, much of which can be produced at home? As we heard, even the major supermarkets, which try to buy local, have written open letters asking the Government to think again. Paying IHT, even at reduced rates initially, will undeniably force the sale of small farms, destroying these small family businesses. Many Acts of Parliament are subject to monitoring and review. This is not a proposal which can be monitored or reviewed; it will be too late.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Morrow’s Question.
The tax changes made in the recent Budget will clearly affect many parts of society throughout all the regions of the United Kingdom. With reference to the increase in national insurance contributions, it is clear that additional tax burden will fall not only on employers but on other taxpayers, particularly employees, who may face wage cuts or indeed the loss of their jobs. The Office for Budget Responsibility forecast in 2024 that workers would bear around 60% of the national insurance increase, rising to 76% in the medium term. Surely, similar amounts of tax could have been raised without causing such harm to the labour market. How does such an imposition sit with Labour’s pledge not to increase taxes on working people?
I fully concur with the justified criticisms that other noble Lords have made of the abolition of inheritance tax agricultural property relief on farmland. It seems abundantly clear to me that this relief is a financial necessity for hard-working farming families, who have perhaps passed their land on through many generations. Surely the law should have been amended to ensure that those who are not working farmers and who have invested in agricultural land purely to avoid inheritance tax would not be entitled to the relief. Is it not time that the Government started to talk up the economy rather than deal in the negatives?
Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard (UUP)
My Lords, I welcome this debate and I declare an interest as a farmer and a landowner.
First, I want to touch briefly on the national insurance contributions increase. This will be increased on the employers, but who will really pay for it? The people who will pay for are the consumers, the people who use the services and buy the goods, because the employer is going to pass that on. So what is it? It is really a tax—another tax on the individuals and the people of our community. That is what the additional national insurance contributions are.
I move on to the inheritance tax and the APR: damaging, unfair, destructive—we have heard all these terms for the last couple of months around this policy, and that is exactly what it is. It is going to do exactly the opposite of what I believe the genuine intention of the Government is. So there is bound to be a way around it. Look at the active farmer issue: safeguard those active farmers and the small family farms and hit the bigger corporations, because those are the people who will ultimately gain out of it now.
We need to produce food here in an environmentally safe way, that is good for the consumer, and that has better welfare standards than importing it from those countries that do not have the same welfare standards as we do in the United Kingdom, which we pride ourselves on.
So, please, let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. I say to the Government: make sure that you protect those family-run farms in the United Kingdom that can produce that good food. I just believe that this is an unfair picking on the family farm that will ruin that sector, and all it will do is provide more land and more income for the big, commercialised people.
Lord Kempsell (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, for securing this important and timely debate. Given the time constraints, I intend to confine my comments to the impact of VAT on independent schools in the nations and regions.
I suppose I could not do any better than to associate myself with the noble Lord’s introduction to this Question for Short Debate, because he adumbrated so brilliantly the unintended consequences that Ministers have unleashed with this nonsensical and ill-formed policy. I think that the Government thought they were targeting a certain class demographic and a certain income demographic with their decision to impose VAT on independent school fees, but in fact they have unleashed a mess of unintended consequences across the country.
One that I have been focusing on is the impact of this decision on Armed Forces families, who have been particularly badly hit. Many of them have to send their children to boarding schools so that they are available to be active on operations. They are, of course, based across the whole of the United Kingdom and abroad. I thank Ministers for their concessions on that issue at the Budget, although there is more to be done.
Let me focus the attention of your Lordships’ House on just where this impact is being felt most. It is across the nations and regions, because there have been school closures in the south-east, the West Midlands, the east of England, Scotland—all over the country. The disproportionate degree of closures of independent schools that we see in rural and semi-rural areas is another example of the ill-thought-out consequences of this policy. When the Minister sums up, will he assess that and allow us to have an understanding of the Government’s thoughts on the disproportionate impact across the nations and regions of the decision to impose VAT on independent school fees?
Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)[V]
Whatever the stated intentions of the Government are with this raft of measures, it is clear that the suspicion is that they are, at best, ideologically driven or, at worst, tribal in nature, with farmers, those sending their children to private education and even pensioners above the level of pension credit being seen as fair game. It is economically illiterate and, I believe, runs contrary to the Government’s aims.
No better example of this can be given than the proposed imposition of VAT on private schools. The negative impact of the diversion of pupils is not simply supposition or scaremongering but has been proven by experience. About 15 years ago, the then Sinn Féin Education Minister imposed a similar measure on prep schools in Northern Ireland, with the end result that fees rose by about 20%. The impact on families was that schools became unaffordable; some schools became unsustainable. The unintended consequence was that instead of parents paying 70% of the cost of their children’s education, the state was left to pay 100%. Some 15 years on, the number of prep schools in Northern Ireland has decreased by one-third as a result of these changes and the number of pupils attending those prep schools has declined by 40%. In pure financial terms, for every pound that was saved by the state, £2.30 has had to be spent in additional educational expenditure.
