House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
The last Government left us with a record and rising backlog. Cases are taking years to be heard, and the number of victims dropping out at police stage has nearly doubled. We have taken steps to deliver swifter justice by increasing sitting days to a 10-year high and extending magistrates courts’ sentencing powers, but we must go further. That is why I have commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to conduct a review of the courts, asking him to propose once-in-a-generation reform.
Mr Mohindra
We all want justice to be served as quickly as possible, and many of my constituents have contacted me recently with concerns about law and order. Given the various media reports about unused capacity in courts up and down the country, what is the Secretary of State’s Department doing to ensure that every aspect of the justice system is working efficiently and at full capacity?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and I share his concerns and those of his constituents—indeed, I see many such cases in my own constituency advice surgeries. We are working at pace to ensure that every bit of the criminal justice system is working at its maximum efficient capacity. That includes everything from police stage right through to sentencing in the courts. I am sure that he will be aware of the very strained situation we inherited. It will take some time for those changes to take effect, but we are driving forward system efficiency, and Sir Brian Leveson’s review will give us a policy package with which to reform the system for the benefit of all victims.
Bradley Thomas
Constituents across Bromsgrove and the villages are sick and tired of violent criminality and lawlessness creeping over the border from Birmingham into our constituency. In the past year, Romsley Co-op and Wythall post office at Drakes Cross—both of which are on the northern fringe of my constituency—have been raided, and it is hard to believe that proximity to Birmingham is not a factor in that. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that prosecutions are pursued and custodial sentences are given in the first instance, to crack down on crime and make our area safe again?
Shabana Mahmood
Through our landmark review of sentencing, this Government are ensuring that sentencing is fit for purpose. That will ultimately put us in a position where we can crack down on reoffending, thereby cutting crime and the number of victims. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is proposing carving out his part of the world from any other part of the country, but his argument about boundaries can apply to any part of the UK. That is why we need a functioning justice system for the whole of England and Wales, and that is what this Government are going to deliver.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
The Justice Secretary has said that she agrees with the old legal maxim that justice delayed is justice denied. We currently have a record backlog of 73,000 in the Crown courts; rape cases are not being prosecuted for three or four years; and, in particular, on any one day 25% of cases do not take place, for a variety of reasons. What is the Justice Secretary doing to speed up the whole system?
Shabana Mahmood
I agree with the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee that the backlog is far too high. He will know that, no matter what we do in terms of system efficiency and capacity, that backlog is projected to rise, because the demand coming into the system is particularly high and is itself rising. That is why I have asked Sir Brian Leveson to consider once-in-a-generation policy reform, so that we can make the legislative changes necessary to bring the backlog down. That is the change that is required, alongside system-wide efficiency and productivity.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The Secretary of State has announced two major reviews of the criminal justice system—the Leveson review and the Gauke review—and has said that, very impressively, they might report by the spring, which could be 1 March. There is a difference between reporting and taking action, so could she set out exactly when she expects the results of those two reviews to have a direct impact on case numbers?
Shabana Mahmood
The Chair of the Justice Committee is tempting me to pre-empt what the reviews will find. Those findings will, of course, dictate the pace at which change can then occur. He will be aware of the acute pressure on our prisons system, despite the emergency levers that I have had to pull—that has only bought us some time, as I have said when regularly updating the House. The sentencing review measures have to take account of our remaining problem with prison capacity. Once the review has been published, we will move quickly to decide which recommendations to take forward. On the courts package, it is likely that any measures will also require legislative reform. Again, I will seek to move at pace on that, but that rather depends on the package of measures that Sir Brian Leveson ultimately recommends.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
The courts backlog is growing by 500 cases every month, and the Ministry of Justice has not set a date for when it will come down. Victims are being forced to put their lives on hold while they wait for a trial date, yet today at the Old Bailey half of all the courtrooms sit empty. The Lady Chief Justice has said that there are 4,000 additional sitting days available that could be used now. Who is the obstacle to resolving this? Is it the Justice Secretary, who is content for rape trials to be scheduled for as far off as 2027, or is it the Chancellor, and the Justice Secretary has just had rings run around her by the Treasury?
Shabana Mahmood
What an absolutely outrageous set of remarks! The right hon. Member completely forgets that, only six months ago, his Government were in charge. The Government of which he was part all but ran our justice system into the ground. I do not recall seeing him standing up and speaking about delays for rape victims, or indeed any other kind of victim, when he was on this side of the House. I am glad he has now realised that the system ought to try to put victims first. His critique would have more force were it not for the fact that this Government, having come to office only six months ago, have increased Crown court sitting capacity by 2,500 days.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to our prison staff for the essential work that they do? We are committed to improving the retention of experienced staff, because they are vital to keeping our prisons running. The Lord Chancellor has requested advice from officials on the pension age of prison officers, and we will continue to engage with trade unions as this is considered.
Seamus Logan
I thank the Minister for his warm words and encouraging remarks. He will know that in Scotland the “68 is too late” campaign by the Prison Officers Association enjoys cross-party and Scottish Government support, but the UK Government have refused to take action on this important issue. The current retirement terms ignore the reality of the frontline role that prison officers perform in prisons on a daily basis across the UK. It is a dangerous role, and no less so than that of firefighters or the police, who enjoy very different terms. Although justice is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, the pensions of Scottish prison officers are controlled by the UK Government. So will the Minister or the Secretary of State commit the Government to reviewing the current prison officer retirement age of 68, and will he meet me to hear this case in more detail?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
As I have said, the Lord Chancellor has requested advice on this matter. We promote our strong employee total reward package as part of our recruitment. The terms and conditions of the civil service pension scheme are some of the best in the public sector, with a low employee contribution rate and a significant employer contribution rate of 28.97%. However, that does not mean it is not a right and proper question to ask, and if the hon. Member wishes to have a meeting with me, I am quite happy to meet him.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
This Government’s plan to support women is clear and ambitious: to reduce the number of women going to prison and to have fewer women’s prisons. Our Women’s Justice Board, which met for the first time last week, will support implementing this vision. I would also remind the House that, as the Minister responsible for youth justice, I have initiated a review of the placement of girls in custody, on which Susannah Hancock will report at the end of this month.
John Whitby
What family support is available for women at Foston Hall prison and young offenders institution?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
We know that family support is very important to women in custody, which is why grant funding has been awarded to the charity Parents And Children Together—PACT—to provide a resettlement family engagement worker in HMP Foston Hall, as well as in seven other women’s prisons.
Jayne Kirkham
Gaie Delap, the mother of a constituent of mine, was recalled to prison just before Christmas, despite complying with her curfew conditions, because the Government’s electronic monitoring services contractor could not fulfil its contract and find a tag to fit a frail 78-year-old woman. Can the Minister and the Secretary of State help to find a solution so that Gaie Delap can be released on her curfew, and so that women are not disadvantaged by the failings of the contractor’s electronic monitoring system?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. In this case the court’s decision was to impose a prison sentence, and neither Ministers nor officials can intervene in sentences passed down by our independent courts. I understand the frustrations and can assure the House that we are working hard to find alternative approaches to ensure a secure resolution to this issue.
Paul Davies
There are more than 3,000 women prisoners in England and Wales—a number that the Ministry of Justice projects will rise to 4,200 by November 2027. Like many, I welcome the newly established Women’s Justice Board, which will oversee efforts to tackle this issue and ensure a tailored approach to female offenders. What measures are being implemented to provide support through community sentences and residential women’s centres?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
We are awarding £7.2 million for the upcoming year to community organisations and local areas that are already supporting women in the community. We are also employing options to increase the use of residential provision as an alternative to short custodial sentences. That includes engaging with the judiciary to ensure that the option of a community order with a residential requirement is considered in appropriate cases.
Becky Gittins
I welcome the launch of the Women’s Justice Board, which is intended to reduce the number of women in our prisons, cut reoffending and better support our children. Will the Minister work with organisations from across the country, including North Wales Women’s Centre, to ensure not only that their voices are at the heart of the work going on, but that they have the resources and support needed to support the most vulnerable in our society?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I pay tribute to women’s centres across the country such as that in north Wales for the excellent contribution that their work makes. I agree that short custodial sentences can be problematic; they exacerbate women’s underlying needs without allowing time for rehabilitation, and they separate mothers from children and mean that women are more likely to reoffend. That is why the Women’s Justice Board—I am grateful to my hon. Friend for welcoming it—aims to increase the number of women supported in the community. The board will also look at how we can better support mothers with young children.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Does the Minister accept that allowing biological men into women’s prisons increases the risk to female offenders? Does he further accept that only biological women should be housed in women’s prisons?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
The vast majority of transgender prisoners are in men’s prisons. We have continued the policy of the previous Government, but all policies are always under review.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Across the UK we face the bizarre and worrying reality that common-sense protections for women are being dismissed. For example, in Northern Ireland a motion to ensure that biologically male prisoners who identify as women are held in male prisons has been opposed by many elected representatives in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and it is an issue that extends across the UK. What assurances—we do want assurances—can the Minister give that women’s safety is taken seriously, and that they are guaranteed single-sex spaces in prisons, and other settings, free from biological males who identify as women?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
Safe spaces for women are crucial and a No. 1 priority in everything we do.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
The Minister refers to keeping under review the question of placing biological men in women’s prisons. Will he speak to the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland and ensure that she reviews that policy? Only last week she was defending the very policy that puts women at risk from biological men who are claiming the right to be retained in women’s prisons.
Sir Nicholas Dakin
That is a devolved matter, though clearly we are happy to speak to the devolved Government about any issues.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
I am sure that the whole House will join me in saying that our thoughts today are with the victims of these horrific crimes and their families. Last week we saw a measure of justice done, but over a number of years there was widespread state failure that meant that this attacker was not stopped. It is right that there will be an inquiry. The Ministry of Justice will play its full part, and I will ensure that any lessons for us are learned.
Liz Twist
When the tragedy of Southport happened, crucial details about the case could not be revealed to ensure that the trial did not collapse and the vile perpetrator did not walk away as a free man. However, some on social media were playing by different rules. Does the Secretary of State think that our contempt rules are fit for the modern world?
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The Government would not say anything that would risk collapsing this trial. The media followed the law, and so did everyone in this House, but the same was not true online. As the Prime Minister has said, this challenge clearly must be addressed. The Law Commission is reviewing contempt laws. We will look closely at that work and consider these issues in the round.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
But the information released shortly before the trial did not collapse the case. Had it been released in August, it might have had a dampening effect on those unhelpful voices on social media, might it not?
Shabana Mahmood
As I said in my previous answer, it is clear that the fast pace of the online world has some significant challenges for our present arrangements around contempt laws. The Government’s approach, which was to do nothing that might risk collapsing the trial, was the right one. I hope that will have support across the House. It would have been in no one’s interests to take any risks with the safety of the trial. As I have said, the online space poses some challenges for our contempt law arrangements, and the Law Commission is rightly looking into that.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Contempt of court laws are guardrails that ensure fair trials. Does the Justice Secretary accept that, as the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has said, by failing to provide basic information to the public that has been disclosed in previous cases—information that would not prejudice a trial—the authorities created a vacuum in which misinformation spread? That misinformation could itself have been prejudicial to the trial. Does she agree that in an age when most people consume their news through social media, saying nothing is not cost-free? Will she commit to reviewing this issue now, rather than waiting for the Law Commission?
Shabana Mahmood
There will always be differing views among lawyers about what can and cannot be said. It is right that the Government took their own position and that we did nothing that could risk collapsing the trial. I agree with the shadow Secretary of State that the online world poses a significant challenge to our contempt laws. That is why that is already being looked at. As there is a piece of work already under way, I do not want to pre-empt where that could land. The Law Commission has a good track record of considering major law changes. Because of the inquiry and the fast-moving nature of these things, I will keep this area under close review myself.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
By failing to attend their sentencing hearings, criminals add insult to injury and deny victims and their families a vital part of seeing justice done. Iusb will be legislating to give judges the power to order attendance at sentencing hearings, and I will make it clear in the law that reasonable force can be used to make sure that happens. The Prime Minister and I met Cheryl Korbel last week to discuss these proposals, and we will ensure that the families of other victims are involved before the Bill is put before the House.
Anneliese Midgley
I thank the Secretary of State for that positive response, and I thank her and the Prime Minister for meeting me and my constituent Cheryl Korbel, the mother of Olivia Pratt-Korbel, the nine-year-old who was tragically murdered in 2022. Cheryl is pleased that the Government have committed to implementing Olivia’s law without delay. Can the Minister ensure that Cheryl is involved in the development of this law, placing victims and their families at the heart of the justice system?
Shabana Mahmood
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the work she is doing on behalf of her constituents. I was pleased to be able to discuss these matters with her. She is absolutely right, and it is crucial that we make progress in this area. We have committed to introducing that legislation before the summer, and I will, as I promised last week, consult Olivia’s family and the families of other victims for whom non-attendance at sentencing hearings has caused problems.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
There are a small number of people who, through due process, appear in court and are convicted, but who decline to come up to the court room for sentencing. The Secretary of State has indicated her intention to move on this. Does she agree that the Government need to show a very robust approach, so that people who show disdain and contempt for the rule of law are shown that there is no room for manoeuvre and that they must and will appear in court?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Member is right. It is already expected that defendants will attend sentencing hearings, but we know that some take the opportunity not to face the families of their victims, which causes huge trauma to some of the families. We will clarify and put on a statutory footing the expectation of attendance at sentencing hearings, along with sanctions for dealing with offenders who still, despite being compelled to attend court—even through the use of reasonable force—seek to disrupt hearings.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
The Government have inherited a situation where 10% of offenders account for 50% of all offences. We have also inherited an epidemic of shoplifting, the kind of antisocial crime that blights communities. I have commissioned David Gauke to review how sentences could be reformed to address prolific offending, reduce reoffending, cut crime and ultimately make our streets safer.
Mr Holden
I believe in second chances, and perhaps even more chances in some cases, but the excellent Policy Exchange report, “The ‘Wicked and the Redeemable’: A Long-Term Plan to Fix a Criminal Justice System in Crisis” found that hyper-prolific offenders—those with more than 45 previous convictions—are sent to prison on fewer than half of the occasions on which they are convicted of a subsequent indictable or either-way offence. Given that those people commit such high numbers of crimes, which usually affect our least affluent constituents, what consideration have the Government given to the report’s recommendations, particularly on introducing a mandatory two-year sentence for hyper-prolific offenders who are convicted of a subsequent indictable or either-way offence?
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Member raises an important point about an issue that blights communities across the country. I agree that we need a specific strategy for dealing with prolific offenders. Of course, different organisations use different definitions of what counts as a prolific offender or hyper-prolific offender, and that is why I have asked David Gauke to look specifically at this cohort of offenders in the independent sentencing review. The revolving door of prison and other types of sentences for them is clearly not having an impact. We must think about the interventions that will make the biggest difference to the largest number of those offenders, so that we can cut crime and have fewer victims.
Katie Lam
The Lord Chancellor rightly says that less than 10% of criminals account for nearly half of crime. I understand that a sentencing review is under way, but any decisions are for Ministers to make. Will the right hon. Lady please rule out here and now any possibility of allowing career criminals to avoid prison, even for short sentences?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Member will know that I am not going to pre-empt any of the findings of the sentencing review. The point of having an independent review is to allow for a look at all the issues in the round. I have made it clear that I am particularly concerned about the people who she rightly terms career criminals, and I am particularly keen to think about the interventions that could make the biggest difference, so that we can reduce this blight on our communities. That is a clear statement of intent from the Government, showing how seriously we take prolific offending, but the measures that we choose to take forward will be clearer once the sentencing review has reported.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
As the Secretary of State mentioned, the approach to managing hyper-prolific offenders is part of David Gauke’s review, which could consider, for example, the wider use of GPS tagging and home curfew, but the Department has been undertaking its own assessment of the effectiveness of GPS tagging. Will the Government commit to publishing that review before or alongside the sentencing review, so that we can properly judge the merits of any proposed expansion?
Shabana Mahmood
As I have sought to do throughout this process, I will ensure transparency in the Government’s approach when it comes to not just the emergency releases data, but other information that underpins future policy choices.
Dr Mullan
I did not quite hear a “yes”, but I will take that as an encouraging commitment that the Secretary of State will publish the GPS tagging review ahead of any sentencing review. However, I am afraid that in Ministers’ discussions of these issues, they risk losing sight of the fact that imprisonment also serves the important purpose of punishing offenders in the interests of justice. Importantly, how will the Government decide whether any of David Gauke’s proposals that they are minded to accept sufficiently punish offenders? How will that judgment be made before any recommendations are accepted?
Shabana Mahmood
I have said on many occasions in this House that I believe in punishment and in prison. Prison has a core role to play in the punishment of offenders. However, we must not run out of prison places. We must balance the need to punish and imprison people with interventions that expand the use of punishment outside prison. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says, “Build more” from a sedentary position. We are. We are moving forward to solve the 14,000 prison place deficit left by his Government at the last election. This Government will build prisons, but as he knows, we cannot build our way out of the prison capacity crisis. We must consider other measures as well, but let me be clear: we will always seek to punish offenders, and prison will always have a place. This Government will build more prison places than the previous one.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
We took immediate action to prevent the collapse of the prison system by implementing SDS40. We are building 14,000 new prison places and have published our 10-year capacity strategy. We have launched an independent sentencing review, so that we never run out of prison places again.
Luke Myer
I welcome the Government’s action to increase prison capacity, but I am worried about youth custody. My local police force is particularly concerned that there is simply not enough space in the secure custodial estate. Many vulnerable young people are at risk of being exploited by organised criminal gangs. That is less to do with young offenders institutions and more to do with the lack of capacity in secure children’s homes; that capacity has fallen since 2010. The number of Ministry of Justice contracted spaces is now around only 100 for the entire country, which is appalling. How will the Minister work with Department for Education to increase capacity, and protect vulnerable young people and our residents?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
We certainly do not wish to reduce capacity. I can confirm that we contract with local authorities’ secure children’s homes, and place children there. In 2010 we contracted for 191 beds, and currently we contract for 103. That correlates with a decrease in the number of young people in custody, mostly over the period when the Conservatives were in government. We do not currently intend to reduce overall capacity in the youth custody service estate, which comprises young offender institutions, secure training centres, secure school and SCH beds. However, we are recommissioning secure children’s home places, and cannot predetermine the outcome of that exercise, but I assure my hon. Friend that we will not run out of space.
Mark Sewards
December’s annual report on prison capacity stated that of the 88,400 prison places available, 97% are occupied, and it estimated that by 2032 we will have a prison capacity of around 99,000, but the central estimate of the number of prisoners stands at 104,100. What will this Government do to ensure that everyone who commits a crime worthy of prison is sent to prison?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I assure my hon. Friend that that will be the case. People who commit a crime worthy of prison will be sent to prison. As we have assured the House, we have plans to build 14,000 new prison places, as set out in our 10-year capacity strategy. In six months we have added 500 prison places. It took 14 years for the Conservatives to do that. We have also launched an independent sentencing review, so that we never run out of places again. Taken together, these measures will ensure that the country does not have more prisoners than we have space for in our prisons.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On building capacity, armed forces veterans concern me and many in this Chamber. They often live with post-traumatic stress disorder and have emotional memories and nightmares of what they have done in uniform for this country. What extra can be done to better look after our veterans in prison? They fight with demons every day. We have to look after them.
Sir Nicholas Dakin
The armed forces covenant affects us all. His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service ensures that veterans’ issues are properly addressed with the individuals concerned, to give them the proper support that they need.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
This Government are committed to supporting victims and survivors of violence against women and girls. These are abhorrent crimes. We are therefore funding the rape and sexual abuse support fund to the tune of £26 million, as well as funding independent domestic and sexual violence advocates. We are also strengthening the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner to improve accountability where those victims’ needs are not being met.
Anna Sabine
A constituent of mine from Somerset was seriously sexually assaulted in another county more than two years ago. Despite reporting the assault in 2022, she has been given a court date in December 2025. She told me that the legal process, involving both the courts and the relevant police service, has been more traumatising than the incident itself. What better support can we offer women who find themselves stuck in these processes for such lengths of time?
Sarah Sackman
I am terribly sorry to hear about this case. We know that such cases are not isolated, which is why this Government are bearing down on the Crown court backlog; we are increasing the number of Crown court sitting days and increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers to free up capacity in the Crown court, so that we can get swifter justice for victims. We are also investing in the victim transformation programme, through the Crown Prosecution Service, to provide precisely the kind of support that would benefit the hon. Lady’s constituent, keep her engaged in the process, and bring those trial dates forward.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
It has been revealed that just 4% of rape and sexual offences reported to Lancashire police in the past year resulted in a charge or summons. What steps will the Ministry take to restore confidence in the criminal justice system for my constituents?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend will know that this Government have a landmark ambition to halve violence against women and girls, and the criminal justice system has an important part to play in that. While setting that priority, whether it is for the CPS or our police, we want to drive charging decisions and drive up the conviction rate. Providing swifter justice for victims is going to require once-in-a-generation reform to bring down the Crown court backlog.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
In a recent written parliamentary question, I asked the Government how many domestic abusers there are in prison and what their reoffending rate is. Under the system this Government inherited from the Conservatives, they said that
“It is not possible to robustly calculate the number”.
That is shocking, and is in part because there is no specific offence of domestic abuse in the law to properly reflect and recognise these crimes. My Domestic Abuse (Aggravated Offences) Bill would correct that loophole. When will the Secretary of State honour the commitment she made on “Good Morning Britain” to meet me to discuss my Bill and how we can better protect victims and survivors?
Sarah Sackman
Tackling domestic abuse is a priority for this Government. The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 sets out a broad statutory definition of domestic abuse, which is improving our understanding of the wide range of behaviours that can constitute this abuse. While not constituting a stand-alone offence, domestic abuse is considered an aggravating factor routinely throughout our criminal justice system, and rightly so. That is the reason why that data is not collected, and that is the position we will maintain.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
The right hon. Lady is right to raise this issue. We inherited historic under-investment in maintenance and a rising prison population. That is why we have already published our 10-year prison capacity strategy and have plans to invest £220 million in prison and probation service maintenance in ’24-25, and up to £300 million in ’25-26.