The real victims of this are not the very rich. They will survive all this raft of measures. The people who will really suffer are medium and small farmers, consumers, employees and many pensioners. I simply urge the Government to think again, look at the unintended consequences of this and, even at this eleventh hour, do a U-turn on this raft of deeply damaging proposals.
The Duke of Somerset (CB)
I declare my interest as a farmer and an employer in the West Country. All three of these changes will have a large detrimental effect on the economies of all the UK regions and thus hinder growth.
The Library briefing paper, while exposing some regional differences, indicates that wherever a farm is located the average capital value exceeds £1 million—to which, of course, must be added assets such as tools, livestock, non-agricultural buildings and tractors. A single tractor can be worth several hundred thousand pounds.
These Budget changes come at a time when family farms are fearful for their future, lacking confidence in government policies, with accelerated chopping of the BPS payments, pauses in SFI capital grants and now increased national insurance contributions for their employees. This fear is manifested in investment cutbacks. Farm machinery sales are 15% down on the year—so much for growth. Many of these family businesses, farms or not, have been passed down from generation to generation, each one making improvements and investments to grow the business; all are now to be taxed on these improvements.
It is not farmers’ faults that long-held land has hugely increased in value. Values are determined by factors outwith their control. Landowning farmers are thus asset rich but cash poor, meaning that many who inherit a farm will find it impossible to fund the 10 years of tax from their meagre capital returns, typically of around 0.5%; that is a government figure. There is less money for investment and less growth. It says a lot for the Government’s attitude that they are proposing an amendment to the Finance Bill to alleviate some of the pain for non-doms while ignoring similar representations from our hardworking, indigenous family businesses.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the Members’ register. The decision by the Government to remove agricultural property relief for inheritance tax is going to adversely impact Northern Ireland’s farming community. Succession is extremely important when we consider the farming industry. However, Labour’s decision to abolish agricultural property relief will ensure that innumerable farms across Northern Ireland have their line of succession culled.
Families will struggle to foot the bill after a parent’s death, meaning that family members who have worked on farms for decades will instead be forced to split or sell off assets. Farmers feel misled and betrayed by this Government and although Treasury Ministers have parroted the line that this will affect only a few family farms, that is totally untrue and proves that this Government are out of touch with reality.
The irony of Labour pursuing this policy is its lack of consultation with those actively involved in the agricultural industry. Without farmers, there is no food: that is the bottom-line reality. Labour has declared war upon hard-working farmers and their families, threatening succession, food security, industry workers and consumer prices. Also, Labour’s planned increase in the rate of national insurance contributions will decimate the voluntary sector across Northern Ireland. These voluntary groups provide support for the vulnerable, elderly and disabled, offering mental health services, community programmes, employability support, physical welfare and educational opportunities. How can this Labour Government knowingly jeopardise these organisations and take a blowtorch to the vulnerable?
Finally, the extension of VAT to private school fees will ensure that many of these establishments will close and children will have their future prospects compromised. So much for a caring Government.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the Tory Government, especially in their last years, implemented a scorched-earth strategy on public finances, and I have great sympathy for the Government in facing such an inheritance. That is why, in our election manifesto, we on these Benches listed tax increases which would have avoided the three tax changes under discussion today, none of which we support. We regard family farms as vital and often economically precarious. We are trying hard in the NICs legislation to get exemptions for the health and care sectors and for other crucial groups. We will not support a new tax on education.
However, the question for debate today is the impact on the nations and regions. I thank the Library for its work, which underscores the problem. I have spoken before about Scotland. Scottish public sector organisations will be reimbursed for employers’ NICs not on a per-job basis but based on the Barnett formula, which comes up with a much lower number. That is not within the purview of the Library discussion. Looking at the Library numbers, the north-east looks most affected by the farm inheritance tax changes, and the east of England, London and the south-east are most affected by the NICs changes and the VAT on schools. However, we cannot assess the real impact just by looking at these cost numbers, which do not reflect the underlying economic vibrancy of an area, its resilience or its dependence on particular industries, and therefore the narrower impact.
Cost and impact are different. I can intuit that thriving places such as London and university towns will cope, but existing disadvantaged areas will be far less able to do so. The Tories resisted give us the much greater detail and complex analysis that would have enabled us to understand the impact of changes in taxation and national insurance, but I turn to this Government and ask: so that we can understand these complexities, can we please have that much better analysis? In turn, it might reshape policy.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I hope that last autumn’s Budget has been a useful learning experience for the Government. Today’s debate has been about regional impact, especially in Northern Ireland, and I agree with almost everything that has been said about its devastating impact. The CBI has said today that pessimism is widespread across the private sector and that firms expect another significant fall in activity over the next three months.
The truth is that labour-intensive sectors such as retail and hospitality are suffering a triple whammy throughout the country, brought about first, by the changes in NICS; secondly, by the rise in the national minimum wage, especially for the young; and thirdly, by the costly and counterproductive new employment regulations pioneered by Angela Rayner and her union friends. As the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, said, Sainsbury’s announced last Thursday plans to cut 3,000 jobs— a bid to save money ahead of a £140 million leap in costs resulting from the Budget. Confidence has plummeted everywhere. Two of my favourite Wiltshire shops, in Salisbury and Tisbury, are among many shops and pubs that are now closing their doors. In light of these unfortunate events, can the Minister confirm whether the Government value these industries? If so, what will they do to help them across the UK?
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, on securing this debate and on his opening speech. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions this evening. Due to the popularity of this debate, I know that noble Lords have been restricted to very short contributions. Fortunately, we have had previous opportunities to debate the measures covered by the Question during the Budget debate and the recent Conservative Party debate on agricultural property relief. We will of course have further such opportunities to discuss these important issues during the passage of the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill and the Finance Bill. As I address the three measures covered by the Question this evening, I assure noble Lords that I have listened carefully to all the points made and that I understand and respect the concerns of all noble Lords.
I begin by considering the context of the decisions that we took on tax at the Autumn Budget, the reasons they were taken and the economic challenge that confronted this Government upon taking office. The Government inherited three distinct crises: a crisis in the public finances, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said; a crisis in the public services; and a crisis in the cost of living. As the Chancellor has said, this was therefore a once-in-a-generation Budget, on a scale commensurate with the challenging inheritance that we faced.
The Government inherited a £22 billion black hole in the public finances, consisting of a series of commitments made by the previous Government which they did not fund and did not disclose. Public services were also at breaking point, with NHS waiting lists at record levels, children in portakabins as school roofs crumbled, and rivers filled with polluted waste. Working people had suffered from the worst cost of living crisis in a generation, with inflation having reached 11%, coupled with a decision by the previous Government to freeze income tax thresholds, which cost working people some £30 billion.
Faced with this reality, any responsible Government would need to act. That is why this Government took action to wipe the slate clean, repair the public services, protect working people and invest in Britain. We did so in the fairest way possible, by keeping our promises to working people not to increase their national insurance, VAT or income tax. That involved taking some very difficult other decisions on spending, welfare and tax.
One such difficult decision we took in the Budget was the reforms to agricultural property relief, the first measure mentioned in today’s Question and addressed by the noble Lords, Lord Morrow, Lord Thurlow and Lord McCrea, the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln. Under the previous system, the 100% relief on business and agricultural assets, introduced in 1992, was heavily skewed towards the wealthiest landowners and business owners. According to the latest data from HMRC, 40% of agricultural property relief is claimed by just 7% of estates making claims. That amounts to just 117 estates claiming £219 million of relief. It is neither fair nor sustainable to maintain such a large tax break for such a small number of claimants given the wider pressures on the public finances.
A secondary issue relates to the purchase of farmland. The reality today is that buying agricultural land is now one of the most well-known ways to shield wealth from inheritance tax. This has artificially inflated the price of farmland, locking younger farmers out of the market. That is why the Government have changed how we target agricultural property relief and business property relief from April 2026, in a way that maintains significant tax relief for estates while supporting the public finances in a fair way. Under the new system, individuals will still benefit from 100% relief for the first £1 million of combined business and agricultural assets. Above this amount, there will be 50% relief. That means inheritance tax will be paid at a reduced effective rate up to 20%, rather than the standard 40%. All estates making claims for these reliefs will continue to receive generous support, at a cost of £1.1 billion to the Exchequer in the first year.
The reliefs also sit on top of other spousal exemption and nil-rate bands which exist. Therefore, a couple with agricultural or business assets will typically be able to pass on up to £3 million of assets without any inheritance tax having to be paid. This change will apply in the same way across all nations and regions, and we expect that up to 520 estates across the UK will be affected in 2026-27. The Government are also investing £5 billion over this year and next to support farming and food security.
The second measure in today’s Question is the increase in employer national insurance contributions, raised by the noble Lords, Lord Morrow, Lord Morse, Lord Browne and Lord Elliott. To protect small businesses, the Government have also more than doubled the current employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500 and expanded its eligibility. Of course, I understand that some of these measures mean asking businesses to contribute more, and we have consistently acknowledged that the impacts will be felt beyond business too. These are difficult decisions, and not ones we wanted to take. But, taken together, the measures mean that more than half of businesses with national insurance liabilities will either see no change or see their liabilities decrease; 865,000 employers will now not pay any national insurance at all, and over 1 million will pay the same or less than they did before.
These changes will apply in the same way across all nations of the UK. The Government are also setting aside support for the public sector across the UK of £5.1 billion by 2029-30. This support will be allocated to departments, and we have already confirmed that the devolved Governments will receive a share of the £4.7 billion the UK Government have set aside. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, said, the devolved Governments will receive this funding through the Barnett formula in the usual way. Exact allocations will be confirmed in due course; however, this is the normal operation of the funding arrangements between the UK Government and the devolved Governments.
The Government do not publish data covering detailed regional or national impacts. The location of the headquarters of a business and the location of its economic activity are not necessarily the same and are often split across multiple locations. However, the Government have published a tax impact and information note, which sets out a comprehensive UK-wide analysis of this tax measure.