Liz Saville Roberts
I rise as the co-chair of the justice unions parliamentary group. The emergency extra money to tackle the squalid state of our prisons is welcome, but given the £2 billion maintenance backlog, the reality is that the extra money will not touch the sides. This shows exactly why the privatisation of prison maintenance is a failed model. Private contractors may win contracts on low bids, but billions come in as extra cost later. Does the Minister seriously think that current prison maintenance providers offer good service and value for money to the taxpayer?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
The right hon. Lady is right. We inherited contracts that were already well progressed; for best value and to move things forward quickly, we decided it was important to keep going with that process. However, I can assure the House that we have an open mind regarding private and public sector contracts in the future. The important thing is to get best value for money and get the job done.
Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)
Katie Allan was a beautiful and bright young woman, and would have been a constituent of mine but for the fact that, aged 21, she found herself, after a youthful stupid mistake, in Polmont young offenders institution, where she died from suicide. The fatal incident inquiry recently published into her death and the death of William Brown found that they both might be alive today were it not for a catalogue of errors by the Scottish Prison Service. The families of those who have lost children in such circumstances are campaigning for Crown immunity to be removed from prisons across Britain, so that there is proper accountability and more young lives are not lost. Will the Minister meet the families to discuss that proposal?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He draws attention to a deeply disturbing case. I am very happy to meet him and the families concerned.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
The last Government gave the public plenty of reasons to lose confidence in the justice system, including a rising courts backlog and prisons on the edge of collapse. We have already averted a crisis in our prisons, and have raised Crown court capacity to a 10-year high. We are now embarking on reform of our courts and our prisons. The work of restoring confidence in the justice system has started. It will, of course, take some time.
Mr Bedford
Jason Hoganson was wrongly released under the Government’s early release scheme. Last week, he was convicted of assaulting his ex-partner just a day after he was freed under that botched scheme. Does the Secretary of State agree that this shocking case, and cases like it, continue to undermine the public’s trust and confidence in our justice system?
Shabana Mahmood
What undermines confidence in the justice system is running out of prison places, which is the inheritance the Conservative Government left for this Government. That is the mess that we are cleaning up. The hon. Gentleman will also be aware that the previous Government’s end-of-custody supervised licence scheme was also an early release scheme, but without any of the measures on accountability and transparency, or the wider set of exclusions, that that we introduced with the SDS40 scheme.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
On Friday, I met my constituent Hayley Johns. She has given me permission to share her story in this place. Hayley was a victim of domestic abuse and actual bodily harm perpetrated by an ex-partner. I was absolutely shocked to hear her story. Her ex-partner was convicted for three years for his crimes. However, he is being considered for release after serving just three months. Does the Justice Secretary agree that given the legacy of the previous Government, we need to redouble our efforts, and the efforts of this Government, to improve confidence in the criminal justice system? Can I please ask her to take a personal interest in this case?
Shabana Mahmood
I will happily look at the facts of the case. Some of those numbers do not sound like they should be possible, but that could be down to specific factors relating to that case. If my hon. Friend writes to me with the details, I will make sure he has a full response.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Confidence in the criminal justice system can be achieved only if support for victims and survivors is adequately funded, but charities such as Victim Support, whose services I have personally benefited from, have said that for them, the hike in employers’ national insurance contributions amounts to a real-terms budget cut of 7%. Victims need more support, not less. Will the Secretary of State fight to reverse that damaging cut and help restore victims’ confidence in the criminal justice system?
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the difficult fiscal inheritance for this Government, and that we have had to make some difficult choices. We received a good settlement from the Treasury at the last Budget, but it is not without its challenges, given the high demand in our system. He will know that we have protected funding for victims of violence against women and girls, including rape and sexual offences. We have sought to protect the most vulnerable victims when making decisions on our victims funding packages.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
The right hon. Member raises a very important point on these heinous gangs and the crimes that they commit. The 20 recommendations made by Alexis Jay in her independent inquiry on child sexual abuse were ignored for far too long. The Government are working at pace to respond to them. We will also legislate to make grooming an aggravating factor in the sentencing of child sexual offences, ensuring that the punishment fits these horrific crimes.
Sir John Hayes
As in Bradford last week, where more of the grooming gangsters, largely of Pakistani origin, who raped white girls there and elsewhere were sentenced, the paucity of the Home Secretary’s audit, whereby authorities mark their own homework, was made clear. Will the Justice Secretary agree to a wide-ranging review of these matters with statutory powers? Surely those whose lives have been ruined, and those whose lives may yet be ruined, deserve more than the weak reticence of people with power who refuse to face the facts.
Shabana Mahmood
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and I have a shared objective in making it clear that there is a desire in all parts of the House to ensure that we face the full facts and that the victims of these heinous crimes receive the justice they deserve. I am sorry to hear that there are concerns in Bradford about the audit ordered by the Home Secretary; I will ensure that they are passed on to the Home Secretary, because, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, these matters fall directly within the purview of the Home Department.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
The number of children in custody has fallen significantly over the last decade, but those who are detained are now a more complex and violent cohort. Our turnaround programme provides funds that enable youth offending teams to intervene early to address child offending. Only 5% of children who completed such interventions received convictions in the first year of the programme, but we are continuing to take stock of what more can be done.
Alex Ballinger
Last week, tragically, 12-year-old Leo Ross was stabbed to death in Birmingham as he was returning home from school. His 14-year-old killer had been arrested several times for violent offences in the months running up to the killing. Can the Minister tell me what the Government are doing to reform the youth justice system to address and prevent the knife crime among our young people that is resulting in terrible tragedies like the one we saw last week?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I am deeply saddened by this tragic crime, and my thoughts and, I am sure, those of everyone else go to the family of Leo Ross. Such horrific events underline just how important it is to deliver our manifesto commitment to ensure that every young person caught in possession of a knife is referred to a youth offending team and that appropriate action is taken. We are also piloting a new, more robust form of community punishment for children, involving mandatory GPS monitoring and intensive supervision.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
Applications for deputyship to the Court of Protection play a vital role when people need to be able to make decisions for loved ones who lack capacity. It is important to support those people through prompt and efficient processes. His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has been implementing an improvement plan, driving down waiting times by recruiting more staff, enhancing judicial capacity, digitising application forms, and implementing a new case management system.
Lisa Smart
One of my constituents has contacted me to ask why he has been waiting nine long months for a decision from the Court of Protection on his deputyship application. He needs to secure the deputyship in order to make crucial decisions for a vulnerable loved one. Another constituent, in a similar position, waited for two months without any acknowledgement that his application was being looked into. Their experiences are not unique; solicitors and judges alike acknowledge the systemic delays plaguing the system. Does the Minister agree that such long delays in processing times are unacceptable, and what does she think is acceptable?
Sarah Sackman
I agree with the hon. Lady that such delays are not acceptable, and I am sorry to hear of the distress that this will have caused. It is right that we continue to invest in our improvement plan and continue to see progress with digitisation. Digitising the application forms is a first step, but we want to see end-to-end digitisation, which we know is resulting in decent progress and has sped up those times over recent months. There is more to do, and we shall do it.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
As I have said, the Government are committed to halving violence against women and girls within a decade. It is an important ambition, and the criminal justice system has a vital role to play in it. In November, we launched a pilot promoting domestic abuse protection orders in selected areas, and we have ambitions to roll that out further. We will also introduce independent legal advisers for adult rape victims, ensuring that victims have the legal support that they need and deserve.
Rosie Duffield
Last week, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner found that just 5% of reported domestic abuse results in a conviction. Does the Minister share my concerns that lengthy investigations into non-crime hate incidents are potentially diverting vital resources from the criminal justice system and from prosecuting actual violence against women and girls?
Sarah Sackman
The hon. Member is right to remark on the low charging and conviction rates for domestic abuse. We have an ambition to drive those up. That is why we are putting more funding and more prioritisation into this area and calling on our agencies, whether it is the police or the Crown Prosecution Service, to really focus on it, because right now we are not doing enough for women and girls.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
The tragic reality for many women who suffer domestic abuse and then have to go through family court proceedings on top of it is that the presumption of parental contact provides another opportunity for perpetrators of domestic abuse to prolong it. The Government are rightly reviewing this. Will Ministers ensure that we make the most of this opportunity to better protect women who suffer domestic abuse through the family court system?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is right to make that point. Our family courts should never become sites of retraumatisation for victims of domestic abuse. We are reviewing the presumption, and when we are ready, we will publish the findings and our policy response to that review.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Shabana Mahmood)
This Government inherited a record and rising Crown court backlog and prisons on the point of collapse, serving as breeding grounds for crime that create better criminals, not better citizens. The work of restoring safer streets in this country will be long and hard, but we are taking immediate action. Since the last Justice orals, we have increased the number of sitting days in the Crown court by 2,000 this financial year and boosted criminal legal aid by up to £92 million a year to get cases moving through the courts more quickly. We have published a 10-year prison capacity strategy, setting out plans to build 14,000 new prison places to ensure we always have the space to lock up dangerous criminals. We launched the Women’s Justice Board, with one clear goal: to send fewer women to prison. We are doing what it takes to deliver swifter justice for victims and punishment that cuts crime.
Charlotte Cane
Ministers have talked quite a bit today about expanded powers for magistrates courts. Could the Secretary of State tell me what additional funding is being made available and what training there will be for magistrates to assist them with this expanded role?
Shabana Mahmood
The changes in relation to magistrates court sentencing powers were made by the previous Government due to prison capacity issues, and they were working well. We have restored those same powers, so I do not think those issues around training are necessarily engaged. However, we will ensure that legal advisers and the full package of measures that magistrates need to fulfil their obligations are in place.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
It is right that IPP sentences were abolished. Last week, I hosted a roundtable for MPs to discuss their concerns about IPP sentences and share the work the Department is doing. The Prisons Minister in the other place hosted a similar roundtable for peers. We are determined to make further progress towards a safe and sustainable release for those serving IPP sentences, while recognising that at all times public protection is paramount.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)
Two weeks ago, three grooming gang members were sentenced at Bradford Crown court for the most appalling rapes of children, but they received only six, seven and nine-year sentences respectively—six years, out on licence in four, for the rape of a child. Does the Secretary of State agree that those sentences are disgracefully short, and will she commit to using the sentencing review to mandate full life sentences for these evil people? If she will, she will have our support.
Shabana Mahmood
We have a shared objective in making sure that these evil individuals feel the full force of the law. I will not comment on individual sentencing decisions, and the shadow Lord Chancellor might wish to reflect on that decision; it is not appropriate to do so, given our collective commitment to the independence of the judiciary. However, as I said in response to earlier questions, we will legislate to make grooming an aggravating factor, and this Government will make sure that victims get the justice they deserve.
Robert Jenrick
I have written to the Attorney General asking him to review those sentences as potentially unduly lenient. Two of the men who were sentenced at Bradford Crown court for grooming gang offences were absent. They are thought to have absconded abroad. Can the Justice Secretary confirm how many grooming gang defendants the Government are currently pursuing overseas and what efforts are being made by the Government with, in this case, the Pakistani authorities, using every lever of the British state to locate these evil men and get justice for the victims?
Shabana Mahmood
I will happily write to the right hon. Gentleman with details on the specific case that he raises. He is right to say that we have international agreements and arrangements with other jurisdictions to ensure that offenders can be brought back to face justice in this country. I am sure that those arrangements are being applied appropriately, but I will make sure that he gets a fuller answer on the case that he has raised.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and for the campaigning work that he is doing in this area. Journalism is the lifeblood of democracy, and strategic lawsuits against public participation represent an abuse of the legal system; they are used by those with deep pockets to harass and silence journalism. Such behaviour is intolerable. My focus, and the focus of this Government, will be on the implementation of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, which introduced an early dismissal mechanism and cost protection for SLAPP defendants.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Shabana Mahmood
I agree that we need to do everything we can to remove foreign national offenders from our prisons. Between 5 July 2024 and 4 January 2025, 2,580 foreign national offenders were returned—a 23% increase on the same period in the previous year—and we are currently on track to remove more foreign national offenders this year than at any time in recent years.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
Humanist marriage has been legal in Scotland for 20 years but continues to wait to be legalised in England and Wales. The Law Commission made recommendations two years ago on clarifying the law, but when asked to set out a timetable for action, the Minister in the other place could only respond, “in the fullness of time.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 December 2024; Vol. 841, c. 910.]
Can the Minister set out the timetable or, alternatively, say when the Government will make an order to end the long wait for humanist marriage?
Sarah Sackman
I understand that humanists have been campaigning for legally binding humanist weddings. The Government are committed to strengthening the rights and protections available, particularly for women in cohabiting couples. We will look at the Law Commission’s work and publish our response in due course.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Sarah Sackman
May I express how sorry I am to hear of the case of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent? I am happy to write to him—he asks quite a specific question—but it is important that we provide support to all sorts of victims. That is why we have the victims code, which strengthens the power of the Victims’ Commissioner, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman on that specific matter.
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
Last week, the Court of Appeal overturned a first-instance decision regarding the anonymity of a judge who presided over the tragic Sara Sharif case in the family courts. I do not expect the Minister to comment on individual cases, and it is certainly not about that individual judge, but will the Government use this opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to open justice and press freedom?
Sarah Sackman
As my hon. Friend rightly says, I cannot comment on that specific case, but we adhere to the principle of open justice and transparency in our legal system. That is why we have the publication of sentencing remarks and transcripts, and the broadcasting of many of our hearings, so that the public can see exactly how justice in this country is administered.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Lady should know there are robust processes in place in government to manage conflict of interest, which were in place under the previous Administration as well, but this is not something that any Government Minister will be giving a running commentary on.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
We have just witnessed the chair of the Criminal Cases Review Commission being prised out of her job, six months after the Secretary of State described her as
“unable to fulfil her duties”.
When will a new chair be appointed, and will this be accompanied by a wider review of the CCRC, to restore confidence in that damaged organisation?
Sarah Sackman
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we need to restore confidence in the CCRC. That is why we are taking the decision not only to appoint an interim chair to steady the ship but, more importantly, to implement the recommendations of the Henley review so that we can restore confidence in this important institution, particularly in the light of the appalling miscarriage of justice in the case of Andrew Malkinson.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Shabana Mahmood
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We believe that much more can be achieved through the increased use of AI and other digital technology to speed up some of the paper processes that create delays across the criminal justice system. As chair of the Criminal Justice Board, I have asked for a cross-system criminal justice response on this and I will update the House in due course.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
No doubt we all agree that preventable deaths should be prevented, and tragedies like Hillsborough and Grenfell must not be repeated because we fail to make changes, so what consideration has the Secretary of State given to creating a national oversight mechanism to ensure that lessons are learned from every state-related death?
Shabana Mahmood
The Government will shortly be publishing the Bill that campaigners refer to as the Hillsborough law, which will reflect issues relating to the duty of candour, which this Government are committed to, and I know that campaigners are making representations to the Home Office on the national oversight mechanism that it is currently considering.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
Can the Secretary of State explain to the House in what circumstances the police and the Crown Prosecution Service are allowed to deny access to evidence, after a trial has concluded, to a defence lawyer who is seeking to appeal, as has happened in the Lucy Letby case and, I believe, in others?
Shabana Mahmood
The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, as Justice Secretary, I am not able to interfere in any independent decisions made by the police or the Crown Prosecution Service, but he has made his point and I will ensure that it is dealt with by the appropriate individuals—either the Home Secretary or the head of the CPS.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
There are serious questions about the transparency of the police, the CPS and the Government in the days and weeks following the Southport attack. In written answers to me, the Government have refused to provide the dates when the Prime Minister was told that Rudakubana possessed ricin and an al-Qaeda training manual. Can the Justice Secretary tell me why?
Shabana Mahmood
The Prime Minister has responded to the other questions that have been raised. The appropriate information was made available at the appropriate time to either the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary. It was right that the Government did not give any commentary that could have collapsed the trial. On the specific charge relating to ricin, that decision required Law Officer approval, which was sought and immediately given.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I know that the Justice Secretary is aware of the tragic case of my constituent Sara Sharif. Will she consider reforming family courts and ending the presumption in favour of parental contact despite the fact that there were safeguarding concerns?
Sarah Sackman
That case of that little girl, Sara Sharif, is one of the most tragic of recent times, and I know that that view is shared right across the House. That is why a safeguarding review is under way to look at all the agencies that were involved and should have been protecting that little girl from those who ended up killing her. We are looking at the presumption: there is a review, and we will consider the findings of that review and publish our response in due course.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
My constituent, who is a British citizen and the mother of two young children, faces the prospect of being forced to return to Poland to accompany those children under the Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction, having fled escalating domestic abuse. If she does, her inability to speak the language or work will leave her entirely dependent on her abuser, even though he is barred from contacting her. Will the Minister work with me to ensure that domestic abuse is explicitly recognised as a valid defence against return orders of this type?
Sarah Sackman
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and I invite her to write to me about that specific case, which sounds like it throws up a very difficult set of factual circumstances that I would like the opportunity to consider.
Extremism Review
(2 days, 10 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
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the Government’s extremism review reported on today.
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
In our manifesto, the Government set out our commitment to redoubling efforts to counter extremism, including online, to stop people being radicalised and drawn towards hateful ideologies. A number of strands of activity have been established to progress this work, which, among other things, have led to the appointment of an interim Prevent commissioner, Lord Anderson, to drive improvements. We have published plans to introduce youth diversion orders to tackle young people at risk of terrorism.
Many documents produced across Government as part of commissioned work are not implemented and do not constitute Government policy. This work did not recommend an expansion in the definition of extremism, and there are not and have never been any plans to do so. To be clear, the leaked documents were not current or new Government policy.
As we have said repeatedly, Islamist extremism followed by far-right extremism are the biggest threats we face. Last week, the Home Secretary set out our plans to carry out an end-to-end review of Prevent thresholds on Islamist extremism, because we are concerned that the number of referrals is too low. Ideology, particularly Islamist extremism followed by far-right extremism, continues to be at the heart of our approach to countering extremism and terrorism.
But, as the horrific Southport attack shows, we also need more action on those drawn towards mixed ideologies and violence-obsessed young people. As the Home Secretary set out in the House last week, there has been a troubling rise in the number of cases involving teenagers drawn into extremism, including Islamist extremism, far-right extremism, mixed and confused ideologies, and obsession with violence. This includes a threefold increase in under-18s investigated for involvement in terrorism. Some 162 people were referred to Prevent last year for concerns relating to school massacres. Our Five Eyes counter-terror partners have also warned about the growing radicalisation of teenagers and young people.
We will continue to drive work to counter the most significant extremist threats in the weeks and months ahead, as the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have already set out.
Chris Philp
Yesterday evening, Policy Exchange put into the public domain the Home Secretary’s review into extremism, or at least a version of it. It contained some deeply concerning proposals that I would like the Minister to directly address.
The report apparently says that the definition of extremism, for the purposes of Prevent and other programmes, could be extended to include the spreading of misinformation, the so-called online “manosphere” and misogyny. First, does the Minister agree with Prevent reviewer William Shawcross that we need to focus the attention of Prevent and counter-terrorism policing on those with extremist ideologies and not risk diluting attention with these much wider issues? Ninety-four per cent of terrorism-caused deaths since 1999 were caused by Islamist terrorism. Does the Minister agree that combating Islamist terrorism is more important than policing the manosphere? The wider issues referenced, such as violence against women and girls and more general violence obsession, are, of course, serious. However, they are best dealt with by the police, the criminal justice system, social services or mental health services, which have the power to section people that pose a risk.
Secondly, will the Minister commit to retaining the changes to non-crime hate incidents made by the last Government? Police should not be looking into matters or recording personal data where there is no imminent risk of criminality. To do so would waste police time and infringe freedom of speech. Any move away from that will enable the thought police to stop anyone telling uncomfortable truths that left-wing lawyers do not like.
Finally, the report the Home Secretary commissioned repeats the Prime Minister’s previous smear that campaigning against rape gangs, which we now know consist of Pakistani-heritage perpetrators, is far-right. The report also says that commenting on elements of policing policy is extremist and far-right. That is nonsense. Campaigning against rape gangs is not extremist or far right, and commenting on policing, whether we agree or not with the comments, is simply the exercise of free speech. Will the Minister categorically disown those remarks, which were contained in the Home Secretary’s report?
Dan Jarvis
Let me gently remind the shadow Home Secretary that his remarks refer to a leaked report, which, I could not have been clearer, does not and will not represent Government policy. The work, as I understand it—because it is not entirely clear which version of the report was leaked—did not recommend an expansion in the definition of extremism, and as I said to the House earlier, there are not nor will there be any plans to do so.
The shadow Home Secretary mentioned William Shawcross. Again, I will gently remind him that this Government have implemented all but one of the recommendations in the Shawcross review. He also asked about non-hate crime incidents. Again, the Home Secretary has been very clear about that: a consistent and common-sense approach must be taken with regard to non-hate crime incidents. The Government have, again, also been crystal clear that our top priority for policing is to deliver on the safer streets mission, rebuild neighbourhood policing, restore public confidence and make progress on the ambition to halve knife crime and violence against women and girls.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I must be careful here, Mr Speaker, because I think you were right to allow this urgent question. However, can my hon. Friend the Minister explain just exactly why we are here? It seems to be—
Mr Speaker
I think I can answer that: it is because I have decided. We do not need to pursue it any further.
Clive Efford
The shadow Home Secretary seems to have come here to ask questions about a document that is not Government policy and to stand there making indignant statements about issues that are not Government policy either. Does my hon. Friend not think that we should be taking a much more level-headed approach to this issue than that which has been displayed by the Conservative party?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations, which I entirely agree with. This Government and Ministers are always happy to come to this place to discuss and debate Government policy. The leaked report is not Government policy.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
There is no place for extremism or hatred of any form in our society. It is right that the Government work with communities to stamp that out, not least after the previous Conservative Government seemed to seek out opportunities to sow more and more seeds of division.
From what we have heard about the extremism review report, it does not bring the right answers forward and risks being counterproductive.
Now it is up to the Government to develop a counter-extremism strategy that is strong, effective and alive to the modern challenges facing our society. That includes addressing an increasingly complex online world and its role in inciting extremism. I would welcome more details from the Minister on how the Government will do this. To be effective, the work must also properly engage communities. Will the Minister set out how communities will be consulted on any upcoming counter-extremism strategies?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member for her entirely sensible and reasonable questions. She is absolutely right to say that there is no place for extremism in our society. This Government will work across party, across Government, and use all available levers to ensure that we have the right resources in the right place to tackle what is an increasingly challenging threat. She is right that an important element of that is the work that we need to do and are doing with regard to the online space. She will be aware that the Online Safety Act 2023 will come into force soon, and we have consistently said that we will look very closely at how effective that will be, and that where we need to make changes we will of course do so. As she can imagine, the conversations continue with the social media companies. We expect them to do the right thing, and where there is illegal content online, to remove it at pace.