The final measure covered in the Question is the introduction of VAT on private school fees, raised by the noble Lords, Lord Morrow, Lord Kempsell, Lord Weir and Lord McCrea. Nine out of 10 children in this country attend state schools; however, too many children do not get the opportunities they deserve because too often these schools are held back by a lack of investment. That is why the Government introduced VAT on private school fees from 1 January this year: to secure the additional funding needed to improve educational outcomes across the UK, in all nations and regions. Together with our changes to business rates, this will raise around £1.8 billion a year by 2029-30 and just under £500 million in this year alone.
VAT is a reserved tax, and our objective is to maintain consistent VAT treatment of different types of schools across the UK. Therefore, all schools across the nations and regions that meet the definition of a private school, as set out in the Finance Bill, are within scope of this policy. Education is of course a devolved matter, and the circumstances of individual schools will vary across the UK.
Business rates are also fully devolved. Scotland has already enacted legislation removing charitable rate relief from private schools, and the Welsh Government have published a consultation. The Government do not expect that private schools will pass on the full amount of VAT in fees, and the increase in fees in recent years suggests that private school fees are highly demand inelastic.
I can also assure noble Lords that our changes will not impact pupils with the most acute special educational needs, where these can be met only in private schools. Currently, local authorities fund pupils’ places in private schools where their needs can be met only in a private school. In these cases, local authorities will be able to reclaim the VAT from the Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Kempsell, said, we have also chosen to support our diplomatic staff and serving military personnel, who are required to be mobile and are often posted overseas. That is why we have increased funding for the continuity of education allowance, which provides support for school fees to serving diplomatic and military personnel so that their children’s education is not disrupted.
To support children in the performing arts, the Government have also adjusted the music and dance scheme bursary contribution for families with income below £45,000, ensuring that the total parental fee contributions for these families remain unchanged.
This debate has addressed the difficult decisions this Government needed to take, but in doing so, we should not lose sight of the fact, as my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton said, that public services right across the UK will benefit significantly from and only as a result of those decisions. Overall, the devolved Governments received the largest spending settlement in real terms of any settlement since devolution. Each has seen their budget increase in real terms in 2025-26; and each will receive at least 20% more per person than equivalent government spending in the rest of the UK, a figure which rises to over 24% for the Northern Ireland Executive when including the funding received as part of the 2024 restoration package.
Across Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, this translates to £16 billion extra to invest in schools, housing, health and social care, and other public services. People in businesses in the devolved nations will also benefit from our UK-wide tax decisions taken in the Budget. For example, the uplift to the national living wage to £12.21 per hour will benefit an estimated 270,000 workers across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Government will continue to work in partnership with devolved Governments and English regions to drive economic growth and support working people. That is why we have established the Council of the Nations and Regions and the council of mayors. We are also working with local areas in England on the upcoming English devolution White Paper as they develop local growth plans, and we have put “place” at the heart of our upcoming modern industrial strategy.
This Government had to take difficult decisions in the Budget, but they were the right decisions to restore stability, protect working people and invest in Britain across all our nations and regions. As we take forward our strategy of stability, investment and reform, the Government remain committed to delivering a shared economic future for the whole of the United Kingdom, underpinned by higher and more sustainable economic growth. I look forward to continuing to work with all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate on this vital agenda.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Will the Minister say a little bit more about retail and hospitality, which have been particularly impacted by the NICs changes? I am interested in understanding his attitude to that.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
We had to take difficult decisions in the Budget. In multiple debates on that issue, the noble Baroness has never said whether she wants higher borrowing, higher taxes or lower spending as a result of the decisions that she is putting forward.
Mental Health Bill [HL]
Monday 27th January 2025
(3 days, 14 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Mental Health Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Mental Health Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 47-IV(Corrected) Fourth marshalled list for Committee - (23 Jan 2025)
Baroness Browning
“Power of Tribunals to require a reportIn section 72 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (Power of Tribunals), after subsection (7) insert—“(8) The Tribunal may require a local authority, or an NHS body, to arrange for a report regarding such matters relating to a patient as the tribunal may direct to be made—(a) by one of its officers or employees;(b) by such other person as the authority, or the NHS body, considers appropriate.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would recreate the powers the Court of Protection has under section 49 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, in section 72 of the MHA 1983 to assist discharge.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 128 is in my name. A person with autistic spectrum disorder or a learning disability may be stuck in hospital for years; we know that they often are. We sincerely hope that matters will improve dramatically when this Bill is enacted, but we should not be so optimistic as to think that will happen in the near future. However, when somebody is in hospital that long and no longer needs clinical supervision—some in the autistic and learning disability community, for example, never needed to be in there at all—parents become extremely stressed and frustrated. There may be long periods when a close relative, often their adult child or a younger child, is stuck in these hospitals and the parents cannot get them out.
We heard in debate earlier this evening of the differences between the county courts and the mental health tribunals; of course, there are also people who sometimes resort to the Court of Protection. Although I heard noble and learned Lords giving their different views on these, most seemed not to regard the county courts as the most appropriate course. It is a fact, though, that the Court of Protection has had some success in getting out people who have been unduly held in mental health hospitals.