The hon. Member is also right to stress the importance of working with communities. That is why counter-extremism work is done properly across Government, with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government as a key partner.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his unambiguous statement. I had a feeling that he was going to say something along those lines, because I read a similar unambiguous statement from the Home Office in this morning’s newspapers. Therefore, I do not understand how the shadow Home Secretary has struggled to follow the Government’s position. Does the Minister agree that the correct way to deal with extremism is to focus on what drives it? As we heard in the House last week in relation to the Southport attack, weaponry, including knives, has a devastating effect across the country. What steps is the Home Office taking to restrict access to knives and weaponry for those with extreme views?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend raises an important matter. Over the weekend, the Home Secretary announced stricter age verification checks and a ban on doorstep drops to protect people from knife crime. These measures are set to be included in the Crime and Policing Bill, which is expected to be introduced to Parliament by the spring. Under these new rules, a two-step system will be mandated for all retailers selling knives online, requiring customers to submit photo ID at the point of sale and again on delivery. Delivery companies will only be able to deliver a bladed article to the person who purchased it, and it will also be illegal to leave a package containing a bladed weapon on a doorstep when no one is in to receive it.
Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
In the early years of Margaret Thatcher’s Government, Lord Scarman was commissioned to write a report on what were—they did not use this phrase at the time—concerns among the black community about two-tier policing. In response to those concerns, the police listened, changed their procedures, and engaged in consultative work with those communities, so why is it that when communities complain about two-tier policing under this Government, they are branded far-right extremists?
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman will have worked throughout his time with our police forces—not just as former Home Secretary, in that great office of state, but elsewhere—and I very much hope that he shares the admiration and respect—
Dan Jarvis
I am answering the question. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman shares the admiration and respect that we on these Benches have for the incredibly difficult and challenging work that the police do. I have to say that those who seek to progress a narrative of two-tier policing do no favours to our police forces. All they seek to do is make it more difficult for those extraordinary men and women who step forward to serve in our police force to do a very important job.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
In all the commentary overnight on this leaked advice, I was struck by one comment from the shadow Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), that was reported on GB News. He said:
“Of course violence against women and girls and some of the other issues raised in this report… warrant attention by the police”
—“warrant attention”? Is it any wonder that sexual violence was allowed to become endemic under the previous Government and that the best a previous Home Office Minister could say is that it warrants attention?
Dan Jarvis
The shadow Justice Secretary was a Home Office Minister for a considerable period of time. It might be worthwhile if he reflects on the record of his Government while he was a Minister.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
So this report that has just been leaked was commissioned by the Home Secretary after the Southport horrors last July. The truth is that it has come out and all the recommendations have basically been immediately written off by the Home Secretary. Does that not confirm that the people in her Department are completely out of touch with her wishes and those of the British people?
Dan Jarvis
Not at all. The hon. Member is simply not correct. This work was being progressed before the dreadful incident in Southport. I am sure, and I certainly hope, that he will appreciate that Secretaries of State will routinely commission advice from civil servants. Some of the recommendations of that advice will be accepted and agreed; some will not, but it is routine practice in government to ask civil servants to look very closely at particular issues. Ultimately, it is for Ministers to decide, and Ministers will decide.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
As interesting as it sounds, I have no idea what a “manosphere” is. As far as I am concerned, the only real question that the Security Minister needs to answer is what action the Government are taking to ensure this kind of disgraceful, politically motivated leak to a former Tory adviser cannot happen again, especially on issues of national security. We proudly have an impartial civil service, so will he ask the Cabinet Secretary to order an immediate leak inquiry and put on gardening leave those Tory advisers and civil servants who are still working in Downing Street and those who are regarded as close associates of Andrew Gilligan?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his helpful point. It is standard procedure in circumstances such as these that the Cabinet Secretary orders a leak inquiry, and that would be the right way to proceed under these circumstances.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
In Keighley, we have seen how labelling legitimate concerns around grooming gangs as far-right has distorted conversations, silenced victims and inadvertently given space to bad faith actors. It is therefore incredibly concerning to see this report written by Home Office officials using similar language, calling grooming gangs an “alleged” problem and once again framing this issue through the lens of the far right rather than the eyes of victims. Does the Minister agree with the language used in the report around grooming gangs? If not, how can he, or the Home Secretary, have faith in the Home Office officials?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Member has been consistent in raising his concerns in this particular area. I hope he will understand that I was clear earlier that many documents are produced across Government as part of commission work that are not implemented and that do not constitute Government policy. To be absolutely clear with him, this is a leaked document, but the work did not recommend an expansion in the extremism definition. These are not Government plans; this is not Government policy.
Mike Tapp (Dover and Deal) (Lab)
If the Conservatives now consider it okay for public servants to leak documents relating to national security, I hope they will not object if we see leaks on matters relating to their time in charge, such as the risks arising from Russian donors to the Tory party and to our great country—whatever happened to British values? Does the Security Minister agree—
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Shelbrooke, your voice has continued even though I don’t see as much of you these days.
Dan Jarvis
All leaks are wrong, but let me take this opportunity to say that I am actually very proud of the civil servants in the Home Office, who work extremely hard day in, day out to keep our country safe from a diverse range of threats. A number of Conservative Members here have worked in the Home Office, and I very much hope that they share my view that we should be extremely grateful to those civil servants who work around the clock to keep our country safe, and I am grateful for their efforts.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The horrendous events in Southport show that people who do not fit the profile of Islamist or far-right extremism can still present serious risk. Does the Minister agree that there is a real danger in the promotion of misogyny and opposition to feminism online and that to combat the scourge of violence against women and girls, which sees one woman murdered almost every three days in the UK, the Government must take misogyny seriously as a form of extremism?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She makes an incredibly important point, and hopefully she will know and understand how seriously this Government take those issues. We made an ambitious manifesto commitment to halve violence against women and girls over 10 years. That is something that, as Ministers in the Home Office with the Home Secretary and the Safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), we are working at pace to address. We take these matters very seriously, and she is absolutely right to identify the particular challenges that exist online. The Safeguarding Minister will have more to say about this in due course.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Security Minister for his words today. He has successfully exposed the reports about the leak as the nonsense they are. But there are serious issues here, including around how we respond to the rising level of youth violence and extremism and the increasing availability of online material that fuels that obsession with violence and death. Will he tell us how the intelligence services are approaching this challenge and what more the Government can do to stop young people disappearing into this dangerous abyss?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend raises an important point, and the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have both recently referred to this, including during their statements on 21 February. She is right that there has been a troubling rise in the number of cases involving youth men, boys and teenagers who are being drawn into extremism. As I said to the House earlier, that includes a range of different areas, including Islamist and far-right extremism, but also there is a particularly concerning rise in those drawn into what is referred to as mixed and confused ideology, and those young men and boys who have an obsession with violence. This threat is not unique to the United Kingdom; it is being experienced internationally, but I assure her that the intelligence services and our law enforcement partners are working with Government at pace, along with our international partners, to look at what more we can do in this particular area.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I first echo the Minister’s point that we should be grateful to those civil servants who are working night and day to protect us from terrorist threats? I suppose we should also be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for denouncing the document, which certainly emanated from his Department, without making any personal criticism of those civil servants. But does that document not demonstrate that a large body of opinion has completely lost its way on how we deal with extremism and terrorist threats? I urge him to encourage the Department to return to what Prevent is intended to achieve and not get distracted by all this political correctness, given that most of the country have no idea what a “non-hate crime incident” is. We need to return to proper language that people understand, or the Government themselves will be driving people’s disillusion and despair about these matters.
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as always, for his observations, and for his point about civil servants. He talks about political correctness; having served together in the House over many years, I hope he knows the Home Secretary and me well. Fundamentally, this must be about the threat. We will leave no stone unturned to ensure that we have the appropriate level of resource in the right place at the right time, so that the ever-evolving and complex nature of the threat we face—both in the United Kingdom and abroad—is appropriately addressed by our law enforcement agencies. I give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance that we will continue to work around the clock to ensure that we protect the public.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
I thank the Security Minister for clarifying the timeline of when this report was commissioned. We should remember that since it was commissioned, we have seen the brutal, sadistic murders in Southport and the riots that came after them. Clearly, we are living in a time of rising and worrying extremism, which should concern Members on all sides of this House. Does the Security Minister therefore agree that Members on all sides of this House should be working together to deal with extremism, rather than playing political games?
Dan Jarvis
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I hope the House knows that it is always my default setting—if you want to put it that way—to try to work collaboratively with Members across this House. I give my hon. Friend and the House an absolute assurance of the seriousness with which we take these matters. I think Members will understand that it is right to commission civil servants to look very carefully at the profound nature of the threat that we face, and to bring forward policy suggestions and solutions for how we as a Government are best placed to address them. That is what is happening, but this Government will always do the right thing to ensure that we protect the public.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
We have to tread very carefully when we enter into this territory. The leaking of this report has already raised alarm bells with a number of different groups, and has given the right another opportunity to spread division and further disinformation. What reassurances can the Minister give campaign groups, environmentalists and those who have taken up campaigns that they will not be included when he finally brings forward his plans in the future?
Dan Jarvis
I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that this Government will always approach these matters in a level-headed and consensual way. It is the case that previous Governments sought to use these issues as a political football.
Dan Jarvis
It is the case that previous Governments were, on occasion, motivated as much by a desire to score political points. That will never be the approach of this Government. We are motivated only by a desire to protect the public.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I echo the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray). Just this weekend in my own constituency, we had an incident in our community with young people and knives. Although I cannot comment on that particular incident, I am extremely concerned about the availability of knives, particularly to our young people. Does the Minister agree that the sale of knives is too easy, particularly online, and can he tell me and my constituents what the Government are doing to restrict that availability and the fear it spreads in our communities?
Dan Jarvis
The Government share my hon. Friend’s concern about the availability of knives online. That is why—as I said to another hon. Member a moment ago—just this weekend, the Home Secretary announced stricter age verification checks and a ban on doorstep drops, in order to better protect people from knife crime. We will do everything that we possibly can, working with online retailers and the police, to ensure that the availability of knives is very significantly reduced in order to protect the public.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The repudiation of the contents of this report is a step back from thought crime, but the danger remains of two steps towards it. Is it not outrageous when individuals are harassed by the police when they have not broken the law?
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman is right in the sense that, of course, the police should and will be guided by the law. As an experienced Member, I am sure he will have worked very closely with the police over many years. My experience of working closely with the police is that they make the right judgments for the right reasons, but where there are issues that require further attention, the Government will of course look at those matters.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
It seems that advice to Ministers on national security issues has been leaked to a former Tory special adviser, and as a result of that leak the Security Minister has been summoned to the Chamber to answer questions, even though the leak does not represent Government policy and the Minister has made it clear that the advice has been rejected. Does he agree that this sets a dangerous precedent and may encourage more disgruntled individuals to commit politically motivated leaks, and that it shows that His Majesty’s official Opposition are sadly sinking into the mire of populism, which can only undermine our national security and, indeed, our democracy in the future?
Dan Jarvis
As I hope I have made crystal clear, I am always happy to come to this House to debate and discuss matters relating to national security. I will do that whenever the House wishes me to do so, but on this particular occasion—as I think I have also been crystal clear about—this leak is about something that does not represent Government policy.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
There is no place for extremism in our society or country, from anyone. Prevent unfairly associates certain ethnic minorities and religious groups with extremism, and the programme’s vague definition of extremism has led to inconsistent implementation, with concerns about overreach. What steps are the Government taking to address the discrimination and failings in the Prevent programme and make it impartial and effective, to prevent extremism and violence across all of society?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Member is right to say that there is no place for extremism in this country—of course that is the case—but I do not agree with his characterisation of the Prevent programme. That programme consists of some extremely dedicated and hard-working public servants, but the hon. Member will know that the Home Secretary has announced the appointment of an interim Prevent commissioner, Lord Anderson. He will be looking very closely at how the Prevent programme works and how it can be made to work more effectively in the future.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
When tackling extremism—whether violent or non-violent—is the Security Minister satisfied that the current division of labour between counter-terrorism policing and the security service is understood well enough by those two organisations, and is delivering and working well?
Dan Jarvis
I am always very grateful to the right hon. Member—he speaks with real experience and authority on these matters, and he raises an important and reasonable question. Yes, I am happy to give him that assurance; I work incredibly closely with both counter-terrorism police and operational partners on a daily basis. Of course, we look at these things very closely and keep them under review, and if we think that we need to change the balance in any particular area, we will not hesitate to do so.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
If the Security Minister thinks that there is not two-tier policing in this country, then quite frankly, he needs to get out more. This report states that anybody who calls out two-tier policing is a far-right extremist and that grooming and rape gangs are an “alleged” problem. Does the Minister agree?
Dan Jarvis
The point I was seeking to make earlier, which I am happy to reiterate to the hon. Member, is about the importance that we on the Labour Benches attach to supporting the police. We think that the police do an incredibly difficult job, and while the hon. Member might think that I need to get out a bit more, perhaps he might consider spending a bit of time with police officers on the beat in his constituency and in his area. If he were to do so, I am quite confident that he would see that they are exceptional people doing difficult work under difficult circumstances. There is a real risk that seeking to progress this narrative undermines the important work of the police.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
It is good to see the Minister at the Dispatch Box to distance himself from the conclusions of a report commissioned by his Department, but reports do not leak themselves. Why does he think that whoever leaked this does not agree with him that there is “Nothing to see here”?
Dan Jarvis
Ultimately, that is a matter for the leaker, but as I have said, it is standard procedure in circumstances such as this for the Cabinet Office to initiate a leak inquiry. I think that would be the right course of action under these circumstances, so if I were the leaker, I would not be too comfortable at the moment.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
In drawing up a policy, the Minister needs to consult with representatives of all communities, particularly those suffering the worst attacks by the far right in Britain, so can he assure us that he will be meeting the Muslim Council of Britain and other Muslim organisations, and that the policy of non-co-operation with the MCB has been brought to an end, despite statements by his office that there was no plan to do so?
Dan Jarvis
The right hon. Gentleman is right that the Government have a responsibility to consult with all communities. Of course, that work is shared across Government, which is why we work very closely with other Departments, not least the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which is progressing its own bits of work on all this. On his specific point about liaison, there is not a change to the Government policy with regard to that.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Can the Minister explain why the review appears to focus on the symptoms of extremism rather than its underlying root causes? Can he assure the House that that mindset is not directing policy in the Home Office?
Dan Jarvis
I can assure the hon. Member that the mindset that directs policy in the Home Office is what the Home Secretary and I think is in our national interest. The Home Secretary and I will use every tool and every lever at our disposal to ensure we keep the public safe. That is what we get out of bed every morning to do, and that is what we will continue to do.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I trust the Minister will agree that terrorism in all its forms is always deserving only of punishment and repudiation, never of glorification, particularly by political leaders. Does he therefore agree that it is beyond reprehensible that the First Minister of Northern Ireland, Michelle O’Neill, continues to attend IRA celebrations of the actions of IRA terrorists? Just before Christmas, she laid a wreath and spoke at the commemoration for three IRA terrorists who blew themselves up with their own bomb. What message does that send on extremism to future generations?
Dan Jarvis
I hope the hon. and learned Member will understand that I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to delve into matters in Northern Ireland in the context of this response. But his remarks at the beginning of his question about there never being an excuse or justification for terrorism are a point of consensus around which we can all unite.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The Security Minister recently told me that it remains Government policy not to engage with the Muslim Council of Britain. Last week, the Minister for Social Security and Disability attended the MCB annual leadership dinner. Did that Minister breach Government policy, or is engagement with the MCB now tolerated after all?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Member asked me a question previously at Home Office orals, specifically in the context of engagement by the Home Secretary and her Ministers.
Dan Jarvis
The shadow Home Secretary is chuntering from a sedentary position, but I was literally shown the Hansard transcript before this urgent question. [Interruption.] If he will allow me, I will respond to the question.
The hon. Member asked me previously about engagement with the Home Secretary and Home Office Ministers. I clearly cannot account from the Dispatch Box for other Ministers’ activities. However, I am happy to look at the circumstances he has raised. I am happy to confirm to him that Government policy has not changed, and if there are specific points I need to come back to him on, I am very happy to do so.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Extreme misogyny associated with far-right ideology is a major factor in extremism. It should be dealt with, to counteract the one women killed every three days in this country, and to ensure that the horrendous Southport killings, the five killings by Jake Davison in Plymouth and the 51 massacred in Christchurch, New Zealand do not happen again. No one wants violence—ideological or political. Does the Minister agree that our obsession with focusing solely on Islamism has left repeated Governments blindsided to real threats facing us from elsewhere?
Dan Jarvis
The hon. Member is right to say that extreme misogyny is, frankly, a disgusting blight on our country. That is why this Government made a manifesto commitment to halve the levels of violence against women and girls. It is an ambitious commitment that has not been made previously. As I told the House earlier, the Home Secretary and the Safeguarding Minister are working at pace to seek to address these issues. It is a big priority for the Government, and we intend to make good on the commitments we have made.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers and, in particular, welcome his commitment to supporting the police, which he has mentioned a few times. I have great concerns that the revival of non-crime hate incidents will mean more work for our overstretched police forces, and that it will mean getting involved in a war on offensive words, rather than the war on drugs, the war on terrorism or the war on violence against women and children. Will the revival of non-crime hate incidents come with a substantial increase in police funding, and if so, where will that come from?
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member, as ever, and I am very grateful for the support that he has provided to the police over many years. Let me seek to reassure him, because the Home Secretary has been clear that a consistent and common-sense approach must be taken to non-crime hate incidents. The Government have been crystal clear that our top priority for policing is delivering on our safer streets mission.
Airport Expansion
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if she will make a statement on Government policy on airport expansion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
I know that the hon. Member feels passionately about the issue of airport expansion, but I would like to make it clear that the press stories that have generated this urgent question are speculative and I cannot comment on their contents—[Interruption.] But we do have a world-class aviation sector in the UK. The Government are committed to securing the long-term future of the aviation sector, and we recognise the benefits of the connectivity it creates between the UK and the rest of the world. It is a sector that I am incredibly proud of. In 2022 the air transport and aerospace sectors directly provided around 240,000 jobs in the UK, of which just under 1,000 were in aerospace. In 2023 the air transport and aerospace sectors directly contributed around £25 billion to gross domestic product, of which around £14 billion was from the air transport sector and around £11 billion was from aerospace.
We have been clear that any airport expansion proposals would need to demonstrate that they contribute to economic growth, are compatible with the UK’s legally binding climate change commitments, and meet strict environmental standards on airport quality and noise pollution. There is currently no live development consent order application for a third runway at Heathrow airport, and it is for a scheme promoter to decide how it takes forward any development consent order application for that runway. The Government would carefully consider any development consent order application for the third runway at Heathrow, in line with relevant planning processes. The Secretary of State is currently considering advice on Luton airport and Gatwick airport expansions. As these are live applications, I cannot comment on them further today.
I understand the concerns of many Members of the House about how airport expansion may be compatible with our climate change targets. I would like to assure them that the Government have committed to delivering greener transport through sustainable aviation fuel and airspace modernisation. This will help meet the UK’s net zero targets, and it supports the Government’s mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower. Airport expansion will need to be considered carefully alongside these commitments.
Siân Berry
I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and I thank the Minister for his response. It is vital that Parliament is not sidelined when the Government form new policies, especially policies that could wreck our climate ambitions.
Does the Minister understand that expanding London’s airports and building a third runway at Heathrow would be vastly irresponsible in the midst of approaching climate breakdown, and would literally be flying in the face of the Climate Change Committee’s advice? How can Ministers even be considering that, when 2024 was the year that we went over 1.5° warming—the limit that we committed to not breaking in the Paris climate agreement? How can Ministers see catastrophic wildfires in California, deadly floods in Spain last year, and devastating floods this year in the UK, and still pursue a wrong policy?
Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero told the Environmental Audit Committee that
“any aviation expansion must be justified within carbon budgets”.
Can the Minister explain why we are hearing trailed announcements of multiple airport expansions, exactly in the month before new advice from the Climate Change Committee is delivered? The committee could not have been clearer in previous reports that without a framework to manage aviation demand, we should not expand airports. Has he seen research from the New Economics Foundation estimating that approving airport expansion plans for Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton airports alone will serve to cancel out the carbon savings of the Government’s clean power action plan?
The Government’s arguments that I have seen appear to rest on the idea that there are new technologies ready to go that will cut carbon emissions and allow large airport expansions. In reality, does the Minister accept that such innovations, many of which are still not ready for commercial use, cannot be relied upon? Will he act in line with the science and our climate commitments, do the responsible thing and rule out a reckless airport expansion policy?
Mike Kane
There is always a trade-off to be had, if applications come forward, between noise, carbon and growing our economy. We recognise that Heathrow has operated at over 95% capacity for most of the past two decades, which has presented limited opportunities for growth in route networks and passenger numbers. We live in an interconnected world, where people want to visit their family members and do business across our planet. This Government have moved faster in the first six months than the previous Government did in 14 years, by introducing the sustainable aviation fuel mandate, so that 2% of all fuel sourced from 1 January this year must come from a renewable source. Where was the hon. Member when we introduced that in this House? It is one of the most forward-thinking, sustainable measures that we have brought to this place. In the next few months, as part of His Majesty’s legislative agenda, we will be introducing the revenue certainty mechanism to create a world-class SAF industry here in the UK. I hope to see the hon. Member supporting the Government from the opposition Benches as we clean up our transport sector, our aviation sector and our economy as a whole.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
A third runway at Heathrow has significant implications for UK-wide growth, for our carbon commitments, and for the 600,000 people who will live in the new 54 dB corridor of significant noise pollution, as well as air pollution. Does the Minister agree that such an announcement should be made in the context of a national aviation strategy? If he does, when will we see it?
Mike Kane
I thank the Chair of the Transport Committee for her question. The airports national planning framework under the last Government has not been updated for some time, and we will shortly bring forward proposals to do that as part of our package. While there is currently no development consent application for Heathrow, we have been clear that expansion proposals would need to demonstrate that they contribute to economic growth, are compatible with our climate change targets, and meet strict environmental standards for air quality and noise pollution—the four tests.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
In recent days we have heard that the Chancellor is about to announce her support for airport expansion at Luton, Gatwick and Heathrow. His Majesty’s Opposition are supportive of airport expansion because we recognise the huge economic benefits that would bring. For Luton and Gatwick, as the Minister has said, planning processes are well under way, but the situation at Heathrow is rather different.
A completed third runway at Heathrow would undoubtedly bring economic benefits, which we would support, but delivering that will not be straightforward because there are major logistical barriers to its construction. Those include, but are not limited to: hundreds of thousands of additional people being brought on to Heathrow’s flightpath; the potential for significant disruption to the M25 and M4, which could harm the economy for years to come; the fact that a large incinerator is in the way and would have to be demolished; and the need to address local concerns about noise and air pollution. The uncertainties do not end there, because to date Heathrow has not applied for a development consent order, and neither has it confirmed that it intends to do so.
That all leaves the Minister with many questions to answer. What assessment has he made of the impact of building a third runway on the M25 and M4, which are two of the busiest motorways in Europe? How certain is he that any proposed plan will have the support of affected communities? What is the estimated cost, and who will pay not just for the runway construction, but for the massive additional work that will need to be done, including, among other things, rerouting motorways, demolishing the incinerator and rebuilding it elsewhere? Perhaps most importantly, what assurances can he provide that there will be an application for a development consent order?
I sincerely hope that the Minister can answer those questions, because if he cannot it will be clear that this is not a serious policy, but rather a panicked and rushed attempt by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to distract attention from the state of the economy, which is currently withering under this floundering Labour Government.
Mike Kane
Well, the brass neck! The last Government crashed the economy, sending mortgages through the roof, and called an early election to avoid having to make difficult decisions. Transport policy should be enabling growth as a priority in this country, so that we can bring about the change that the British people voted for. For 14 years we had a Government who had become so sclerotic in aviation, and indeed maritime—that is also part of my brief—that no decisions were brought forward on decarbonising the maritime or aviation sectors, or making the difficult decisions that this country needs to make. As the hon. Member rightly says, there is currently no development consent order before us, and that is for Heathrow or a related party to bring forward.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
For me and for you, Mr Speaker, there is more than an element of déjà-vu in this debate. The Minister has said that what we have heard is speculative, but the Chancellor’s statements seem to be more authoritative than that. Has the Department provided the Chancellor with an assessment of where the 8,000 to 10,000 people in my constituency who will have their homes demolished or rendered unliveable will live if Heathrow expansion goes ahead? Has the Minister mapped for the Chancellor the flightpaths of the additional quarter of a million planes flying over the homes of people in those marginal seats of Uxbridge, Watford, Harrow and elsewhere? Has he advised the Chancellor on some of the figures that are being bandied about regarding the economic benefits, which seem to derive from Airports Commission figures that are out of date and that his own Department rubbished very thoroughly in recent years?
Mike Kane
My right hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner for his constituents, but there is no DCO at the moment and we do not know the impact—that will be a matter for Heathrow or a third party to bring forward. I would like to hear a more full-throated support for our airspace modernisation plan, which will improve resilience, capacity and flexibility when it comes to aircraft noise over affected communities. When it comes to growth, my constituency, as you well know, Mr Speaker, has seen £2 billion of the Manchester MIX scheme at Manchester airport, with the development of the Hut Group and the most advanced Amazon fulfilment centre on the planet. We know that aviation brings growth and jobs. We know that there is a trade-off to be had, and we will have those conversations if a development consent order is brought before us.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
The Minister gave an admirably Delphic yet still disappointing answer. While we must grow the economy, we must not do so at the expense of the environment. Expanding Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton airports will drive, or even fly, a coach and horses through our climate commitments, adding 92 million tonnes of carbon dioxide to our carbon footprint by 2050. Do not just take my word for it: the Mayor of London; his previous deputy Mayor for transport, now the Transport Secretary; the Environment Secretary; the Chief Secretary to the Treasury; and the Prime Minister have all previously been opposed, as is the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. Can I ask the Minister three questions? First, why has his boss, the former London deputy Mayor for transport, changed her mind? Secondly, how can the Government reconcile this massive growth in carbon emissions with our climate commitments? Thirdly, why, if the Government are looking to grow our economy, are they not re-engaging meaningfully with Europe by negotiating a customs union?
Mike Kane
That last one floored me ever so slightly. “Delphic”, the hon. Member says—or ambiguous and obscure, which is slightly like Liberal Democrat policies on aviation. They are one foot in, one foot out, shake it all about. They say one thing to one community under a flightpath, and another thing about jobs to another community under a flightpath. Whatever I say will end up on the Focus leaflets, but they cannot have it both ways. They cannot support growth, jobs, airspace modernisation and sustainable aviation fuels and then say to their constituents, “Look what this terrible Government are doing.” We have a firm plan for aviation in this country, and we are going to carry it out.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that plans for the third runway have gone cold over the past decade, since the airport commission? As he says, there is not even an application for a development consent order. Does he agree that there is no chance of spades in the ground this Parliament? If there were, that is when the problems would really start.
Mike Kane
For too long and on too many issues, this nation just has not made the tough decisions. When it comes to airport expansion, our world-class aviation sector, admired across the world, and decarbonising our sector, we are making huge progress—more in the past six months than in 14 years under the Tories. We will continue on our mission of renewing the national airport strategy, and will look at development consent orders as they become live. That is a quasi-judicial matter, and I cannot comment on Luton and Gatwick, as Members know. We will wait to see whether Heathrow or a related party brings forward a development consent order.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
Manston airport in Kent in my constituency has been fallow and the subject of legal action for far too long, but that is happily now behind us. We hope and expect that within the next few weeks, there will be announcements on funding that will lead to the development of a state-of-the-art net zero airport in Kent. Manston does not appear to feature in the Government’s plans. Can the Minister assure me that his eye is on that ball, and that Manston will become part of the growth programme?
Mike Kane
I have spoken to the right hon. Member about Manston in opposition and in government. We wait to see what will be brought forward there, but it could be an exciting opportunity, particularly for cargo; we could have zero emission vessels shipping content into the port of London. We will wait and see whether the airport comes with a development consent order, and we will judge that on its merits.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I am old enough to have been there the last time this question was voted on. In the spirit of Gordon Brown and his tests over the euro, we applied tests of our own on capacity, carbon commitments, minimising noise and environmental impacts, and ensuring benefits for the whole UK. Can the Minister tell me whether those sensible tests still apply? Can he add another one, about costs to the public purse and deliverability, for my constituents, who will be the most affected? They want a better, not a bigger, Heathrow.
Mike Kane
I re-emphasise that there is no development consent order for Heathrow at the moment. We know that for all airports, surface access is essential. The public transport penetration rate within an hour is key to the markets that airports can access from across the planet to support their growth. We have a world-class transport system in the south-east, but in any development consent order, Heathrow or its related parties will have to prove how we can get new people to that site.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
If, as we expect, the Chancellor announces her support tomorrow for a third runway at Heathrow, that will be a massive U-turn from the Prime Minister’s previous position, and it is patently clear that a third runway will fail all of Labour’s four tests—on growth across our regions, on climate, on air pollution, and on noise pollution. The economic and environmental cases are in tatters, and no airlines want to foot the bill for a third runway. Will the Minister concede that any such announcement would simply be virtue signalling by a Chancellor in search of growth where she will not achieve it, and would damage our environment and our communities at the same time?
Mike Kane
I support the Chancellor’s pursuit of growth. For too long, we have been stagnant, and we know that this area can provide growth. I have seen that in my constituency, as I have pointed out. Where was the hon. Member when we talked about sustainable aviation fuels? Where was she when we committed £63 million to the advanced fuels fund to help the SAF industry grow in this country? We have announced £1 billion for the Aerospace Technology Institute to look at zero emission flights. Would it not be great if, one day, a Minister could stand here and say that all internal flights will be zero-emission? I want to leave my successor, whoever they are, the opportunity to say that within the next decade.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
Many of my constituents in Ealing Southall work at Heathrow or in its supply chain, and they will welcome the good-quality, well-paid jobs that airport expansion will bring. However, I have other constituents who worry about the environmental impact of any expansion. In taking any decision on this matter, will the Minister ensure that he balances the need for growth and for good-quality local jobs against the need to minimise air pollution and noise pollution?
Mike Kane
What a terrific question. [Interruption.] Well, it is. It hits the mark, in that there is a trade-off between noise, carbon and growing our economy for our people. Airports create high-paid, trade-unionised jobs, not just because of the aircraft that come in and out, but because of the ground handling services. We know that aviation communities are much better off because of the jobs that are created, and we have to balance the trade-off in the years ahead as we make tough decisions to grow our economy.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I remind the Minister that sustainable aviation fuel is not an answer to poor air quality, which is the main reason why attempted expansion at Heathrow has failed in the past. It is also the reason for the Chancellor’s trenchant opposition to the expansion of Leeds Bradford airport, which would affect her constituency. Having been around since the days of the terminal 5 planning inquiry, I find it clear that the business case for Heathrow expansion rests on significant costs being imposed on taxpayers. They would be expected to foot the bill for the impact on the M4 and the M25, and for the loss of a waste incinerator that provides energy for many local authorities. Can the Minister assure the House that any DCO for Heathrow that comes forward will be subject to no less rigour and no less consultation than those brought forward in the past?
Mike Kane
I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that. SAF was stuck in the muck under the last Government; we waited years for announcements, and we have done more on that in six months than Tory Administrations did in 14 years. We are investing in cleaning up aviation fuel and funding technology on contrails, so that the air people breathe is always as clean as we can make it.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
In a spirit of cross-party collaboration, I praise the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for expertly outlining some of the logistical challenges of Heathrow expansion. It is a surprise and a shame that the Tories did not answer those questions before voting for expansion in 2018 when in government. Does the Minister agree that any future application for Heathrow expansion—we do not yet have one—must address and solve those key issues, look at those logistical challenges, and say how expansion is compatible with our climate commitments, and with local concerns about air quality, pollution, noise and congestion?
Mike Kane
My hon. Friend is exactly right. Our four tests remain, and they have to be passed. Again, we are speculating that a development consent order will come before us. I am sure that he, as a doughty campaigner for his constituents, will make his voice heard.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The economic benefits of the expansion of London airports remain unproven. On Heathrow, the Department for Transport’s updated appraisal report shows that the net present value of a third runway ranges from just £3.3 billion to minus £2.2 billion, while Heathrow’s finances are of severe concern, due to the significant debt that it has incurred. What new economic analysis have the Government considered that makes a third runway at Heathrow viable when considered alongside their commitments on climate, noise and air quality?
Mike Kane
I say again what I said earlier: capacity in London is at 76% on average, and at 95% at Gatwick and Heathrow. What is the Liberal Democrat answer to that? Do we not want people to fly across the world to bang the drum for British business? Do we not want them to visit their friends and family? Are the Liberal Democrats for constraining people’s flying? There are a lot of questions, but no answers from Liberal Democrat Members.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I voted against the framework for Heathrow airport in 2018 because I was not satisfied that the legislation before us would deal with air quality, noise, climate change and surface access issues. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are to go ahead with a third runway at Heathrow, we must satisfy ourselves in this House that those issues have been addressed, and that they cannot be set aside by developers once they have permission to go ahead?
Mike Kane
My hon. Friend is exactly right. Those tests must be met, including through the development consent order. Just for the record, I voted for the framework in 2018, because I thought that it passed those tests.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
Many of my constituents in Wetherby and Easingwold use Leeds Bradford airport, and the same will be true of the constituents of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood). For years, I have wanted expansion of Heathrow so that morning flights from Yorkshire could come down to Heathrow airport, allowing transatlantic flights to be boarded in Yorkshire. May I urge the Minister, when considering the expansion of Heathrow, to always give firm attention to regional airports, especially Leeds Bradford airport in Yorkshire? It would allow the economy to grow significantly if people could check in at Leeds and get off in New York.
Mike Kane
I could not agree more with the right hon. Member, though it pains me to say it. We have five great northern runways stretching from John Lennon to Manchester, Leeds Bradford and Newcastle, and we should be focusing on regional connectivity in particular. On Leeds Bradford, my recollection is that because of the lack of decision making by the last Government, confidence was lost in its development. Let us see if we can get a framework for improving connectivity at Leeds Bradford, including for those in the constituency of the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood).
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I came to London yesterday by rail, as usual, and I must say that both Lumo and London North Eastern Railway are doing a fantastic job of getting people out of planes and on to trains between Edinburgh and London. [Interruption.] I always like to talk about trains. I am concerned that any increase in air capacity will take people off trains and help them make less sustainable transport choices. Will the Minister commit to speaking with the Rail Minister to understand any impacts of airport expansion on that service?
Mike Kane
My hon. Friend is exactly right: we have to join up the modes of transport. We have had a broken transport system as a result of 14 years of complete under-investment. Whether we are talking about rail connectivity to Glasgow, what will happen if a Heathrow development consent order comes forward, or just getting Northern trains working across the north of England, linking up Leeds Bradford, Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle will be a key start to improving jobs and growth at those airports.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
In order to meet the problem of increasing demand for flights, what are the Government doing to improve rail connections with western Europe, including direct trains to Germany as well as Holland?
Mike Kane
I think that that involves fixing the problems with Eurostar. We are seeing others coming into that market, and European Union colleagues are running overnight long-distance train services, which are reducing the need for aviation across the continent and reducing carbon. We should be ambitious as a country that we can tap into that network. The right hon. Gentleman is right on this matter.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Newcastle International airport tells me that Heathrow expansion would mean increased access to global markets for north-east businesses, new destinations for north-east tourists and easier access to our brilliant north-east universities for students from around the world. More broadly, given that air travel’s 5% of emissions are dwarfed by road travel emissions, does the Minister agree that the important work that his Department is doing to promote electric vehicles and the work that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is doing on the decarbonisation of the electricity network is fundamental to demonstrating to my constituents that addressing climate change is not about saying no to travel and transport, but about saying yes to an economy that works for people and the planet?
Mike Kane
We have made tough decisions about the phasing out of internal combustion engines up to 2030. When I visited Newcastle airport, I saw a wonderful operation—it is also producing solar energy to power its operation. We need better connectivity between Newcastle and London, and I have raised that with carriers. If we are to develop our offshore wind, carbon capture and green energy technology, it must be linked up with the cruise industry, Newcastle airport and the great north-east coast that provides so many jobs, services and industries for people across our nation.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I have been enjoying the Minister’s lively presentation, but then I do not live under a potential new flightpath. Are the Government consulting their Back Benchers about the possibility of aviation and airport expansion versus net zero? If so, will they be advising them to clean up what they have said on this subject on the internet before it is hoovered up by the Opposition in preparation for the next general election?
Mike Kane
There has been a lot of AI news in the press today. I say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that I grew up under a flightpath in my home town in Wythenshawe and Sale East. I grew up under the BAC-111s, the Tridents, the Concordes and the Guppys. [Interruption.] I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Withington (Jeff Smith) agrees with me. I remember how dirty, noisy and smelly those planes were. Technology has come forward leaps and bounds, and the noise envelope around most of our airports has reduced considerably. Through our investments, we hope to improve the technology further under this Government and the next.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
This weekend, The Sunday Times featured a great cartoon by Morten Morland showing the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Energy Secretary tearing up a Whitehall office looking for the growth lever. I am a supporter of the Welsh freeports programme and airport expansion where there is environmental mitigation. Will the Minister please say more about the Government’s sustainable aviation plans and the use of low-carbon tech to help economic growth?
Mike Kane
I thank my hon. Friend for his support for growth at our ports, which includes our maritime ports. There is £63 million for the advanced fuels fund and £1 billion for the Aerospace Technology Institute to look at net zero emissions. We have already introduced—it was almost the Government’s first act out of the gate; it came into force on 1 January—the SAF mandate, so this year 2% of all fuel will have to be from a sustainable source, and we will shortly legislate on the revenue certainty mechanism to kick-start the SAF industry in the UK. The Government could not have done more in the six months we have had in office.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I note that the Minister did not mention noise pollution in his statement. As he grew up under a flightpath, I hope that he enjoyed the noise. Eight routes currently pass over my constituency, sometimes after midnight. My constituents struggle with the noise—one said that it was like having an uninvited dinner guest every night. It not only disturbs sleep but has profound health implications. With that in mind, is the Minister going to ignore the health impacts of a third runway?
Mike Kane
I cannot comment on the third runway because there is no development consent order before us, but the hon. Lady makes an extraordinarily valid point about noise. That is why the Liberal Democrats should get behind us and support airspace modernisation. We have an analogue system in a digital age, which was designed more for the days when Yuri Gagarin went into space than for today. We can give people under flightpaths more choice in future by differentiation, if we have a better system of airspace modernisation.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
My local airport, Stansted, is a huge employer for residents in my constituency, and it is has led the way in developing sustainable aviation fuel. Does the Minister agree that sustainable aviation fuel is vital to achieving our decarbonisation targets?
Mike Kane
Sustainable aviation fuel is vital to meeting our climate targets. I commend Manchester Airports Group, which includes Stansted and East Midlands, and Manchester in my own constituency, on its work to decarbonise. It is ahead of the game. It flies one in six people in and out of the UK. When it gets it right, that represents a huge emissions reduction.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that one of the many benefits of a third runway at Heathrow is that it would require the removal of one of the largest waste incinerators in the country? When this matter comes before him, will he ensure that there is no reprovisioning of this monster in a densely populated area, but that we see its deletion altogether so that we deal with waste in a truly sustainable way?
Mike Kane
There is no DCO currently. If one comes forward, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will make his voice heard.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for repeating what we heard from the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero at the Environmental Audit Committee yesterday: that no plans will be approved unless they are in line with the Government’s environmental commitments.
My hon. Friend cannot comment on Gatwick and Luton because they have a live DCO, and he cannot comment on Heathrow because it does not have a live DCO, which is handy. Let me ask him about something that he can comment on. What changes will we make to ensure that any airport expansion plans are in line with our environmental commitments? Can he explain more about what the offsets will be to ensure that the Government are able to meet the commitments that he has confirmed they will make?
Mike Kane
I thank my hon. Friend for his chairmanship of the Environmental Audit Committee, of which I was a proud member for many years, looking at the circular economy, which this Government are taking forward. The Government have committed to delivering greener transport, including through SAF, airspace modernisation and the other measures that I laid out. I am proud of that range of measures. The Front-Bench across this Department are decarbonising the transport sector further and faster in the first six months of this Government than in 14 years of the last.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The Minister has made a great deal of the position of my party on Heathrow airport. As he is such a fan of our Focus leaflets, I am sure he will know from my own that I have consistently raised airport noise, opposition to the expansion of Heathrow, sustainable aviation fuel and airspace management in this place. How will he make the airspace management plan fit with any forthcoming emissions and capacity management framework? We have yet to hear from the Government about that, but the Liberal Democrats consider it vital to the future sustainability of the air transport industry in this country.
Mike Kane
I am generally very grateful for the Liberal Democrats’ support for airspace modernisation. It is complicated and difficult. We are throwing our hat over the wall in trying to reach it. It will be easier in certain parts of our country than others, but we have already taken action. We set up the airspace modernisation design service. We are bringing the best and the brightest together. If we can make the planes fly in a straight line, we will use less carbon. It is the lowest of low-hanging fruit for carbon reduction in the aviation sector, and we are moving at pace on it.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I welcome this Government’s commitment to the aviation sector. The closure of Doncaster airport on 30 December 2022, with the loss of 800 jobs and the smoothest access to flights in the country, was devastating. The reopening of the airport has been a long-fought campaign that has the backing of my constituents in Bassetlaw. Today, they will be saying: “Bring the flights and the infrastructure to our area.” Will the Minister put his shoulder to our campaign?
Mike Kane
Without a doubt. People are proud of their airports. Mine was 80 years old a few years ago, and I saw people turn up in droves to show their pride in aviation in this country. I felt sorry for the people of Doncaster, Sheffield and the environs when they lost their airport. I commend the mayor, the council and the local MPs who have lobbied me relentlessly on this matter. The council now has a deal with the operator, and the first flight took off very recently. I wish them every luck with it, and they will have my full backing to do what needs to be done.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) and others, I want to focus on the role of our regional airports. Surely the Minister would agree that the expansion of some of them could help the Government’s growth agenda and provide a boost to local economies. With improved rail connections, many of our regional airports could serve travellers to and from London. The work involved could be completed long before a DCO for Heathrow could be concluded.
Mike Kane
Airports near the hon. Member’s constituency will have a key part to play for workers across our nation with respect to the decarbonisation agenda and sustainable fuels, because Immingham sits within his constituency. That will be key to the UK’s plans to decarbonise our economy, along with good rail connectivity. Airports are a market within the private sector—planes want to go to particular places—but if we can expand and grow our economy across all our regions, as we hope to, I hope that this will be a golden age for all our airports.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was correct to say that this feels like déjà vu. Here we are again, debating huge transport infrastructure expansion in the south-east of England while constituents right across this country, especially in the north-east, think, “What about us?” Does the Minister agree that if expanding transport infrastructure in this country is the key to growth, that growth must happen everywhere?
Mike Kane
I agree. As I have said, airports that make the right decisions in the next few years on improving the airspace and improving their connectivity through surface access all have the potential to grow like my airport has grown exponentially. I urge Members to get behind their airports and support their growth and decarbonisation agendas.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
Globally, half of aviation emissions are a result of flights taken by the wealthiest 1%. In the UK, 70% of flights are taken by the richest 15%. Is expanding aviation capacity not a matter of fairness? It will facilitate the very richest, who are already frequent flyers, to be able to fly more, while the noise, carbon emissions and air pollution impacts will be inflicted on the most ordinary people in society, including the poorest at home and around the world.
Mike Kane
I think it was Woody Allen who said that 80% of success in life is turning up, and I must gently ask once again where the hon. Gentleman was when we were introducing the sustainable aviation mandate in this House. I hope he will be here when we introduce the revenue support mechanism in the months ahead and decarbonise our aviation sector.
I think people have the right to go on holiday at least once a year, to do business across the planet and to visit friends and family. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman’s policies are. If he wants to send them to me, I will put them on one of my Labour roses.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Following on from the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White), does the Minister agree that it is important to also support regional airports in the north, including Doncaster airport? The reopening of the airport is supported by all my neighbouring parliamentary colleagues. Together with my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), I am working with Doncaster council and the South Yorkshire combined authority to get this critical piece of transport infrastructure back. The growth agenda will be a success only if places like Doncaster feel it too. It is important that the people of Doncaster and South Yorkshire can take off once again.
Mike Kane
I have to say, my hon. Friend is so tenacious on this matter that I sometimes go pale when I meet her in the Division Lobby, because every day she asks after it. She is such a campaigner on it. I saw her go around party conference lobbying the industry and airlines to do what her constituents sent her to Parliament to do and to try to come up with a solution for her local airport. I can only commend her tenacity to the House.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
Will the Minister confirm what compensating measures the Government will take, if airport expansion is to go ahead, to ensure adherence to carbon budgets? They must have already been agreed on by now.