Amendment 128 proposes that mental health tribunals are strengthened to give them the same opportunity as the Court of Protection to make progress in releasing people from long stays in hospitals. If they are to do that, the mental health tribunals need to have more powers, particularly to require local authorities and the NHS to provide a report to enable discharge for a person who no longer clinically needs to be in hospital. This would give tribunals the same powers that the Court of Protection has under Section 49 of the Mental Capacity Act, because there has been some success.
The Court of Protection has been able to secure discharges because it is able to call for reports from local authorities and health services to put the case that it feels confident that it would be safe to discharge somebody. Parents who do this very often have to fund it themselves. Strengthening the tribunal cases, in line with the sort of powers that the Court of Protection has in getting information collated, to make sure the discharge package is sound is very important. This approach would be stronger and more effective than the Government’s proposal that tribunals make recommendations on Section 117.
That is what the Government propose, but I hope that the Minister will look carefully at this amendment. It would enhance mental health tribunals, increasing the number of people who have proper discharge packages through these tribunals. I do not see this as a competition between the Court of Protection and tribunals. Both have a place, and this will be important if we are to achieve what this Bill wants to achieve: to make sure that people do not stay in health mental hospitals a moment longer than they absolutely have to. I beg to move.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I believe we would all accept—and, personally, I am in no doubt—that my noble friend Lady Browning possesses a breadth and depth of experience in matters relating to autism and learning disability. By that, I mean that she has not just a familiarity with the day-to-day challenges of life for individuals with one or more of these conditions but a knowledge of the practical frustrations and hurdles that often have to be overcome if the best interests of such individuals are to be properly defended.
It is amply clear from what my noble friend has said that, if this amendment were inserted into the Bill, it would have the potential to make a material and beneficial difference to the process of discharging certain patients from a secure mental health unit in particular types of situations. As my noble friend said, and as we all know, there have been many instances where autistic patients have been detained inappropriately and for long periods under the Mental Health Act and where families have struggled to secure their relatives’ release.
I cannot see a logical reason why a mental health tribunal should not be placed on an equal legal footing with the Court of Protection in this very limited respect. I hope the Minister will agree.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, for tabling Amendment 128 and for her contribution, along with that of the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
On the proposals in Amendment 128, I can tell your Lordships that, under the current tribunal procedure rules, the tribunal can direct responsible authorities, which could be a local authority or an NHS body, to provide evidence. The practice directions that apply in mental health cases place a requirement on the responsible authority to provide reports and records relating to the patient’s detention treatment and any after-care plans. The tribunal can use these reports to decide whether the detention criteria are being met. Therefore, it appears that the tribunal has extensive powers to require responsible authorities to provide the information to support its decision on whether to discharge a patient. I hope that the noble Baroness will be satisfied with this response and will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Browning (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his support from the Front Bench and to the Minister for her reply. Although it was very reassuring, could I ask her to clarify something? Has the level of information leading to a proper discharge plan under the existing powers of tribunals been set in primary legislation, which is what I am asking for under this Bill, or is it in secondary legislation or guidance?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am happy to confirm that to the noble Baroness. The important thing for me is that we make sure that, as always, we can move with best practice and keep up with what is needed. With that in mind, I will confirm that later to the noble Baroness to ensure that I am correctly answering her detailed question.
Baroness Browning (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister, as always. She is always helpful with these difficult points. I will just flag up that if the tribunal power to get that information in order to encourage more discharges is not in statute, then perhaps we will return to it at a later date. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bradley
“Implementation report: removal of police stations and prisons as places of safety(1) Within 6 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a report on how they will effectively implement the provisions contained with section 46 (Removal of police stations and prisons as places of safety) within the time limit specified by section 53(3A) (Commencement).(2) The report must include an assessment of—(a) how His Majesty’s Government will provide alternative places of safety with adequate capacity and geographical distribution,(b) the availability of remand to hospital under section 36 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (Remand of accused person to hospital for treatment) and,(c) any plans to extend section 36(1) of the Mental Health Act 1983 to Magistrates’ courts.(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment (connected with another in the name of Lord Bradley) seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State must publish a report on how they plan to implement the provisions contained within Clause 46 in an effective and timely manner.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendments 128A and 163B concern the banning of prisons and police cells as places of safety. By way of background, in my report in 2009, which I have previously referenced, I recommended that discussions should immediately commence to identify suitable local mental health facilities as the places of safety, ensuring that police stations should no longer be used for this purpose at that time. That sat alongside the development of mental health and learning disabilities liaison and diversion teams based in police custody suites and the courts, particularly to support the police in dealing with people with these issues. There is now 100% geographical coverage of the country with those teams. A crucial further element was the development of what was called street triage, where mental health nurses sat alongside the police in emergency control rooms or in police vehicles around local communities, again to support and assist the police.