Mike Kane
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his considered approach in all these matters. I was pleased to receive him at the Department the other day to talk about a particular constituency issue that related to Gatwick. We do not have a development consent order, but noise and pollution are the tests to meet our climate commitments, and they will remain the tests. It will be up to the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), and Members across this House to hold the Government’s feet to the fire on this matter.
Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The reopening of Blackpool airport for commercial flights is a top priority for my constituents, as I have raised previously with the Minister. Does he agree that we need to work with our regional airports to deliver the growth and the jobs we need in places such as Blackpool that were forgotten about by the previous Government over 14 years?
Mike Kane
What a breath of fresh air my hon. Friend was in his by-election, and he is now on these Benches, campaigning for his airport in Blackpool. I am really looking forward to visiting the airport and to my night out there—I hope that will come with fish and chips on the prom, as well.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The expansion of Heathrow feels a bit like the Schrödinger’s cat of expansion at the moment—it is both happening and not happening, depending on what one’s perspective is today. I realise that the Minister will not be tempted to comment on Gatwick either, as it is a live DCO process. Given that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), and the Minister have both asserted that growth is an inevitable consequence of airport expansion, can I ask the Minister what evidence he has to support that assertion?
Mike Kane
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, but I do not think I will take any lectures from Liberal Democrat Members about sitting on the fence. Theirs is the politics of licking their finger, putting it in the air to see which way the wind is blowing, and then putting it in a leaflet. There is no development consent order for Heathrow yet. I am sure the hon. Lady will have her opportunity to raise her concerns at a later date in this place.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I could not agree more with the Minister when he points out that any airport expansion has to be part of the overall picture of upgrading Britain’s broken transport networks. Bracknell sits on the Reading to Waterloo train line, which passes through Feltham, just south of Heathrow. Journey times on the line have not improved since the ’70s, and there is no direct connection to Heathrow. Will the Minister assure me that any plans to upgrade airports will be part of the overall picture of an integrated plan?
Mike Kane
My hon. Friend is exactly right. I am not usually quite so divisive at the Dispatch Box, but we inherited such a broken system it is almost untrue, such are the things we are finding out about the sclerotic nature of the previous Government. The Roads Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), is investing £1.6 million in fixing potholes, while the Minister responsible for buses, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), has invested £1 billion in buses. We are moving fast. We are fixing things and we are delivering.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
As a fellow Greater Manchester MP, the Minister will undoubtedly know that Manchester airport welcomed 30 million passengers through its doors last year, and that 84% of those passengers came to and from the airport by car. He will rightly acknowledge the valid concerns across the House today about the impact of airport expansion on carbon emissions. The carbon footprint of Manchester airport comes only partly from air travel, as a lot of it comes from road travel. What update can the Minister give my constituents on surface access improvements at Manchester airport, so that they can get to and from the airport, whether as passengers or to work, by bus or by train?
Mike Kane
Well, the Conservatives built a road, but it just floods all the time—maybe we can start by dealing with that. The hon. Lady is right that Manchester airport is in my constituency. Mine is actually the most visited constituency in the north of England; in fact, 30 million people visited it last year alone, although they may not have stayed as long as I would have liked. The airport has been on an incredible journey, especially with its decarbonisation. I hope to meet the airport operators shortly to continue that journey with them.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
It is right that in this debate we all champion our local and regional airports, including Birmingham International. However, the reality is that no other airport is a serious rival to the long-haul hub capacity that Heathrow provides, and its exhaustion of that capacity is a block on growth in every region of the UK. Does the Minister agree that redirection of that pent-up demand to Schiphol and Dubai is no good for the national accounts and no good for the environment?
Mike Kane
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is a very good campaigner for his local airport and for the public service obligation flights out of that airport. Not making these tough decisions does not mean there is no carbon—it simply means that customers vote with their feet and go to Schiphol, Frankfurt or Charles de Gaulle to hub out to their destinations. We have to look at things in the round when we are talking about decarbonising the UK aviation sector.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Given the hugely contradictory evidence on whether expanding airport capacity will boost GDP growth, will the Minister explain how the Government can justify prioritising airport expansion over much-needed substantial investment in green travel and public transport, which would benefit the economy in the long term and benefit a far wider group of people in this country than the very small group of wealthy frequent flyers who will benefit from airport expansion?
Mike Kane
I am hearing that Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches are against wealthy people and against our constituents flying, in some cases. There is no bigger champion of active travel in this House than me—except for my ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell—and I hope to do a lot more on that when it comes to ports and airports. All people, regardless of their income, should have a choice about how they get around. We had a broken system over the past 14 years, which meant people had no choice. Now, they are getting better buses, their potholes are fixed, and we are investing more in active travel than ever before.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) made an excellent point about hub airports. At the moment, there are 19 flights between my local airport in Newcastle and Heathrow, but 30 a week between Newcastle and Amsterdam. I dare say that some people from the north-east may wish to sample the unique delights of Amsterdam, some will certainly be using Amsterdam as a hub airport, instead of Heathrow. That is bad for our economy, bad for passengers, and, because it is further away than Heathrow, bad for the environment, too. Is it not right that we build hub capacity in this country because it is the best thing to do environmentally?
Mike Kane
I also understand that you can have a good old party on the ferry from the port of Tyne to Amsterdam—I do not know whether my hon. Friend has taken it. He is exactly right. If we do not invest in a hub airport in the UK, people will go point to point outside the UK to transfer to the places they want to go to. That is worse for carbon emissions than us taking responsibility for the decisions we need to make to decarbonise our aviation sector.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome the support the Minister has given to the Chancellor today. He has made it quite clear, if the speculation turns into reality, where he will stand on the issue. That is important, given the need for hub airports to export our goods, build business links and give people the personal freedom to travel across the world. But is he concerned, given the Energy Secretary’s obsession with net zero, the large number of Members who seem to be more concerned about long-term climate predictions, uncertain as they may be, than the immediate needs of growth and jobs in this economy, and the potential for lengthy court battles because of our statutory commitments to carbon dioxide reduction, that no investor will look at these projects but will instead continue to look at hub airports in the rest of Europe?
Mike Kane
I thank the right hon. Member, who I know is a campaigner on this. I keep a close eye on all matters of connectivity to Northern Ireland. Investor confidence in aviation is huge: investors are queuing up and looking for opportunities. We must ensure those opportunities come with jobs and growth, but also that they are clean and decarbonise our sector. I say stick with the plan. We will decarbonise the grid and our UK economy, but we can grow it at the same time—the two things are not contradictory.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that it would be irresponsible to kick the can down the runway on airport expansion and other major infrastructure when this country is desperate for growth? We need a Government willing to take the tough decisions to overcome the blockers and get things built in the national interest and in the interests of citizens all around our country.
Mike Kane
I cannot agree more. The Government’s defined mission will be growth. The aviation sector is one where we can grow the economy, because it provides the connectivity and the high-skilled, trade unionised jobs that support families and careers right across our country.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Before the Minister asks me where I was during the sustainable aviation fuels debate, I was here. Having 22% SAF by 2040 still means 78% fossil fuels in aircraft fuel—an awful lot. My constituents are impacted by Bristol airport expansion. I meet regularly with my local group Stop Bristol Airport Expansion group. They want to know what impact assessment has been made of the cumulative effect of the additional carbon emissions that will be created by all the proposed airport expansion plans taken together.
Mike Kane
I thank the hon. Member. She is actually right, and well done to her for being there during the SAF debate and supporting the Government.
At the moment, the technology does not exist to fully decarbonise aviation. We are looking at hydrogen, we have the advanced fuels fund and we are investing £1 billion in the ATI, but, as the Prime Minister announced recently when he went to Merseyside, we are investing billions in carbon capture and other technology to offset those emissions. That is what we will have to do in the near future, but I envisage a day when we will have aircraft in our skies, particularly internally in the UK, with zero emissions coming out of their tailpipes.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to growth. I also welcome their commitment to taking the difficult decisions required to generate it. We know that any conversations about a third runway will focus on the south, but I would like to ask about the north. May I ask the Minister, in my capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire, if the project is approved, what will be done to ensure that all regions benefit from the proceeds of the growth generated?
Mike Kane
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and, even from this Lancastrian, for his chairmanship of the APPG for Yorkshire. I will say a couple of things. We have five great northern runways, and we need to begin to improve their capacity and connectivity. That is key to regional economic growth. Hopefully, whoever comes forward with the DCO for Heathrow will, as they have in the past, look at spreading the wealth and at logistic hubs right not just around our country, but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
My local communities, including Flamstead, Markyate and Wheathampsted, are already plagued by Luton airport and very worried about expansion. If the Minister cannot answer questions about evidence for a positive impact on growth and the economy, can he at least guarantee that the Government will listen to their own climate experts and have a framework in place before any airport expansion?
Mike Kane
Yes, is the answer. We will come forward, very shortly, with a policy framework. We have not had one for many years. It is more than time to update it—the hon. Lady is right.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I very much welcome the Minister’s answers—they have been both confident and progressive, which is encouraging for me as the MP for Strangford. My constituents have expressed some concern about the impact on the environment of the potential expansion, but it has been highlighted to me that building for planes to land, so they do not have to circle, is highly beneficial for the environment. Will the Minister confirm that our environmental obligations have been fully considered in any decisions that are made for the potential expansion of Heathrow? Will there be—I know the Minister will say yes, but I want him to say it on the record—more domestic connections with Belfast International and Belfast City airports?
Mike Kane
The hon. Member is such a doughty campaigner that I think he had an urgent question in the House a few weeks ago when his plane was cancelled! “Well done,” is all I can say. That day we had a really good question and answer session on connectivity in Northern Ireland. We have two great airports in Belfast, and Derry/Londonderry’s airport serves the north-west. His first question is about planes flying in a straight line—an obscure piece of policy, which is in our manifesto, called airspace modernisation. We can cut up to 10%, 20% and, I am told in the case of some easyJet flights, even 30% of carbon emissions by just getting planes to go in a reasonably straight line and not circle around. It introduces resilience at airports and makes the passenger experience much better. I hope those on the Opposition Benches will support the policy when it comes to this place.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I thank the Minister for his very full answers to questions, which mean I am now on the seventh or eighth version of my question. [Laughter.] There are two points I would like to explore. First, on emissions, SAF will only ever be a transitionary fuel. What effort are the Government making to engage with industry to develop truly zero-carbon power plants, and harness our incredible industry and our companies that can take advantage of the opportunity to lead the real zero-carbon hydrogen electric power plants? Secondly, on noise, the Minister mentions airspace modernisation, which will mean some residents facing greater noise frequency and impacts. Does he agree that the answer to the first question, on next generation power plants, is actually the answer to the second question on noise? Please, will he give us a proper answer on what the Government are doing to take advantage?
Mike Kane
That is the problem when a new Member is called last, but he is agile—mentally on his feet—to get that in. We are investing in hydrogen zero-emission technology, with £1 billion for the ATI. I hope the hon. Gentleman is sat on the Opposition Benches in the months ahead when we implement the revenue certainty mechanisms, so we can kickstart a new age of SAF production in the UK that will bring jobs and growth right across our great country.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Minister for his responses.
Gaza: Humanitarian Situation
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Development (Anneliese Dodds)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will update the House on the ceasefire agreement in Gaza and detail our latest efforts to get aid to those in desperate need.
This is a fragile ceasefire, but it brings much-needed hope for Israeli and Palestinian people. The agreement to end the fighting and release the hostages is what this Labour Government have been pressing for from the moment we came to office. I thank Qatar, Egypt and the US for their tireless efforts, and echo the Prime Minister in wishing Emily Damari and the other former hostages well as they begin to recover from their horrific ordeals. We continue to call for the immediate release of all those still waiting to be reunited with their loved ones, including the remaining hostages with links to the UK.
Civilians in Gaza have endured suffering that defies belief, and this deal brings hope that they can start to rebuild their lives. In the days since the guns were silenced, Israel has opened up mechanisms to surge in aid. The UN and aid organisations have been working tirelessly to deliver the humanitarian aims of the ceasefire agreement. After so much time waiting at the border—delays that I saw for myself in December—trucks are now streaming in. Partners on the ground report that more than 200,000 food parcels have been dispatched to more than 130 distribution points since the ceasefire. This Government have been at the forefront of the humanitarian effort in Gaza since we came to office—overturning the suspension of funding to UNRWA, and then boosting our support; assisting UK-Med field hospitals to help the injured; working with Egypt to support those medevac-ed out of Gaza; and providing vital resources to UNICEF and the World Food Programme.
Today I am pleased to announce that the UK is investing in the ceasefire. UK support will be distributed to the UN and key medical partners, so that tens of thousands of civilians receive the healthcare, food and shelter that they need. That support will amount to £17 million to get more aid into Gaza and restore services. The figure also includes £2 million for the World Bank to support the construction and restoration of critical water and energy infrastructure. The UK has already helped about 284,000 people in Gaza to access water, sanitation and hygiene services. Today’s uplift brings our commitment for the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Palestinian refugees in the region to £129 million this financial year.
I am also pleased to announce that, this morning, Jordanian air force helicopters started landing in Gaza with UK-funded medical supplies and logistical support from UK armed forces. I thank Jordan for its excellent commitment to getting aid in, in such challenging circumstances, and we will continue to support our Jordanian partners in this initiative. However, more action is needed. The air bridge to Gaza is no substitute for road routes, which must remain open. We also call on Israel to allow in more essential items such as tents, mattresses and medical equipment. As people start to move home, basic services need to be put back in place, and unexploded bombs and mines cleared. Without that, even more lives will be lost—and, of course, the UN and humanitarian agencies must be able to operate freely.
The Government have repeatedly stated the need for UNRWA to continue its lifesaving assistance to the people of Gaza, Jerusalem and the west bank. The Knesset legislation taking effect on 30 January risks impeding the progress made since the ceasefire; Israel must allow the agency to continue to operate. The legislation does not and cannot change the fact that Israel has a responsibility under international law to facilitate humanitarian assistance. As the UN Security Council heard last week, 1 million Gazan children need support to process their traumatic experiences—their suffering cannot be understated—and about 15,500 patients need medical evacuation, according to the World Health Organisation. Routes must be opened for them to obtain that treatment.
The UK and the wider international community stand ready to support Palestinians as they begin to rebuild their lives, their homes and their communities. We are under no illusions about the scale of the challenge ahead. The overwhelming majority of homes in Gaza are damaged or destroyed, the economy has collapsed, and basic services, including energy and water, have been knocked out. We are therefore working with partners urgently to find the best ways in which to finance and support recovery and reconstruction efforts. It is essential that the coming surge of assistance is properly co-ordinated, and with the access and security to reach those in need. The Palestinian Authority has a crucial role to play, and we are providing technical and financial assistance to the authority, including assistance to support the urgent recovery of basic services.
The UK has always been clear about the fact that this ceasefire is just the first step. We must build confidence on all sides to help sustain it, progress through all its phases, and turn it into a lasting peace that assures the security of Israelis and Palestinians alike. We in the UK will focus all our efforts on keeping up the momentum, using every diplomatic channel available. As Members will know, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for the Middle East kept up the drumbeat of engagement during their visits to Egypt and the United Nations last week. We will keep up the pace until every hostage is released, aid reaches all those in need, and Palestinians are able to rebuild their homes and their lives. I commend this statement to the House.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
Since the savage terrorist attacks of 7 October 2023, all of us in this House have called for the release of all hostages held by Hamas as the only way of reaching a sustainable end to this abhorrent conflict, and to alleviate the enormous scale of the humanitarian suffering. We now feel both the anxiety and the hope of the families who have waited, anticipating the release of the remarkably brave women hostages who have been returned thus far under the ceasefire agreement, including, of course, the British-Israeli hostage Emily Damari. I pay tribute to the families of all the hostages for their unwavering campaigns to secure the release of their loved ones. They should never have been put through this unimaginable nightmare. We did, very sadly, learn yesterday that eight hostages would not be returning home alive, having been killed at the hands of Hamas. That was devastating news for hostage families who continue to face unbearable uncertainty in the days and weeks ahead.
There is a long road ahead, and—as we have already heard from the Minister—we want the ceasefire agreement to hold, but we stress that every single hostage must be released. The important issue of humanitarian access remains, and, as the Minister has said, we must ensure that the House receives relevant updates both on the hostage releases and on every single diplomatic tool that Britain has when it comes to removing the barriers to getting the hostages out and also getting the right amount of aid in.
We all saw on our television screens yesterday the scenes of thousands of Gazans returning to the north, where, as we recognise, the situation is extremely difficult. Can the Minister give a breakdown of the volume and type of aid that the UK is sending, and how its impact will be measured? Notwithstanding the deliveries by helicopter that she mentioned, is she confident that British aid is getting over the land borders as expected, and is being effectively distributed to help those in need? As for the £17 million that she mentioned, can she clarify whether it is new money or part of money that has been released from previous funding allocations? Can she also tell us which organisations the money will support?
The Minister rightly referred to UNRWA. While no one can doubt the size of its distribution network, we cannot ignore the problems within the organisation. It is in no one’s interests to pretend that they have not happened. We know the facts: UNRWA staff and institutions have been infiltrated by Hamas, and there have been shocking allegations of UNRWA staff involvement in the 7 October attacks. Following the United Nations’ internal investigations and the subsequent sackings, the Colonna report and reforms need to be implemented in full. Is the Minister overseeing that in order to give our public, as well as donor countries, more confidence in UNRWA and the efficacy of its progress on the vetting of its personnel, and on procedures to protect the neutrality of its operations and facilities? Will she share with the House the evidence of the work that has taken place? In July, the Foreign Secretary announced £21 million for UNRWA, and the Prime Minister announced £13 million last month. What measures are in place to ensure that every penny of British taxpayers’ money is going to those most in need and not being abused by Hamas?
Without losing focus on the challenges of the immediate term and phase 1 of the ceasefire, the Government also need to be thinking about what comes next and laying the right foundations for the reconstruction and development that needs to take place in Gaza. This is a huge task. What discussions have the Government had with regional neighbours? What role does the Minister envisage for the UK? Will Britain be contributing financially? Is she pushing for multilateral institutions to be involved?
On the future governance of Gaza, I have said that I would like to hear more about the Government’s day one plan. The Foreign Secretary previously told the House:
“There cannot be a role for Hamas.”—[Official Report, 16 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 516.]
I echo those words, but the sickening sight of Hamas gunmen parading around hostages just last weekend caused great alarm. What steps are being taken to end the reign of terror that Hamas have unleashed?
The Minister mentioned the Palestinian Authority. If they are to assume responsibility in Gaza, what action will be taken to ensure that they are reforming? They must make serious, measurable and tangible reforms on education, welfare policy and democracy.
Finally, everyone in the House knows that the root cause of so much suffering in the middle east is Tehran and the Iranian regime. Could the Minister speak about the efforts this Government are making to work with the international community on a robust strategy towards the Iranian regime?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her support for the approach being taken by the UK Government. I agree with her about the savagery of the 7 October attacks and the suffering that has been undergone by the families of the hostages. I met the brother of Emily Damari when I was in Tel Aviv. It is difficult to find the words to reflect on that experience and what he was going through at that time. I met the families of other UK-linked hostages when I was in Tel Aviv, and their suffering continues as they await the return of their loved ones, which we are all hoping for fervently.
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for underlining the need for the ceasefire to hold. We need to see that move through phase 1 into phase 2. It is imperative that those measures are held to by all sides and that we see all hostages being released and then, as she said, the surge of aid into Gaza that is so needed. We will keep the House updated on the diplomatic measures we are taking; we have been doing that consistently across our team in the FCDO, and we will continue to do that.
The right hon. Lady asked whether we are confident that aid will get to where it is needed. Yes, we are. Much of the contribution we have announced today is going from the crisis reserve into the pool arrangement, which is a system designed to ensure that support is going directly into shelter, food and medical supplies. It is critical we ensure that that support is available directly.
The right hon. Lady asked about UNRWA. We have spoken about this before, but to reiterate, when the UK resumed its support for UNRWA, we were very clear that the findings from the Colonna report had to be implemented. In fact, £1 million of the £21 million that we provided to UNRWA at that point was earmarked to support that reform programme. I have discussed this directly with the head of UNRWA, and I know that my colleagues have done so repeatedly. I have also discussed it with UNRWA staff in the region, and I saw for myself that work, particularly around neutrality, when I was in the west bank, so I can assure the right hon. Lady of the UK Government’s commitment in that regard.
The right hon. Lady asked about reconstruction and what conversations we have been undertaking in that regard. We have been working with the international community and having many discussions with partners bilaterally about this. Of course, the most important thing is for the ceasefire to hold—I know she would agree with that—but when it comes to reconstruction and recovery, we have been particularly working with the World Bank. She may be aware that it conducted a rapid needs assessment, which is a very helpful process, and that is being updated.
We have also been having those discussions intensely with the Palestinian Authority. The right hon. Lady will be aware that Sir Michael Barber, who has incredible expertise, has been supported by the UK Government to work with the PA. I have seen his work, and I discussed it directly with the PA when I was in the west bank. It is, indeed, aiming at those measurable, tangible reforms, precisely in the areas that she mentioned.
Finally, the right hon. Lady asked me to underline the UK Government’s position that there will be no role for Hamas. Absolutely, I will do that again from the Dispatch Box, and the Foreign Secretary has made that very clear indeed.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Could she expand on the technical and financial assistance that the UK is providing to the Palestinian Authority? We know that there are tens of thousands of tonnes of unexploded ordnance. What is happening about that? Finally, what interventions have the Government made about the imminent closure of the UNRWA warehouse on the west bank?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those issues, as she has done consistently. First, in terms of how the UK is working with the Palestinian Authority on these issues, that support has included financial assistance around the reform programme but also the direct technical support around the reform programme that is necessary. Substantial reform is needed. There is a clear plan that has been driven by the Palestinian Authority, but we are determined to provide that technical support, and we have been doing so.
The issue of unexploded ordnance is of huge concern, particularly as we see people coming back to their homes, because there is a great danger that, in doing so, they will be impacted. There is a need for education and awareness raising around this, but there is also a need to remove that materiel; that is very important. The UK has been working with other countries and internationally on how we can ensure that that is the case, so that these communities are safe to return to.