The recent policy, “right care, right place”, is rightly based on the same principles debated on Amendment 37B, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady May. Again, at that time there was growing concern that A&E departments were, and still are, a default position as places of safety, and therefore the need to develop alternative facilities, often located close to A&E departments, often called crisis care units, should be pursued. There is an agreed protocol with the police to hand over the patients for care and assessment to NHS staff in the way advocated now by Amendment 128B, which has already been debated and is a model that I believe should be replicated across the country.
My amendments today are an attempt to galvanise the Government into action to achieve that. Amendment 163B to Clause 53 would require that Clause 46 came into force no later than 12 months after the passing of the Act. Amendment 128A to Clause 46 would require that the Government must publish a report on how they would ensure effective implementation of that section within the timeframe specified. I am again concerned at the lack of clarity in the timeline for the implementation of provisions in this clause. The impact assessment currently does not show an estimated commencement date for the provision in Clause 46, stating instead:
“Departments are working together to ensure there are clear pathways and provision in place to safely enact these reforms and the timeline for implementation will depend on the conclusion of this work”.
Amendment 163B would require Clause 46 to come into force within 12 months of the passing of the Act.
Amendment 128A would require the Government, within six months of the passing of the Act, to publish a report assessing: how they will ensure effective provision of alternative places of safety with adequate capacity and distribution across geographical locations; the availability of remand to hospital under Section 36 of the Mental Health Act 1983; and any plans to extend the use of Section 36 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to magistrates’ courts. Such a report will be crucial to the successful implementation of Clause 46.
Further—and this replicates concerns already expressed in Committee—I am concerned about the lack of reliable data on the use of prisons as a place of safety. The impact assessment references this, noting that there is no
“reliable data on the number of people in prison as a place of safety”.
Without knowing how many people are being held in prison as a place of safety, it would be difficult to ensure adequate alternative provision is in place. This data should be recorded and made available to inform effective implementation of this clause. Perhaps the Minister in response might be able to assure us that this information will be made available to the Committee.
Taken together, the removal of police stations and prisons as places of safety can be successfully introduced in a timely way, which many organisations, such as the Centre for Mental Health—for which I am an ambassador—and the Prison Reform Trust, have a long advocated. I hope the Minister will agree.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Bradley. As usual, he has been very sensible and measured in the amendments he has tabled. As the noble Lord reminded us, he has been very patient on many of the measures he is proposing.
I will speak to Amendment 140, which is also in the name of my noble friend Lord Howe, and hopefully touch on some of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Bradley. On a positive note, I will say how much we welcome Clause 46 and its removal of police stations and prisons as places of safety under the Mental Health Act. I think that noble Lords across the Committee welcome that, and the Government are to be congratulated on it.
The Wessely review stated:
“Far and away the best way to improve the care and outcomes for those with the severest mental illnesses is to provide more and better alternatives to detention”.
It also remarked that, all too often, opportunities for early intervention were missed. The report noted that this means that the first contact a patient often has is with the police, rather than with a mental health professional. I know we have discussed this and the overall involvement of police a number of times in Committee. I am sure we may come back to this on Report, but all noble Lords are aware that this must be addressed. Clause 46 is therefore very important in implementing that recommendation from the Wessely review.
I want to focus on a sentence that comes after the recommendation in the Wessely report:
“That means that, where they do not currently exist, health-based places of safety will need to be commissioned”.
I think this goes to the heart of the issue the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, was talking about—implementation but also data. Amendment 140 attempts to probe the Government. It would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on alternative places of safety for patients who are liable to be detained, particularly focusing on community care. We need to know this; as the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, said, we need the data.
Noble Lords have raised many times that we know that everything is not going to be done overnight. We understand that. We know there is a 10-year timeframe. We want a better understanding of what will be delivered when. Some of it will be subject to spending reviews, but some of it will be delivered whatever the result of a spending review. It is all very well saying that police stations and prisons and cannot be used as places of safety—no disagreement there—but this will mean that patients have to be placed elsewhere. Clause 46(2)(a) states that a place of safety for an adult is
“any hospital the managers of which are willing temporarily to receive that person”.
So far, the Bill seems to say—the Minister may correct me—that the only place of safety is a hospital. If I have misunderstood, I am prepared to be corrected, but as all noble Lords will know, that is not always ideal. Capacity in hospitals is in short supply. What will happen if a place of safety is needed but there are no appropriate hospitals nearby that are willing to receive that person, for lack of available space or staff? That is why this amendment places a focus on community-based alternatives for places of safety. If we can shift some of the burden here away from hospitals and into the community, part of the problem might be alleviated.
On an earlier amendment, Amendment 151, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said that we all know that capacity in the community is currently quite limited. The report required by my amendment would enable the Secretary of State and the Department for Health and Social Care to consider and create a plan to develop greater capacity in the community for this purpose. We understand that not everything can be delivered now, but we would like to see a plan so that we can understand the Government’s intentions, their own timeframe and how they intend to roll this out. The amendment once again aims to probe the Government on their implementation plan.