Finally, my hon. Friend asked about the storage of UNRWA supplies. We are very clear, as we have been before, that UNRWA must have a key role in delivering humanitarian support and health and education services to Palestinians, whether that is in Gaza, the west bank or the wider region.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
I join colleagues in supporting efforts to uphold the ceasefire agreement and release the hostages. I wish to express my heartfelt condolences to the families of the eight hostages who have been killed by Hamas while taken hostage, and I join Members of the House in calling for the immediate release of all those still waiting to be reunited with their loved ones.
I want to denounce statements made suggesting that Palestinians should be forcibly displaced from their homes to other regions in the middle east. The only clearing out that should be taking place is of the unexploded ordnance across Gaza, where UN de-mining experts estimate that 5% to 10% of all ordnance is unexploded. What support are the UK Government providing for the safe de-mining of the region and for the unaccompanied children, of whom there are estimated to be 17,000?
Israeli legislation ceasing UNRWA’s operations is due to take effect this Thursday, posing a huge risk to the humanitarian response and the delivery of education and primary healthcare. Dismantling UNRWA now, outside a political process, will undermine the ceasefire agreement, sabotage Gaza’s recovery and weaken the international humanitarian response. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure the continuity of humanitarian aid to the Occupied Palestinian Territories, given the ongoing existential threat to UNRWA’s operations?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the points she has made. I wish to join her in expressing sincere condolences to the families of those eight hostages who will not be able to be back with their families, as is their right, and as so many of us hoped would be the case. Their families must be suffering intensely now.
The hon. Lady’s point about displacement is well made. The UK position is very clear: the UK believes that international humanitarian law must be held to and that it must be feasible and, indeed, a reality that Gazans are able to return to their homes, including in northern Gaza. That has consistently been the UK Government’s position.
The hon. Lady asked about mine clearing and unexploded ordnance. As I said, it is really important that those areas are safe for people to come back to. I spoke with some specialists in this area last week. I know how meticulous and difficult the work of removing unexploded ordnance is. The UK is actively engaged with experts and considering what role we might be able to play, but above all, we are ensuring that there is a co-ordinated approach to this across our partners and international institutions.
The hon. Lady asks about children. The situation for children has been a priority for the UK Government, as it was for the previous Government. We have ensured that support from UK-Med is provided for children. Unfortunately, we have seen the pressure on children’s health coming through. The UK was heavily involved in seeking to deal with polio through the vaccination campaign, and we will continue to ensure that we do what we can to support children, particularly following the trauma that they have experienced.
Finally, on the issue of UNRWA, the hon. Lady is absolutely right: the deadline is coming up speedily and is in two days’ time. The UK Government remain absolutely committed to our position that no other organisation can operate at the scale or depth of UNRWA. It is absolutely essential for providing both direct humanitarian supplies and health and education services to Palestinians, and we will continue to make that very clear, as we have done repeatedly, to our Israeli counterparts, multilaterally and to our other partners as well.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I am glad to hear of the uplift in funding for Gaza, and I share the Minister’s serious concerns about the effective ban on UNRWA coming into force this week. Of course, 60% of the food that has entered Gaza during the ceasefire has been delivered through UNRWA, which plays a vital lifesaving and stabilising role in the west bank by providing education to 50,000 Palestinian children, as well as healthcare, clean water and rubbish collection. What reassurances has the Minister had from Israel that if UNRWA can no longer operate, there is a viable and humane alternative way of getting support to the Palestinians?
Anneliese Dodds
Like other Members of the House, my hon. Friend has considerable experience of these issues, with a background in humanitarian services. The UK Government are very clear that UNRWA underpins the entire humanitarian response in Gaza. It has a vital role in delivering the uplift in humanitarian assistance that we need to see following the ceasefire and, as she rightly mentioned, education and health services. We are opposed to the Knesset legislation that was previously passed, and we call on Israel to work urgently with international partners, including the UN, so that there is no disruption to this vital work.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
May I commend the Development Minister on her statement to the House today? I think she would agree that it continues the drive and commitment of the last Government. I particularly applaud her for making it clear that the policy of the British Government is that any plans for the future governance of Gaza will involve a reformed Palestinian Authority and categorically rule out any role for Hamas. In a week when we have seen the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz and the release of terrified young hostages, does she agree that it is deeply depressing that antisemitism is alive and well, and often expressed through hatred of Israel?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks, and I am indeed grateful for the work undertaken by the previous Government when it came to humanitarian support in this area. Obviously, we have sought to build on that and deepen it, and to make sure that we are at the forefront of our responsibilities in this area. I am happy to confirm that he summarised the position of the UK Government when it comes to the future of Gaza. It must be a future that is determined by Palestinians and Gazans themselves, with the PA having a role, but not Hamas.
On the issue of antisemitism, in this week of all weeks, we must redouble all our efforts to ensure that we never forget the horrors of the Holocaust, and that we always resolve to combat any form of prejudice and discrimination, including antisemitism.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
May I thank our colleagues on the Front Bench for the work that they have done, and for the commitment that they have shown? To ensure that we do our best to deliver, today’s focus on Gaza is critical, but my concern is that Gaza could easily be destabilised by what is happening in the west bank, particularly the invasion of the Tulkarm refugee camp in the last few days and the killing of further Palestinians. May I ask our Government to make representations to the Israeli Government to show restraint and to prevent the further loss of Palestinian lives through attacks by the IDF?
Anneliese Dodds
As my right hon. Friend rightly says, stability in the west bank is crucial to ensuring that the fragile ceasefire in Gaza can last. All sides must work to ensure a lowering of tension in the west bank at this time. I can reassure him that we have continued to call on the Israeli authorities to exercise restraint, adhere to international law, and clamp down on the actions of those who seek to inflame tensions, which is in no one’s interest.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Before the current crisis, construction in Gaza was made much more difficult by the surprisingly long list of proscribed materials, which included things like drain pipes, which Israel feared could be used as componentry for weapons and was understandably uncomfortable with. What can we do to ensure that the strip can be rebuilt, with all the materials that will require, while giving Israel reassurance on diversion of materials by Hamas—or what remains of it—and other Iranian proxies?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for asking that critical question. He is right to suggest that a key enabler of Gaza’s recovery will be the ability to get goods and materials in at the required pace and scale. Our position is that the enabling conditions for early recovery must be provided in the coming weeks, including secure access corridors, which are really important, and the resumption of basic services.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement and the announcement of additional vital UK support for Palestinians at this crucial time, and I join her in recognising the central work of Jordan. Will she join me in condemning the legislation passed against UNRWA by the Israeli Knesset, which jeopardises the entire international humanitarian response in Gaza? What concrete action will our Government take if the Israeli Government move ahead with implementing that legislation at the end of this week?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for underlining the role of Jordan. On both my visits to Jordan, I saw for myself how committed the Jordanians have been to ensuring that aid gets into Gaza. We are really grateful to them for that, and for the partnership that they have shown with the UK.
When it comes to the legislation on UNRWA, the UK Government have been very clear that the decision by the Knesset was wrong. It will undermine the ceasefire and prevent the delivery of much-needed humanitarian aid, and prevent the delivery of education and healthcare. That is why, once again, we call on Israel to change tack and not implement the legislation.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)
Over the weekend, President Trump inserted himself into the debate on the future of Gaza and its people by saying,
“You’re talking about probably a million and a half people, and we just clean out that whole thing.”
Is it the Government’s view that he was talking about the forced displacement or ethnic cleansing of almost 2 million Palestinians from their land? If that is not the Government’s understanding of what he meant, what exactly is their interpretation of what President Trump said?
Anneliese Dodds
The UK Government recognise the critical role that both the current and previous Administration in the US played in obtaining the ceasefire, as well as the efforts of Qatar and Egypt. On the hon. Gentleman’s question about whether Gazans are able to return, they must be allowed to return. That is very clear under international humanitarian law, as he knows.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for coming to the House with this statement. I am sure that Members across the House are watching to ensure that this agreement lasts, and that people can return to their home and build some sort of future. Tomorrow I am due to meet the Kennington Bethlehem Link, a voluntary group in my constituency dedicated to helping Palestinians caught up in the conflict. It has raised with me the alarming situation in the Aida camp, an UNRWA-funded refugee camp between Bethlehem and Jerusalem. Sadly, the Israel Defence Forces have repeatedly vandalised the camp and intimidated workers. The Minister has outlined the situation on UNRWA funding. Given that Israel is due to sever ties with UNRWA later this week, can she please look at urgently directing any support that the UK can give to the Aida camp?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the critical role of UK civil society in supporting people, whether in Gaza, the west bank or the broader region. That really is incredibly important. I am also grateful to her for raising the issue of aid workers’ safety. This has been the most deadly conflict for a very long time—in fact, I believe since records began on these matters—for humanitarian workers. Of course, the UK Government will look closely at where our support is being provided, as I said to the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), and ensure that it is getting to where it is needed.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
We saw horrendous scenes at the weekend of Hamas terrorists parading the brave hostages before they were returned, and shooting fellow Palestinians for alleged collaboration. Also, the Hamas leader and his team have vowed to return to rule Gaza, and to carry out repeated atrocities like those that were committed on 7 October. That shows that Hamas are not going away. It is quite clear that they are determined to get back in control in Gaza. We all agree that Hamas should not be in charge of Gaza, so the key issue is: how will that be achieved?
Anneliese Dodds
I agree with the hon. Member on those scenes. The Foreign Secretary has been very clear about this, including from this Dispatch Box. The UK Government’s position could not be clearer: Hamas is a terrorist organisation. It must not play a role in future arrangements for Gaza, and we will seek to work with all our international partners, and indeed with the UN, towards that end.
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
While Hamas were busy smuggling weapons, and spending money building tunnels in which to hold hostages ahead of their barbaric attack on 7 October, the people of Gaza relied each and every day on aid coming in. For those of us who want a two-state solution with a peaceful and prosperous Palestine, will the Minister set out her assessment of the long-term role that UNRWA can play in that, and how we can ensure that aid gets to those who need it, not to the terrorists who are trying to take it away?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the importance of the lodestar of the two-state solution, which we must always aim at. Israelis and Palestinians rightly deserve a state of security, and the sovereignty that he is committed to. On the role of UNRWA, we have had many discussions with its leadership and other international partners. Ultimately, a two-state solution would enable the normalisation of the economy that is needed, and hopefully a shift away from the humanitarian problems there have been for so many years. My hon. Friend mentioned reconstruction, and we are discussing that with a number of UN partners, but I would again mention the World Bank, which has been doing so much work, particularly on how finance can be accessed. Of course, a precondition for that is the ceasefire holding, which we continue to push for.
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
According to the UN, 1.9 million people in Gaza are currently displaced, which is 90% of the population. Half of them are children. How will the Minister work to secure the right of return and self-determination for Palestinians in Gaza, especially in the light of the calls from the US President to “clean out” Palestinians from the region?
Anneliese Dodds
The figure that the hon. Member quoted is right, and in some cases Gazans have been moved up to nine times because of recent events. She described Gazans as having the right of return, and I would underline that word “right”. They do have that right. That is clear under international humanitarian law, and it is a right that the UK will seek to ensure becomes a reality.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
We must build confidence on both sides to help sustain the peace, but how are we going to do it? There are 70,000 families who left Palestine before the war and never got back. Many of them still have their keys. I have seen friends and families who never got back to see their grandparents, or who got back once a year. How can we build anybody’s confidence to move out of the destruction, particularly in northern Gaza, while it gets rebuilt? We cannot do that. How will we build the confidence of the families and loved ones of the hostages who are still being held there? They fear that Netanyahu will sacrifice them so that the war will return; the IDF says that there will not be a second phase of this peace. How do we build confidence? My heart is with everybody involved. I know that people want peace, but these are the facts. We have to identify and resolve the risks. I do not know how we will do it. God knows.
Anneliese Dodds
The passion with which my hon. Friend speaks is shared by many Members in this House. It can sometimes be almost impossible to see a way through, particularly after a conflict in which so many thousands of people were killed, but it is the UK’s responsibility, working multilaterally with our partners, to reach towards a peaceful future in which there are two states, and Palestinians and Israelis can live in security. We must aim towards that. It is particularly important for all of us parliamentarians, and the UK Government, not to shift away from this crisis as the media coverage starts to diminish in days and weeks to come. We must keep up the pressure, so that we can ensure the future that the Israelis and the Palestinians deserve.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Deradicalisation must form a key plank of any plan for reconstruction in Gaza, along with ensuring that Hamas have no role in its future running, as the Minister says. However, a sickening reality on the ground is that in textbooks and school curriculums in UNRWA schools in Gaza, there are materials that promote antisemitism, that incite hate against Jews and Israel, and that promote violence. Unless we stamp out that hateful incitement to violence that is being put in front of schoolchildren in Gaza, there can be no successful and peaceful future. What is the Minister doing in her conversations with UNRWA to stamp that out in its schools?
Anneliese Dodds
The issue of what is often called the neutrality of UNRWA is incredibly important, and I have discussed it in detail with the leadership of UNRWA. I have also gone to see this in practice, to understand the reforms that have been undertaken. We talked previously about the important Colonna report, which set out practical steps to deliver that neutrality. The UK Government have directly supported that; we earmarked £1 million of funding for it—part of the £21 million that we announced some weeks ago—so we are absolutely committed to this, and to those reforms being not just implemented, as many of them have been, but sustained.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)
No one can fail to be moved by the powerful scenes of Palestinians returning to their homes in Gaza, even though their homes have been reduced to rubble by Israeli forces. Of course, it is important that we do everything we can to rebuild Gaza, but justice for war crimes is also important. Does the Minister agree that we must stand up to all those who wish to undermine the International Criminal Court’s investigations and do all we can to ensure that justice is done?
Anneliese Dodds
I think we have all seen on our television screens those scenes of Gazans returning to their homes, which in many cases have been destroyed or heavily damaged. Of course, many of those people will also have lost family members, so this has been an incredibly difficult process for many Gazans. My hon. Friend talks about the International Criminal Court, and the UK Government have made it absolutely clear that the UK respects the independence of the International Criminal Court.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I will finish this statement at quarter past 3. Please can questions be a great deal shorter and, with respect, Minister, the answers as well?
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. The suffering of civilians in Gaza is extreme, and I share her call for the immediate release of all those still waiting to be reunited with their loved ones.
Does the Minister agree that we urgently need accountability for the Israeli Government’s violations of international law, as exhibited in the restriction of access to tents, mattresses, medical equipment and so on? Does she acknowledge that the only way we will make meaningful progress towards reconstruction efforts and longer-term peace is to hold the Israeli Government to account for these actions?
Anneliese Dodds
The UK is fully committed to international law and respects the independence of both the ICC and the ICJ. Yes, there must be access to such supplies.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement and the announcement of additional investment in aid to Gaza, which is very welcome. I have visited UNRWA schools and healthcare facilities in the west bank, and the role that UNRWA plays in the provision of essential services, including aid to Palestinians, is unique and irreplaceable. The implementation of the Knesset’s decision to ban UNRWA could therefore amount to the denial of health services, education and essential aid to a population that has already suffered unbearably for the past 15 months. Can the Minister say not only that the UK Government oppose the decision, but what will be done to hold the Israeli Government to account for the impact of that decision, if it is implemented later this week?
Anneliese Dodds
The UK has already acted to make it clear that there must be a resolution to this urgent issue. We have joined allies in expressing our deep concerns about the Knesset’s vote on UNRWA. We have urged Israel to ensure that UNRWA can continue its lifesaving work, including at the UN Security Council on 6 November, 11 December and 3 January.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Today is the ninth day of the siege on Jenin in the west bank by Israeli forces accused of war crimes. With over 3,000 Palestinians forcibly displaced, Jenin hospital under lockdown without water or electricity, and at least 14 people killed by the Israelis since the beginning of the ceasefire in Gaza, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has said that it is deeply concerned by the use of unlawful, lethal force in Jenin, including multiple airstrikes and apparently random shooting at unarmed residents. Can the Minister tell the House what specific and concrete steps the Government are taking or will take to facilitate an end to Israel’s siege and ethnic cleansing in the west bank?
Anneliese Dodds
The hon. Gentleman asks about the UK Government’s representations in relation to the west bank, and we have been very clear that the risk of instability is serious and the need for de-escalation is urgent. We continue to call on Israeli authorities to exercise restraint, to adhere to international law and to clamp down on the actions of those who seek to inflame tensions.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s update on the Government’s efforts to get aid to those in need in Gaza. Given the serious allegations of war crimes occurring in Gaza, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that they are properly investigated and that those responsible are held to account?
Anneliese Dodds
As I have said, the UK is fully committed to international law and respects the independence of the ICJ and the ICC. Any such determination on the conduct of war by whichever party would be taken by those independent bodies, by experts and by judicial actors and lawyers, not by Governments.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
In following your request for brevity, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I ask the Minister when is the correct time to recognise Palestine as a state?
Anneliese Dodds
The hon. Gentleman will know that the UK Government are committed to recognising Palestine, but we are committed to doing so in a manner that ultimately supports the peace process. The Foreign Secretary set that out in detail from this Dispatch Box just a few days ago.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)
When the Ukraine war started, a mechanism was put in place for the evacuation of injured children from Ukraine to hospitals here to ensure that they had appropriate treatment. It seemed to work effectively, and it was the right thing to do. In the light of the ceasefire in Gaza and the fact that northern Gaza’s healthcare facilities have been decimated, will the Government now instigate a scheme for the seriously injured children of Gaza, including orphans, as we did for Ukraine, by establishing a system to ensure that they can be brought here for medical treatment?
Anneliese Dodds
It is vital that Israel ensures sustained passage for patients who need treatment that is not available in Gaza during the first phase of the ceasefire. We announced £1 million for the Egyptian Ministry of Health and Population, delivered through WHO Egypt, to support Palestinians medically evacuated from Gaza. Officials from all relevant Whitehall Departments are exploring avenues to ensure that our support best meets the needs of critically ill people in Gaza.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
We welcome the release of the hostages, though for eight families it will be a sad day as they realise that their loved ones were murdered in captivity. Israel has taken considerable risks by withdrawing troops, opening borders and agreeing to the ceasefire, while Hamas continue to attack in the west bank and continue to humiliate hostages to show that they are in control. Given that Hamas have previously used aid to exercise control of the Palestinian population, and given the huge links between UNRWA and Hamas, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that UK aid is not used by Hamas to re-exercise control in Gaza?
Anneliese Dodds
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the devastating time that the families of those eight hostages are going through. It is really terrible, and it is important to underline that. At the same time, there is extreme relief for those who have been able to return to their families. The UK has consistently worked hard on this. We need to ensure that aid gets to where it is really needed. We have been working on that with a number of UN agencies, as well as with bodies like UK-Med.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Ind)
At the weekend, President Trump called for a “clean out” of the Gaza strip, proposing to forcibly deport Gaza’s more than 2 million Palestinian inhabitants. That would amount to ethnic cleansing and a crime against humanity. Will the Minister join me in condemning President Trump’s remarks, and will she set out what action the UK Government would take to prevent the ethnic cleansing of Gaza?
Anneliese Dodds
I refer my hon. Friend to my previous remarks. The UK Government have been very clear that Gazans must be able to return to their homes. That is a matter of international humanitarian law.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
Despite genocide, displacement and destruction, Palestinians are returning to northern Gaza and remain rooted in their land. In respect of President Trump’s remarks, the Minister has been asked a number of times about what appears to be yet another forced displacement. What is the position of the Minister and her Government in respect of President Trump’s remarks?
Anneliese Dodds
I have said perhaps five times that the UK Government are absolutely clear that Gazans must be able to return to their homes, including in northern Gaza. That is a very clear matter of international law.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement and her even-handedness, both in stating the British Government’s position on increased aid to UNRWA and in confirming that there can be no role for Hamas in future governance. The UK has a strong track record of bringing people together across communities to build peace, no more so than in Northern Ireland. What lessons on support for civil society and peacebuilding in Israel and Palestine will the Government draw from the last Labour Government’s experience in Northern Ireland?
Anneliese Dodds
My hon. Friend is right to be clear that the UK has considerable expertise in the area of peacebuilding, as it does on so many other questions that we have been discussing this afternoon. It will be important in future that we do all we can as a country to pursue that goal of peace: the two-state solution that we talked about before. However, we must, in these immediate months, make sure that the ceasefire is held too.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The fundamental issue is Israel’s occupation of Gaza and the west bank. What assurances has the Minister had from the Israeli Government that they will withdraw all their forces from Gaza and that they will eventually, if not sooner, withdraw from the west bank to allow the Palestinian people to decide their own future in peace?
Anneliese Dodds
I have discussed many of those matters directly with Israeli Government counterparts. I have also been to the west bank so that I could understand the situation with illegal settlements more directly. The UK Government’s position is very clear: illegal settlements are illegal. They are not allowed under international law and we remain determined to make that very clear, not just to the Israeli Government but to all our other partners and multilaterally as well.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement and for the Foreign Office’s diplomatic efforts in securing the early release of Emily Damari, which we have all been hoping and praying for here in the House. Will the Minister assure the House that she will use those same diplomatic efforts to secure the early release of British-related hostages in phase 1 and to ensure that the next phase of the deal is agreed?
Anneliese Dodds
We are absolutely determined to do all that we can to ensure that the UK-linked hostages who remain—Eli Sharabi, Oded Lifshitz and Avinatan Or—are brought home to their loved ones. We call for their immediate release and will do all in our power to secure that.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
No one can gainsay the need for humanitarian aid, but looking forward to the reconstruction phase, what enforceable assurances are there that aid provided by this Government will not be diverted to rebuilding terrorist tunnels, as happened in the past? Can the Minister trust the United Nations Relief and Works Agency when it comes to that, given its record and given the suggestions that tunnels were built under its very headquarters and that there was a data centre there flowing off UNRWA’s electricity supply? Can we place trust in an organisation with such a record?
Anneliese Dodds
Absolutely, the prevention of diversion of aid, not just in this context but more broadly wherever the UK is providing aid, is incredibly important. We take it very seriously indeed and we will always seek to ensure that there is absolutely watertight control around that, wherever UK taxpayers’ money is being used—as it is here—to support some of the people most in crisis on earth. The hon. Gentleman asked about the issue of UNRWA’s neutrality. We have covered that previously in the statement, but I just point again to the work that the UK has undertaken by providing support for UNRWA to implement the Colonna report.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
There are about a million children in Gaza. To put that in context, we have about a million children in Scotland too. Before I was elected, I worked for Save the Children and I have met the children of the Palestinian refugee camps. Of course, we welcome the ceasefire, which is long overdue. Those children now face homelessness, hunger and a lack of access to medical supplies, not to mention a disruption in their education. All children’s lives are equal, whether they be Scottish or Gazan. What are the UK Government doing to protect the children of Gaza at this time?
Anneliese Dodds
We are deeply alarmed by the disproportionate impact of the conflict on children in Gaza. My hon. Friend talked about education, and I will just mention that area, in the interests of time. He is right about the extreme disruption: at least 88% of school buildings will need full or major reconstruction and most, if not all, students in Gaza have not had access to education since 7 October. The UK has been supporting work on that, including through the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs and UNRWA.
Several hon. Members rose—
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Since the ceasefire, we have seen an increase in killings and atrocities in Jenin. On Saturday, Israeli forces were responsible for the killing of a two-year-old girl. The extremist settlers are acting with impunity against the Palestinians. Will the Minister explain what actions this Government have taken to put pressure on Israel to prevent the ongoing atrocities in the west bank?
Anneliese Dodds
The UK Government have been absolutely clear on that. Settler expansion and settler violence have reached record levels. The Israeli Government seized more of the west bank in 2024 than in the past 20 years. That is completely unacceptable. The matter has been raised by a number of members of the ministerial team, not least the Foreign Secretary. He also announced new sanctions in October, which targeted illegal settler outposts and organisations that had supported violence against communities in the west bank.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the Minister for her statement. As a point of clarity, Members need to be present in the Chamber for the Minister’s statement if they wish to ask a question.
Sudan and Eastern DRC
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement on the situation in Sudan and eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The latest conflict in Sudan has now lasted 21 months. This weekend, the Rapid Support Forces attacked the last functional hospital in the besieged city of El Fasher, in Darfur. The World Health Organisation assesses that some 70 patients and their families were killed. The attack is far from isolated. In recent weeks, the RSF shelled the Zamzam camp where displaced people are trapped outside El Fasher, while there are disturbing reports of extrajudicial killings by militias aligned to the Sudanese armed forces in Wad Madani.
The Government condemn those attacks in the strongest possible terms. They show callous disregard for international humanitarian law and innocent Sudanese civilians. Exact figures for those killed and displaced in Sudan are hard to come by, but we know aid is being blocked from reaching those in need. This is, without a shadow of doubt, one of the biggest humanitarian catastrophes of our lifetime.
I saw that for myself last week in Adré, on the Chad-Sudan border, in the first ever Foreign Secretary visit to Chad. I felt a duty to confront the true horror of what is unfolding, to bear witness and to raise up the voices of those—mainly women—suffering so horrendously. Eighty-eight per cent of the refugees at the Adré crossing are women and children. I met nurses in a clinic fighting to save the lives of starving children. I met a woman who showed me her scars. She had been burned, she had been beaten and she had been raped.
Turning to DRC, conflict has gripped the east for more than 30 years. An M23 rebel offensive at the start of this year had already seized Masisi and Minova. This weekend saw them enter Goma, the region’s major city, which M23 last occupied in 2012. Brave UN peacekeepers from South Africa, Malawi and Uruguay have tragically been killed, and with hundreds of thousands having already fled M23 to Goma, there is potential for a further humanitarian catastrophe.
I have not yet travelled as Foreign Secretary to meet those fleeing eastern DRC, but the reports speak for themselves. This is one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a woman or a girl. Children as young as nine are being attacked and mutilated by machete-wielding militias. Around a quarter of the DRC’s population are facing acute food insecurity, and there is frequent bombardment of the makeshift camps that shelter those who have fled their homes.
I regret to say that Foreign Secretaries updating the House on conflicts in Africa is something of a rarity. As I discussed yesterday with African ambassadors and high commissioners, the surge in global conflict includes the number in Africa almost doubling in the past decade. This is causing untold damage and holding back economic growth—the bedrock of our future partnership with African countries. But where is the outrage? Again and again in Adré, I was asked, “What is the world doing to help us?” The truth is that if we were witnessing the horrors of El Fasher and Goma on any other continent or, for that matter, seeing the extremist violence in the Sahel and Somalia anywhere else in the world, there would be far more attention across the western world. Indeed, one recent survey of armed conflict in 2024 contained spotlights on Europe, Eurasia, Asia and the Americas, but none on Africa. There should be no hierarchy of conflicts, but there is one. Every human life is of equal worth.
The impact of these wars is clear for all to see. We have only to be willing to look. I could not face atrocities such as these and shrug my shoulders. However, the House will also recognise the UK’s national interest in addressing these conflicts. Irregular migration from Sudan to Britain alone increased by 16% last year. Unscrupulous smuggling gangs are looking to profit from the misery in places such as Sudan and the DRC. The longer these wars last, the greater their ripple effects. Neighbours such as Chad are working hard to manage this crisis alongside others nearby, but further escalation only increases instability and the risks of conflict elsewhere. With Sudan sitting along the major trade routes of the Red sea and eastern DRC, one of the most resource-rich regions in the world, this is something that we cannot tolerate.
This Government, therefore, refuse to let these conflicts be forgotten. Working with Sierra Leone, the UK prepared a UN Security Council resolution on Sudan to address the humanitarian crisis. Shockingly, despite the support of every other member, including China, Russia wielded its veto, but Russian cynicism will not deter us. We will continue to use our Security Council seat to shine a light on what is happening and work with our African partners on broader UN reform.
We have also doubled UK aid to Sudan, supporting more than 1 million displaced people. I saw our impact at the Adré crossing and announced a further £20 million to support food production and sexual and reproductive services. The UK is the third largest donor in the crisis, having offered almost £250 million in support this financial year.
We have been redoubling our diplomatic efforts as well. In the spring, I am looking to gather Ministers in the UK to galvanise international support for peace. We need to see three things: first, the RSF and the Sudanese armed forces committing to a permanent ceasefire and the protection of civilians; secondly, unrestricted humanitarian access into and within Sudan and a permanent UN presence; and finally, an international commitment to a sustained and meaningful political process. Instead of new and even more deadly weapons entering the conflict, we want consistent calls for all political parties to unite behind a common vision of a peaceful Sudan. We will engage with all those willing to work to bring the conflict to an end.
On the DRC as well, the UK has reacted quickly to the current crisis. We now advise British nationals not to travel to the Rubavu district in western Rwanda, on the border with Goma. We are continuing our humanitarian assistance, having provided £62 million this financial year. This enables lifesaving assistance such as clean drinking water, treatment for malnourished children and support for victims of sexual violence.
Ultimately, however, we need a political solution. We know that M23 rebels could not have taken Goma without material support from Rwandan defence forces. My noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury and I have been urging all sides to engage in good faith in African-led processes. Lord Collins spoke to the Rwandan and Angolan Foreign Ministers last week, and in the past few days I have spoken to Rwandan President Kagame and South African Foreign Minister Lamola. For all the complexities of such a long-running conflict, we must find a way to stop the killing.
Civilians in Sudan and eastern DRC must feel so powerless. Power seems gripped by those waging war around them. The Government and our partners cannot simply will a ceasefire into being, but that is not a licence for inaction. As with Gaza, it can take hundreds of days of diplomatic failure to reach even the most fragile of ceasefires. So for our part, the UK will keep doing all in our power to focus the world on these conflicts and somehow bring them to an end. I commend this statement to the House.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for advance sight of his statement and for the way he has spoken about Sudan and the DRC. Both conflicts are truly shocking, and are resulting in an ongoing displacement crisis, with millions of innocent people having to flee their homes. As he has highlighted in his statement and in his discussions with the African nations and their diplomats, armed conflict in Africa continues to cause immense human suffering and, of course, greater pressure on United Nations peacekeeping. The scale of food insecurity is enormous. The most horrific crimes are being committed against civilians: systematic human rights abuses; sexual violence; torture; and mass civilian casualties.
We are deeply concerned by the intensification of the fighting in eastern DRC and its humanitarian consequences. We continue to urge all parties to deliver on their commitments, which were agreed through the regional peace process. We welcome the mediation efforts facilitated by the Angolan-led Luanda peace process and continue to urge all parties to commit to further political dialogue.
In government, my party was committed to the protection of civilians in and around Goma. The Foreign Secretary will be deeply aware of the long-standing work that took place there, including through the three-year humanitarian programme for the east of DRC, which sought to deliver lifesaving emergency assistance to more than 1.1 million people and to protect and build resilience for the most vulnerable. Despite all of that, it is important that we learn more and understand what the root causes are and how we can bring greater stability and peace to the DRC.
What is happening in Darfur must also not be tolerated. The conflict in Sudan has put pressure on neighbouring countries, which are already under immense strain, and is creating a level of human misery that is totally unconscionable. Our main overreaching objective is clear, and we both agree that we need an immediate ceasefire and an end to all hostilities in Sudan.
The UK Government, working with international partners, must leave no stone unturned as they try to press the warring parties into a ceasefire. The Government must also do everything within their power to hold those responsible for the atrocities to account, because red lines have been crossed in this conflict and we cannot stand by.
The Foreign Secretary will know that the Conservative Government applied a range of sanctions in the past on those supporting the activities of the Rapid Support Forces and the Sudanese armed forces. As the penholder on Sudan at the United Nations Security Council, will the Foreign Secretary update the House on what actions are likely to follow at the UNSC? The world can and should be doing much more, as the Foreign Secretary has rightly said, so what recent discussions has he had with other countries that could be doing much more to leverage their own influence? That also applies to the neighbouring regions. Will he provide an update on the work of Saudi Arabia and others helping with the important Jeddah process and whether that is on track?
On sanctions, does the Foreign Secretary intend to go further, perhaps following the US’s lead? Did he discuss the matter in his call with Secretary Rubio, because Sudan was not in the read-out and was not referenced at all? Will he speak more about the United Nations reform that he has just touched on? The US Administration are also reviewing all their aid programmes, so was that discussed in his call with Secretary Rubio? Beyond sanctions, is he working to identify other hard-hitting ways to put pressure on the leadership of the RSF and the SAF and those supporting those awful war machines?
While the conflict continues to rage, we need a laser-like focus on the humanitarian assistance, and I do not just mean on the type or volume—important, though, that is. If British aid is being sent and is getting through, we must ensure that it gets over the border and is distributed to the people it is intended to help. Will the Foreign Secretary share his latest assessment of the state of the border crossing in Sudan? How much aid is getting through each day and from which crossing points? When the aid gets inside Sudan, are the safeguards there to ensure that it gets to the people who need it, and does he have the mechanisms in place to measure the impact?
On the subject of aid, this might be premature, but will the Foreign Secretary speak about the Government’s plans for the future of aid funding given the forthcoming spending review? While this dreadful war persists, what is he doing to increase efforts to collect evidence of the crimes committed so that those responsible can be held accountable and face justice?
The Foreign Secretary has spoken in recent days about the vile people smuggling gangs. He mentioned the matter not just in this statement, but in his previous written statements. Will further comprehensive action be taken to target those miserable, vile and evil criminal gangs? What more will the Government do to put this whole issue to an end and ensure that this destruction and displacement across these two countries comes to an end?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady. Of course, I know that she too draws some heritage from the African continent and so will take these issues very seriously. I also know the work of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) before coming to office. He did a lot on the humanitarian aid side, particularly in relation to Sudan.
The conflict in Sudan has created, as I said, the world’s largest humanitarian crisis. Thirty million people—half of Sudan’s population—are now in urgent need. To make it clear to the House, that is more than Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Gaza and Mali combined. That is how bad the situation currently is. That is why I raised this issue with Secretary of State Rubio when I spoke to him yesterday—although, because of all the issues in front of us, it was a brief conversation, we both said we would return to the issue, and we discussed the fact that I am keen to convene a group of nations, including regional partners on this very same issue.
On sanctions, since the 2023 conflict the UK has frozen the assets of nine commercial entities linked to the parties involved in the conflict. We obviously do not talk about what more we might be considering, but of course we keep that under review.
The right hon. Lady rightly asked about UN reform. I am pleased to see that the United States recently made statements—under the last Administration, but I am sure that that is a cross-party position—that Africa should be represented on the UN Security Council. That has been our long-standing view over here.
My assessment of the Adré crossing is real concern that the Government in Sudan are saying that that crossing should be closed on 15 February. We disagree with them; it should remain open. There are real issues about access, and one of the things I am pressing for with international colleagues is that the UN should be represented. Its agencies and bodies should be able to work unfettered in Sudan, and civilians must be protected. Recent events at El Fasher are very worrying indeed, but I hope that with regional partners and those internationally engaged, we can at least come to an agreement that the UN should be present and that civilians should be protected, particularly when they are overwhelmingly women and children.
I did also raise the position in the DRC with Secretary of State Rubio when I spoke to him yesterday—in fact, he raised that issue with me, and his real concerns about it. I was clear with President Kagame on Sunday that Rwanda must act to de-escalate this conflict and return to dialogue. I said that an attack on Goma would provoke a strong response from the international community, and from speaking to other nations, my sense is that that is what Rwanda can expect. Rwanda receives over $1 billion of global aid every year, including around £32 million of bilateral UK assistance. All of that is under threat when you attack your neighbours, and we in this House are clear that we cannot have countries challenging the territorial integrity of other countries. Just as we will not tolerate it in the continent of Europe, we cannot tolerate it wherever in the world it happens. We have to be clear about that.
The UK has sanctioned M23 and other armed groups through the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. There are currently 56 individuals and nine entities listed under UN sanctions, and again, we keep that list under review. The shadow Foreign Secretary has rightly talked about the work of the last Government in relation to humanitarian assistance, and I put on record the work that they led on both sides of this horrendous conflict. We are providing £62 million this year for programmes in eastern DRC.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his updates, and for his clear and deeply felt commitment to Sudan. It is the largest humanitarian crisis on record, yet both of the warring parties are choking humanitarian access. The SAF have blocked the UN from reaching areas controlled by the RSF, while the RSF is increasingly imposing bureaucratic obstacles to delay and block aid. What measures is the Foreign Secretary taking to ensure that both of the warring parties and their international backers are allowing vital aid to get in?
Mr Lammy
There have been efforts in the past. The US tried to lead efforts, and all regional partners—the Egyptians and the Chadians—want to see those efforts bear fruit. However, the truth is that the people I met are suffering horrendously. When you are at a crossing meeting those fleeing for their lives, you are always aware that you are often meeting those closest to the border and those with the means to arrange for smugglers to get them out. Despite the millions who have left and are now displaced, tens of millions more are still stuck in Sudan, unable to leave. For all those reasons, we have to be crystal clear about the access issues—not just the fact of aid, but the fact that we want the aid to get through and reach the people who it needs to reach.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, and thank him for advance sight of it. He is right to say that the crisis in Sudan will go down in history as one of the biggest humanitarian catastrophes of our lifetimes. I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s visit to this region and his personal engagement with it, and for updating this House on conflicts in Africa. My party agrees with him that our level of concern for those affected by conflicts overseas should never be influenced by their location.
The Foreign Secretary is also right to draw the House’s attention to the escalation of violence by M23 in Goma. M23’s pursuit of mineral resources reminds us of the DRC’s tragedy of having such riches that trigger such violence. The announcement of increased UK aid to Sudan in November was welcome, as is the further £20 million deployed at the weekend. The Foreign Secretary is right to say that the UK’s aid budget not only reduces suffering, but reduces the pressure on refugees to make hazardous journeys in search of sanctuary elsewhere.
Yet the UK’s ability to respond to humanitarian and conflict situations is reduced by the Government’s failure to commit to the 0.7% target for official development assistance. Will the Foreign Secretary explain to the House why it was reported yesterday that £117 million has been cut from the integrated security fund, which would likely mean less money for conflict reduction work? Can he say what assessment he has made of the impact of the Trump Administration’s instruction that all US aid programmes are suspended?
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s plans to convene Foreign Ministers to galvanise international efforts to seek a ceasefire, but can he say by when this meeting will take place and how he plans to leverage the UK’s position as the Security Council penholder on Sudan? Can he confirm that the Government will not prematurely recognise any alleged authority Government in Sudan when the country is so divided, and how does he propose to reduce the interference of external powers, including Russia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates and now China, in the conflict?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. On what is happening in Rwanda and the DRC, many years ago in this place—22 years—an all-party parliamentary group on the African great lakes region was set up. I was a member of it, and the then MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, Oona King, chaired it for a while. That is when I first went to the region, in the wake of the awful, horrendous ethnic cleansing—[Hon. Members: “Genocide.”]—and genocide we saw in Rwanda back in that period, and that is when I became familiar with the issues.
The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of the 0.7% target on development spend. I understand why those feelings are strongly felt about development, but he knows that we have a £22 billion black hole. We want to get there eventually, but it will take us some time. Notwithstanding that, the UK still makes a major contribution in development aid spending at a time when we are seeing, right across the global community, aid spending falling because of the cost of living crisis, with inflation and the effects that it has on western populations.
It is too early to make an assessment of some of the changes we have read about with the Trump Administration. I am told and advised that there is an 85-day process for the new Administration to look at these issues. However, it was interesting to me that Secretary of State Rubio raised the DRC with me before I raised it with him. We head to the Munich conference in a few weeks’ time, where these issues will of course be discussed, and I hope we will be able to convene and come together on the issue of Sudan shortly thereafter.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and the work he is doing to shine a light on the crisis. As he said, this is about not just the amount of aid, but the crucial issue of access. There is, quite clearly, unequal access for the UN in distributing aid in Sudan. Can I ask how we are supporting organisations on the ground in Sudan, particularly Sudanese aid organisations, to deliver aid in the area?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful for that question, because there is a lively civil society still at work in Sudan and NGOs are on the ground in Sudan doing what they can in the absence of UN agencies able to do that work. I was grateful that the World Food Programme facilitated my trip to the Chad border with Sudan, and to see trucks going in with the World Food Programme name emblazoned on them that may bring some alleviation to the suffering. However, I must say that in my conversations with the drivers, they talked about trucks being hijacked, the changes, the barriers and not being able to get as far as they would like. There are still serious issues on the ground.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his kind remarks.
On Sudan, I commend the Foreign Secretary for going to Chad. I visited the same location last year, and he will have seen the clear and horrific evidence that this is the world’s worst humanitarian crisis. While he was there, did he make it clear to the President of Chad that the use of his private airport by foreign powers to arm and assist the RSF is completely unacceptable?
On the DRC, as the Foreign Secretary rightly says everyone should draw back and engage with the Luanda process. Does he agree that it would help if the Congolese army did not so clearly make common cause with the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, who perpetrated the genocide to which he referred, and who pose a serious threat to Rwanda’s security and were responsible for the murder of nearly 1 million Tutsis in 1992?
Mr Lammy
My bilateral conversation with the President of Chad was extensive—I was accompanied by the Foreign Minister for most of the 48 hours that I was there—and my concern for the women and children was heartfelt, recognising the huge burden of displaced people that Chad bears as best it can. I underlined the UK’s clear position on the conflict, the action of the parties and the need for regional partners to support a political process to end the bloodshed. On the situation in the DRC, I have spoken to President Kagame. I also spoke to South Africa’s Minister of International Relations and Cooperation following the murder of its peacekeepers, and Lord Collins has spoken to a range of African partners, all of whom have a stake. The Kenyans and the Angolans have been doing a lot to move forward the Luanda process, which I urge Kigali to continue to work on.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
According to UN experts the UAE has been providing arms and support to the Rapid Support Forces through its networks in Libya, Chad, the Central African Republic, South Sudan and Uganda. Those arms and supplies have reportedly been disguised as humanitarian aid, raising serious concerns about the UAE’s role in exacerbating conflict and suffering in Sudan. The UAE is one of the UK’s largest arms buyers, with billions of pounds worth of defence exports licensed in recent years. Given the gravity of those allegations, and the UK’s obligations under international law, will the Government commit to ending all arms sales to the UAE unless it can be unequivocally verified that they are no longer supplying the RSF?
Mr Lammy
I say to the hon. Gentleman that we hold—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady—forgive me; I am still suffering from jetlag. We hold regular discussions with all regional partners about the conflict in Sudan, including Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt and African partners, as she would expect. Any sustainable process for peace in Sudan requires the support of all those in the region and beyond.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for coming and making this statement. He was right to say that these devastating conflicts in Africa are often overlooked, and I thank him for that as it is something a number of Members have mentioned in the past. Will he review the conflict budgets, as some of the international NGOs are often there when nobody else is and no other attention is being paid? On Sudan in particular, and Secretary Blinken’s remarks around genocide being committed, what implications does that have for UK foreign policy? On the DRC, the Foreign Secretary mentioned the material support from Rwanda, but what action is he taking regarding all those who have facilitated the conflict, and what action and changes in policy will we see from the FCDO?
Mr Lammy
On the first point, let me be clear: we have come in as a new Government and we think there is an important role for conflict mediation, building on the historic role that this country has played, including in Northern Ireland. We have real strengths and we want to work with partners such as Norway, and others, on conflicts—I reassure the hon. Gentleman about that. Of course I recognise that there are broader regional issues. That is why I wanted to convene, and the UK will continue to play its role. That is why we brought the UN resolution with Sierra Leone, and why I have been trying to rally support globally. Frankly, that is why I visited, taking the opportunity of a ceasefire in Gaza to draw attention to this issue and galvanise the world.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s visit to a malnutrition clinic on the border of Chad and Sudan and the additional funding for the region. Sudan has one of the highest rates of malnutrition in the world. He says he has had discussions with regional actors, but can he go further and update us on where those discussions are? What processes are under way? Can he give further detail on his assessment of how aid is currently getting in across the Adré border, especially ready-to-use therapeutic food, which is vital in stopping malnutrition and starvation in children?
Mr Lammy
The experience of visiting, with Médecins Sans Frontières, a small clinic in Chad with malnourished babies, children and their mothers—knowing I was making a ministerial trip, but also not knowing whether these small babies would survive in the days ahead—was heartrending. I thank Médecins Sans Frontières for all it is doing to keep those children alive and to support those mothers. It is why we are not only doubling our aid to Sudan, but increasing our aid to Chad next door, which is bearing the brunt of all those displaced people who have come. My hon. Friend asks how we are continuing to work on this issue with our partners. I chaired a Sudan session with Foreign Ministers during the G7, plus the Arab Quint. We discussed collective action and how the G7 and the Quint could take the warring parties and push for improved humanitarian access, the protection of civilians and increased aid. I will continue to redouble my efforts in that regard.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary is right to come here to express his dismay and frustration, which we all share, but what assessment has he made of the effectiveness of the United Nations in this? It seems that its mission is failing. Even the measured and balanced resolution that he put together with Sierra Leone failed to get through on 18 November. Would it not be better to look instead at underscoring the importance of an African solution to this? In that respect, what discussions has he had with the African Union, notwithstanding that it is crucial that currently suspended members are involved in the process?