I thank the Minister for meeting my noble friend Lord Howe and me to discuss appropriate places of safety. In that meeting, the Minister mentioned the community crisis houses that the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, alluded to, and said that her department was investigating how these might be used as alternatives to hospital or, indeed, police stations. As Mind says on its website, crisis houses provide
“intensive, short-term support to help manage a mental health crisis in a residential setting, rather than in a hospital”.
They can vary; some may simply provide temporary overnight accommodation to ensure that those experiencing mental health crises have a safe space away from other areas of their life, while others may provide treatment as well. Many of these crisis houses are operated by voluntary and civil society organisations.
One of my great passions in politics is to champion the role of local community civil society groups, so that we do not always have to look to the state to provide all the solutions. I think that there is some real promise here, and the Government are to be congratulated on it, for the provision of community crisis houses to be expanded, so that they can act as health-based places of safety, as the Wessely review recommended.
The questions I have at this stage for the Minister are in the nature of a probing amendment. What progress has the department made in exploring these community crisis houses and, indeed, other community-based places of safety, as alternatives to police stations and prison cells? Can the Minister tell us, when the Government are implementing the provisions of Clause 46 and commissioning health-based places of safety, whether they will include discussions with local civil society organisations and charities about how best to implement them, perhaps in partnership? I am sure she will recognise that their expertise will be highly beneficial and that they often know their local community much better than officials do, whether those be national officials or sometimes even local government officials. I appreciate that the Minister will not necessarily have all the answers tonight but, if not, I look forward not only to her comments but to the letter that she will promise to write to us afterwards.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Bradley for his contribution and for Amendments 128A and 163B. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, for speaking to Amendment 140 in his name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. We are committed to implementing these reforms as soon as is it safe and practical to do so. We will return to this matter on the next day in Committee.
As I have said before—I know that noble Lords have heard this—we are reluctant to commit to enacting single provisions or publishing single plans or reports at specific times, given their dependence on so many other developments, particularly spending reviews. Removing police stations and prisons as places of safety under Section 55, and removing police stations under Sections 135, 136 and 136A will, as noble Lords suggest, require making sure that viable alternatives and clear pathways into support are fully established and in place. Commencing by regulations enables the reforms to be enacted once this is the case.
I know that my noble friend Lord Bradley is aware of this, but I will repeat it in respect of these amendments. Officials from my department, the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office are working with health and justice partners across government to develop the necessary plans to ensure that sufficient resources and the right processes are in place, and to establish clear timelines for implementation.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s response and pleased that progress is being well made to develop alternative facilities to ensure that the use of prisons and police stations as places of safety is banned as soon as possible. The purpose of my amendments was to keep momentum behind that programme. I hope we can properly implement these provisions in a timely way, because that would be to the greatest benefit of people affected by mental ill-health or learning disabilities who find themselves up against or in the criminal justice system. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Bradley
“Implementation report: mental health care for bailed defendants(1) Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must publish a report on how they will effectively implement the provisions contained within section 47 (Remand for a person’s own protection etc) within the time limit specified by section 53(3A) (Commencement).(2) The report must include an assessment of how His Majesty’s Government will ensure appropriate care and support for defendants with mental health conditions who, under the provision in section 47, cannot be kept in custody for their own protection.(3) The report must review—(a) the extent to which services providing such care and support have adequate capacity, and(b) their geographical distribution.(4) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before both Houses of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment (connected to another in the name of Lord Bradley) seeks to ensure that the Secretary of State publishes a report on how they plan to implement the provisions contained within clause 47 in a timely manner, and in a way which ensures that bailed defendants with mental health conditions (who can no longer be remanded for their own protection) receive appropriate care and support.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 128C I will speak also to Amendment 163C in my name. These amendments relate to Clause 47, “Remand for a person’s own protection etc”, and Clause 53, “Commencement”. I will speak very briefly, because the purpose of these two interlinked amendments is substantially the same as the ones we just discussed: Amendments 128A and 163B. However, they stress that remand should always be part of our deliberations when we are talking about people who may find themselves in the criminal justice system.
Amendment 163C would require that Clause 47 comes into force no later than 12 months after the passing of the Bill. Amendment 128C would require the Government to publish a report on effective implementation of Clause 47. These two amendments encapsulate the need to make really rapid progress to ensure that there are adequate community alternatives and community health-based provision to support people who may be placed on remand, where the sole concern is the defendant’s mental health.
We have to ensure that these facilities are geographically spread across the country. We also have to ensure that we can see bail being used in a way that is commensurate with people who may have found themselves going to a place of safety, but with the same support required for their continued treatment as if they were already within the criminal justice system.
With that, I am happy to listen to a positive response from the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord Scriven (LD)
My Lords, I will be very brief because of the time. As with the previous group of amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, we are very supportive of the intention to try to tease out of government what the implementation plans are. It is really important to understand that being supportive of Clause 47 does not necessarily mean that we believe it will come into implementation in a timely fashion.
By supporting the noble Lord’s amendments, we wish to tease out of government the exact timing and resources that have been allocated; the planning the Government will have to do in terms of the number of provisions that will be required to implement this clause; the gap between the number of those facilities in place and those needed; and the estimate the Government have of when they would seek to put those facilities in place.
As the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, said, the location of those facilities—where there are gaps geographically and where they need to be filled—is very important. It is important that the Government furnish the Committee with those details so that we can fully understand not just the intention of implementation but the scale of the implementation plan required for this clause.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, just like in the last group, I will speak to and support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bradley. They follow the amendments in the previous group.
These Benches welcome Clause 47—another positive move—which addresses the issues arising from the current situation. As the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, said, bail can be refused solely on the basis of a mental health condition where it might otherwise have been granted.
In simple terms, as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, this amendment returns to the theme that he, and many other noble Lords, have pushed the Government on—and I like the words used by the noble Lord—to “tease out” the plan and timetable for implementation from the Government, since it requires the Secretary of State to prepare a report on how they plan to implement these changes within the time period proposed in Amendment 163C.
We have to remember that the impact assessment states, in regard to the changes to remand for a person’s own protection, that:
“Departments are working together to ensure there are clear pathways and provision in place to safely enact these reforms and the timeline for implementation will depend on the conclusion of this work”.
That has been manifested this evening with the presence of a Minister from the Department of Health and Social Care and a Minister from the Ministry of Justice. However, there is currently no set date for the commencement of Clause 46, so it is all contingent on internal departmental assessments. We all understand how government works—how long it takes for things to happen, to get write-round and to get support across government—so I gently suggest to the Minister that the 12-month implementation timeline would be a useful target for the Government to work towards. It could help them to answer some of the questions that many noble Lords have asked in Committee on the plans for, and stages of, implementation. That is not to force the Government to move faster than they want to go, but just for us to understand the various milestones along the way in developing what is in the Bill.
It would also be helpful if the Minister could set out how much progress has been made both in the Ministry of Justice and the Department of Health and Social Care on establishing the pathways and processes to enable these remand reforms to go forward. This is especially true since the impact assessment also states—this is quite an interesting point—that:
“We expect the number of people on remand solely for mental health reasons to be low and therefore health and justice costs relating to this change are likely to be negligible, and therefore have not been monetised”.
We understand the challenges that the Government are often talking about—they have to wait for spending reviews, et cetera—but the impact assessment states that the number of people affected will be low. Can the Minister say whether either his department or the Department of Health and Social Care know what that means and how many people that will be? Does he know how many will be impacted by this change? If he accepts what is in the impact assessment—that the costs will be negligible—this could be a quick win for the Government in relative terms, depending of course on what other processes he feels have to be put in place before they can deliver this. I hope that the Minister can be a bit more helpful on his noble friend’s amendments, given that the costs are low.
We look forward to the Minister’s response, and I would be grateful if he could give an indicative timeframe or an indication of when a timeframe will be in place.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bradley for bringing this discussion before the Committee. These amendments would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the implementation of Clause 47 within six months of the date on which the Bill is passed and that the reform comes into force a maximum of 12 months after the date on which the Bill is passed.
We are committed to implementing our reform to the Bail Act as soon as is practicable and as soon it is safe to do so. However, before moving to amend the legislation to embed these changes, we will need to make sure that viable alternatives are properly established and clear pathways to the right support are in place, whether in hospital or in the community. Commencing by regulations enables the flexibility to implement the reform at whatever point the necessary alternatives and pathways are safely in place.
I reassure my noble friend Lord Bradley—just as the Minister, my noble friend Lady Merron, did in relation to the previous groups of amendments—that my officials are working with colleagues across government to develop this and to ensure that sufficient resources and processes are in place. This includes the work of the north-east health and justice hub, which seeks to improve the way that courts, health services and prisons work together at a local level to smooth pathways into care, alongside the pilot team collecting data. That will help us better to understand the number of people remanded for their own protection solely on mental health grounds to inform planning.
The reform is currently due to commence by regulation, so we have the flexibility to implement it at whatever point the necessary alternatives to the pathways are in place. The rollout of the bail information service will be completed by autumn this year. This will help the courts to have the information they need to make decisions on bail for this cohort. However, we need to make sure that we have the reliable data on the number of people remanded for their own protection, because if this is rushed, it could create knock-on impacts for health services.
Lord Scriven (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Kamall, quite rightly pointed out that the impact assessment says that the Government have already said that the numbers will be small and the costs negligible. Upon what data were those assumptions from the impact assessment made? If the Minister cannot give me the answer to that at the moment, could he provide the Committee with the detailed figures and data used to present that within the impact assessment?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I will be delighted to get the correct information, so that we get it exactly right. We will get it to him as soon as is practical.
Lord Bradley (Lab)
I am again grateful to the Minister for his response and pleased that he will provide that information, because it is fundamental to effective implementation of this policy. I also look forward, hopefully before Report, to visiting the north-east health and justice hub to see for myself what model it is developing, how applicable that could be across the country and at what cost. There is lots to do but, on that basis, I wish to withdraw my amendment.