Mr Lammy
The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the important role of the United Nations. I am hugely disappointed that Russia continues to block progress in the UN Security Council. Notwithstanding the pressures, I applaud the work of the UN agencies in particular and what they are attempting to do. I remind him of the work of the World Food Programme, the Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs and others. It is important that there is a UN presence in Sudan and that its agencies can work unfettered there. Clearly, the fact that UNESCO has pledged to withdraw in the DRC is a real issue, given what is happening and therefore what could flow from it ending its period in the country, despite the pressures over the last 20 years.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. An article in The Lancet this month illustrates an alarming rise in multiple life-threatening infectious diseases, including cholera, dengue fever, malaria, measles and polio, due to the destruction of health and sanitation infrastructures. How is the UK supporting progress in securing humanitarian access to life-saving treatments for these diseases, such as malaria, and does he agree that this support is needed, as these infections have an impact worldwide? If we allow these infections to fester, it will have implications for humanity.
Mr Lammy
I thank my hon. Friend for her work in raising these issues from the Back Benches. There has been a worrying outbreak of dengue fever in particular— I met individuals who suffered as a consequence of that —and malaria is rife. We will do all that we can to support that work, but the aid access issues in Sudan in particular make that extremely difficult. That is why we must have a process that allows for unfettered aid to reach those in Sudan who need it.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I join hon. Members in thanking the Foreign Secretary for bringing the statement to the House, given that these matters are so rarely discussed. The United States has often played a key role in ending such conflicts or providing humanitarian support. To support his efforts with Secretary of State Rubio, will he ask for the Prime Minister’s support to ensure that the conflict is on President Trump’s agenda, given the latter’s stated “America first” agenda?
Mr Lammy
I listened to Secretary of State Rubio’s first press conference, where he talked about wanting prosperity and, of course, security and safety for the United States. The truth is, the tremendous problems that we are seeing in the horn of Africa, the Sahel and Sudan are deeply worrying not just for us in Europe but for the United States, because failed countries become a haven of jihadist extremist activity that washes back up on our shores; that is the truth of it. When big countries, or indeed more powerful countries, invade small countries—particularly countries with minimal resources—we should be concerned indeed and raise that as a big issue. For all those reasons, I expect that the United States will take a big interest in what is happening.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and the shadow Foreign Secretary for her response to it. It is important that the House speaks with one voice on these issues. In recent days, I have heard from constituents with family in Sudan, and to say that they are terrified and devastated does not describe it. There is real fear and anguish in the Sudanese diaspora in the United Kingdom.
We have to be seen to be believed, so I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for making his visit to Chad last week and thank him for his leadership on these issues, but I reiterate the point made by the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). Will he touch on the specific discussions that he has had in recent weeks with the African Union—it has an important role to play—and whether he plans to go to Addis to make that case in person?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for continuing to raise these issues from the Back Benches and pressing me on them whenever he sees me in the Lobby. Let me be clear—I should have made this point—that we are of course working with the African Union. New leadership is about to take up post in the African Union in the coming weeks, and we will continue to push these issues with it. We will work with a range of partners including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates, the United States, African and European countries who are taking an interest, the Intergovernmental Authority on Development, the United Nations and the African Union. I reassure him of that.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I also thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, for Sudan is indeed the forgotten conflict, despite 8 million internally displaced people and 24.5 million people on the verge of famine. I lend my sentiments and honour the three United Nations peacekeepers from Uruguay, South Africa and Malawi, the country of my birth. In the Foreign Secretary’s statement, he mentioned more deadly weapons entering the conflict. Who is providing those arms and weapons? What vested interests do they have in Sudan—are they in its natural resources, its gold or its port? What leverage are we using with those countries with whom we have good diplomatic relations who may be supplying those weapons?
Mr Lammy
I met African ambassadors yesterday to discuss those very issues. We talked about the security and resilience of the African continent and of how, after a relatively peaceful period a decade or so ago when most of the discussion was about development, they are now concerned about those who are fighting proxy wars in different ways. That is not to say that regional powers will not have different interests, but when we see the behaviour of mercenaries and we look at the problems of arms sales in Africa and the damage that does to civilian life, we have to hold out for a political solution. We have to get back to dialogue and we have to get back to diplomacy. That is what I am seeking to emphasise in the statement.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
I echo the praise for the Foreign Secretary’s visit last week. It is important that we continue to keep the spotlight on Sudan. Last week, I was able to visit an exhibition called “Children’s drawings”, arranged by Waging Peace and hosted by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell). It showed a series a pictures painted by young children—powerful images of child survivors of the genocide. One picture showed two army men fighting and an attack by the Janjaweed militia on a hut in a village. Inside the hut, at the bottom of the drawing, a soldier was raping a woman. The 80-page book details the resilience of those survivors, and also the trauma that those young children have gone through.
It is good to see cross-party support in the Chamber on this important issue. The Foreign Secretary is right—where is the outrage and the constant media coverage? There should be no hierarchy of conflicts. Every life is equal. Will the Foreign Secretary commit to the House that he will stand by the victims in Sudan for as long as it takes to get that stability?
Mr Lammy
I thank my hon. Friend for her work to press these issues. I repeat again: where is the liberal outrage? Where are the marches? Where are the emails flooding MPs’ inboxes? They are nowhere to be seen. Just a few years ago, the world rallied because of what it saw as horrendous events in Darfur. It is unbelievable that a few years later, the world seems to have forgotten. This is the moment to step up. This House has come together this week to remember those who were massacred in genocide during the Holocaust. These are very serious issues. Just as we have called out horrendous acts against humanity in the past, so we must call this out.
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
As an MP representing a Sudanese community in Bristol and as a member of all-party parliamentary group for Sudan and South Sudan, I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and his real care and concern for the innocent civilians in Sudan and the DRC, and for speaking about the need to protect them from the horrors taking place. In his statement, he said that irregular migration from Sudan to Britain has increased 16% in the past year—indeed, the Sudanese were among the top nationalities to cross the channel in 2024. Does he agree that a key part of our response, alongside support on the ground, must be to ensure safe and legal routes for Sudanese refugees to come here? Has he raised that with the Home Secretary?
Mr Lammy
Sudan was No. 2 in the list of those coming in December. We are seeing an uptick. That is why we continue to work upstream. I hope to be in Africa to look at more work upstream very shortly. Of course, we work with the UN agencies—we have been in touch with them in the past few days—and those NGOs that work with refugees to discuss these issues.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Ind)
The ongoing conflict in Sudan has displaced more than 10 million people, caused widespread famine and fuelling human rights abuses, including sexual violence, with women and girls disproportionately impacted. Will the Foreign Secretary outline the Government’s diplomatic efforts to ensure that all parties are held accountable and adhere to international law and human rights standards? He mentioned that the Government do not want new and even more deadly weapons entering the conflict, so will he ensure that this House receives full and up-to-date information about UK export arms licences with any Government who are alleged to be propping up the RSF or any other military force in this conflict?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for continuing to press these issues. Let me reassure her that the UK continues to pursue all diplomatic avenues to press the parties into a permanent ceasefire, to allow unrestricted humanitarian access to protect civilians and to commit to a sustained, meaningful and peaceful process. We have the most robust export licensing regime in the world. Where there are breaches of international humanitarian law, we suspend licences. She should be reassured that we take that very seriously.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and agree with his point about the way in which global media values pay no attention whatsoever to conflict or life in Africa. He has drawn attention to that today, and I thank him for it. As one who represents constituents from both the DRC and Sudan, I can say that the communities I represent are emailing and talking, and all of them are saying the same thing: why is nobody discussing what is going on in the DRC or Sudan?
I have two quick questions for the Secretary of State. First, what can he do to reduce the flow of arms into Sudan? It is motivated by the countries that want to get hold of the wealth and natural resources of Sudan, and have no concern whatsoever for the lives of the people in that country. Secondly, having been to Goma on a number of occasions in the past, as well as to other parts of the DRC, I am very well aware of the long-term conflict that has gone on over minerals, essentially, where militias are effectively financed by mineral companies to drag out coltan and other riches from the Congo at the expense of the lives of the people there. The role of the Rwandan Government in supporting M23, and now the occupation of Goma, has to be called out and challenged. Surely, the future has to be one of peace and of the democratic engagement of all the people of the DRC in their future.
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I know he did a lot of work with my predecessor in Tottenham on issues to do with the African continent. He has been raising these issues consistently for the past three or four decades, and we are very grateful to him for that.
I seek to reassure the right hon. Gentleman that when I say that we want to convene and come together with regional partners and those neighbouring Sudan, as well as with the international partners that take a big interest and play a big role, as the UN penholder, we are of course aware of some of the motivations; there is gold, for example, in Sudan. We urge everyone to step back and get to a ceasefire. This cannot go on forever; there has to be a ceasefire. We need that ceasefire now because of the women and children who are suffering. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I have been to Goma. We have been talking about the coltan in our mobile phones for many years. It is why there are so many external actors engaged in the DRC.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. If questions and answers are short, I can squeeze in just a couple more Members.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary spoke movingly about his visit to the Chad-Sudan border, and I commend him for bearing witness. There is no substitute for doing that.
Since April 2023, there have been more than 500 attacks on healthcare facilities in Sudan, and more than 100 healthcare workers have been killed. The Foreign Secretary will know that attacks on hospitals and healthcare are a growing and grotesque phenomenon across the world. Does he think we could use our position on the UN Security Council as the lead on the protection of civilians to bring together countries and drive forward action to protect healthcare and health facilities across the world?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. We cannot live in a world where the rules are disregarded and where aid and peace workers are murdered as they go about their business. This has been the most horrendous period for the loss of life of good people doing good work. I will take up the call for a renewed effort, using our position on the UN to marshal that.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The horrendous situation in Sudan, as the Foreign Secretary rightly said, calls for a common vision for a peaceful Sudan. Will he outline what detailed talks he has had with other nations outside of Russia and the UN, in order that that vision of a peaceful Sudan can be realised more quickly than would otherwise be the case?
Mr Lammy
Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have spoken to north African countries about this issue. I was in Chad, obviously, but I also raised these issues in Egypt, where I met Sudanese refugees. I talked about the Quint and the G7; we are using all those multilateral mechanisms to raise this issue and galvanise further support. It was deeply worrying that when the UN called for donors last year, it got just 50% of the money that is required.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement. Gender-based violence increased by 300% in the DRC in recent years, with two thirds of it in the three eastern provinces. In Sudan, we have heard of the epidemic of sexual violence in conflict. This year marks 25 years since the agreement of the landmark UN resolution 1325 on women, peace and security, yet across the world we are letting women down. Please can the Foreign Secretary outline, on the broader agenda, how we will make this the year we actually protect women’s rights in conflict and ensure that their voices are heard?
Mr Lammy
I am very grateful that that is the subject of the last question. One reason why the world is not paying attention to these crises is that they are in the continent of Africa. The second reason, I fear, is gendered: it is women who are suffering. It is men who are doing the fighting and women who are being left behind. We cannot go backwards. For all those reasons, I urge parliamentarians to secure debates and raise these issues with the colleagues they meet from other parliamentary democracies, so we get attention back on these women and children in both conflicts and across so many others, who are suffering horrendously.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the Foreign Secretary. We got through quite a lot of questions.
Points of Order
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is making its way through the House of Commons—indeed, we are well into the Committee stage—yet still we do not have an impact assessment to show what effect it will have. That impedes the ability of Members to properly scrutinise the Bill. Therefore, I seek your advice on what more we can do to force the Government to publish the impact assessment.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving notice of her point of order. The Government’s own “Guide to Making Legislation” makes it clear that a final impact assessment must be made available alongside Bills introduced to Parliament. I do not know why that has not happened in this case, but clearly it is unsatisfactory that the impact assessment is not available to the Public Bill Committee. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted her remarks.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that there has been major disruption in Northern Ireland and, indeed, in parts of Scotland due to last week’s storms. Hundreds of thousands of homes, businesses and families were left without electricity, and some without water. Tens of thousands are still in the same position five days later. I know the matter was raised yesterday in the House, but in rural areas, along with major disruption, they have no online facilities, meaning no business can be done, including last-minute tax returns to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Has the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or the Secretary of State for Scotland indicated that they will come to the House to spell out what additional steps they are proposing to help us bring this crisis to a speedy but overdue end?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. I have had no indication that any Minister is coming to the House to make a statement today, but he will recall that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made a statement to the House yesterday, in which he described the measures the UK Government were taking in Scotland and Northern Ireland to address the impact of the storm.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 8 January, in response to a question on child protection, the Prime Minister told this House:
“Reasonable people can agree or disagree on whether a further inquiry is necessary.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 836.]
Yet over the past week, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), the shadow Policing Minister, has used social media to link councillors who voted against a new national inquiry with grooming gangs. In accordance with the customs of this House, I have informed the hon. Member for Stockton West that I intended to name him.
Madam Deputy Speaker, those posts have incited vile comments online, including councillors being accused of being paedophiles. One comment chillingly read:
“I hope people find out where they live and start persecuting them.”
We know too well that such words online can lead to real-world consequences. One councillor was specifically targeted through paid social media advertisements. People turned up at her home and terrorised her, with yobs braying at her door. Other councillors have been verbally assaulted.
Members of this House have benefited from the good offices of Mr Speaker, who has championed their safety and security. I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that all are appalled by the depraved behaviour of child grooming and rape gangs, but to exploit that suffering for political gain is, frankly, sickening. I would be grateful if you could advise me on the most appropriate way to highlight the potential consequences of our words to all Members, in particular the shadow Policing Minister—if, indeed, he is considered fit to continue in that role.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order, and I note that he informed the hon. Member for Stockton West that he intended to refer to him in the Chamber. The Chair is not responsible for comments made by Members on social media, but I urge all Members to reflect carefully on the likely impact of what they post online.
Women’s State Pension Age (Ombudsman Report and Compensation Scheme)
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
16:25 - The House divided: - Ayes: 105 / Noes: 0 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish measures to address the findings of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman in its report entitled “Women’s State Pension age: our findings on injustice and associated issues”; to require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a compensation scheme for women born between 6 April 1950 and 5 April 1960 inclusive who have been affected by increases in the state pension age; and for connected purposes.
I do so with no joy whatsoever—indeed, my reason for doing so is born more out of complete and utter frustration—but because it is the right thing to do for a number of reasons. It is the right thing to do because we require trust in politics, and I think that all of us at this moment in time, certainly in this Chamber, are conscious of the breakdown in trust between ourselves in this Parliament and the public outside.
For those of us who have stood alongside the WASPI women for many years, for those of us who have pledged to support the WASPI women for many years, for those of us who promised to take action if we were ever to gain Government office, it is important that that trust is repaid, and my Bill seeks to do that. It seeks to do the right thing by those to whom we made a promise.
This is also the right thing to do because, for many of the women who are impacted, this injustice is not alone. Throughout their lives, many will unfortunately have been impacted by the fact that they did not receive a salary comparable to that of their male counterparts. These are women who will have faced the injustice of knowing that they were not able to get themselves up the career ladder simply because they were women and there was a male counterpart. They are the people who will have known that whether or not they were going to have children might well decide what their career opportunities were. It was an unforgivable injustice that they had to experience, and we should not be compounding that injustice by not giving them the compensation they deserve for having their pension entitlement changed.
This is also the right thing to do because the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman tells us it that is the right thing to do. If we do not have trust and confidence in the estate in which we operate, and if we do not support the outcomes of our ombudsman, I must simply ask: where are the public to go? Where are they to place their trust? The ombudsman made it abundantly clear that these women were the victims of maladministration, and that the Department for Work and Pensions had not acted in the way that it should have done. Much worse than that, however, the ombudsman was clear that the DWP could not be trusted to rectify the wrong that it had imposed on those women. So what happened? We were effectively delegated the responsibility to respond, and what did we see? We saw a Government turn their back on those women, but not before, of course, they had held placards; not before, of course, they had given warm words when they had felt that it was politically expedient to do so.
Let us listen to some of those warm words. Let us start off with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who said:
“All your working life you’ve got in mind the date on which you can retire and get your pension, and just as you get towards it, the goalposts are moved and you don’t get it, and it’s a real injustice.”
Let us look at what the Deputy Prime Minister said:
“They want their money back, and quite rightly so.”
Let us look at what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
“Pleasure to speak in the state pension age debate and talk about women who are being treated so badly. Govt please listen. #WASPI”.
The Home Secretary said:
“I want to keep fighting for a fair deal for the WASPI women.”
The Business Secretary said:
“I have always supported local campaigners and will continue to stand up for the WASPI women of Tameside. I know you will fight on.”
The Defence Secretary said:
“Labour will correct this historic wrong.”
For those of us in Scotland, let us look north of the border. The leader of the Labour party in Scotland, Anas Sarwar, said:
“Under my leadership, WASPI women will finally receive the justice they deserve.”
The wider Labour party in Scotland stated:
“Labour will right the historical wrong of pension discrimination by compensating more than 300,000 women in Scotland with an average of £15,000. When Labour wins, Scotland’s women win.”
What happened? A parcel of rogues, indeed.
I was one of many who were in this Chamber prior to Christmas when the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions decided to make a statement right before Parliament broke off to confirm that the Government were sorry for the maladministration that took place, that they were going to make sure the Department for Work and Pensions, which inflicted this wrong upon those women, would never do so again and that lessons would be learned—but that was your lot. The evidence they used to back up their decision not to award any compensation—in fact, not even to discuss the concept of compensation in this Chamber—was based upon the data, as I understand it, of just 200 respondents from many years ago.
The Government then went on to say that there is no money at all, as if they are not the ones who get to decide how money is spent; as if they are not the ones who have decided to box themselves in on pretty much every tax lever that exists; as if—I appreciate that not everyone in the Chamber will agree with me on this point—they are not the ones who have decided to simply accept the broken economic norms formed by leaving the European Union and rejecting access to the single market and the customs union, and to accept that it will cause economic damage and limit the money is available to them. None of that was their fault at all. How very dare they? Do they think the public are zipped up the back? Do they think the WASPI women are not listening and watching the decisions they have chosen to take?
This is a defining issue. Many of us in the last Parliament watched on as a TV show changed the mind of the Government in respect of the Post Office Horizon scandal. Many of us watched on as Parliament forced the Government to change tack on the infected blood scandal. Many of us have spoken about the Equitable Life scandal, the Hillsborough disaster, the loan charge debacle and, indeed, the WASPI campaign. Defining issues of the last Parliament can still be defining issues of this Parliament, but only if the Government act to provide the compensation and redress that these women so badly deserve.
There was a man who went on to become the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who said:
“The walls of Westminster are so high.”
He was inferring that we do not listen to what the public want, nor do we see what they are fighting for and what they believe in. But we know where the public stand on this issue. We know that they believe the WASPI women should be given the compensation that they deserve, and with this Bill we will seek to provide it.
Question put.
Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]
Tuesday 28th January 2025
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 28 January 2025 - large print - (28 Jan 2025)
18:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 181 / Noes: 322 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:15 - The House divided: - Ayes: 180 / Noes: 325 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:29 - The House divided: - Ayes: 73 / Noes: 321 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 1—Water Restoration Fund—
“(1) No more than 60 days after the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the establishment, operation and management of a Water Restoration Fund.
(2) A Water Restoration Fund is a fund—
(a) into which any monetary penalties imposed for specified offences must be paid, and
(b) out of which payments must be made for expenditure on measures to improve the quality of the freshwater environment in England.
(3) The Secretary of State must by regulations list the specified offences for the purpose of this section, which must include—
(a) any relevant provisions of the Water Resources Act 1991, including—
(i) section 24(4) (unlicensed abstraction or related works or contravening abstraction licence); 22 Water (Special Measures) Bill [HL];
(ii) section 25(2) (unlicensed impounding works or contravening impounding licence);
(iii) section 25C(1) (contravening abstraction or impounding enforcement notice);
(iv) section 80 (contravening drought order or permit);
(v) section 201(3) (contravening water resources information notice);
(b) regulations under section 2 of the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 (regulation of polluting activities etc);
(c) regulations under section 61 of the Water Act 2014 (regulation of water resources etc).
(4) 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.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument add to the list of offences specified in subsection (3).
(6) The provisions in this section replace any existing provision for the sums received for specified offences, including in section 22A(9) of the Water Industry Act 1991 (penalties).”
This new clause would require all funds from fines on water companies for environmental offences to be ringfenced for the Water Restoration Fund, for spending on freshwater recovery.
New clause 2—Abolition of the Water Services Regulation Authority—
“(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows.
(2) For section 1A (Water Services Regulation Authority) substitute the following—
‘1A Abolition of the Water Services Regulation Authority
(1) The body corporate known as the Water Services Regulation Authority (in this Act referred to as “the Authority”) is abolished.
(2) All references to the duties and functions of the Authority in this Act or any other enactment are null and void.’
(3) Omit Schedule 1A (The Water Services Regulation Authority).”
This new clause abolishes Ofwat.
New clause 3—Impact of the Act on the Environment Agency—
“The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act—
(a) review the impact of this Act on the Environment Agency;
(b) consider whether the Environment Agency requires any additional resources to meet the additional requirements placed upon it by this Act.”
New clause 4—Duty to publish maps of sewage catchment networks—
“After section 205 of the Water Industry Act 1991 insert—
‘205ZA Duty to publish maps of sewage catchment networks
(1) Each relevant undertaker must publish a map of its sewage catchment network.
(2) A map published under this section must illustrate any relevant pumping stations, pipes, and other works constituting part of the undertaker’s sewerage network.
(3) Maps published under this section must be published within 12 months of the passing of this Act, and must be updated whenever changes are made to the sewage catchment network or the components listed in subsection (2).
(4) Maps published under this section must be made publicly accessible on the undertaker’s website.’”
New clause 5—Duty to prevent chemical pollutants entering the water environment—
“After section 68 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (Duties of water undertakers and water supply licensees with respect to water quality), insert—
‘68A Duty to prevent chemical pollutants entering the water environment
(1) It shall be the duty of a water undertaker to take such steps as are necessary to reduce and prevent chemical pollutants, including but not limited to poly- and perfluorinated alkyl substances, entering the water environment.
(2) In fulfilling its duty under subsection (1), a relevant undertaker must publish a strategy outlining how it intends to reduce and prevent chemical pollutants entering the water environment.
(3) In developing a strategy under subsection (2), a relevant undertaker must consult with appropriate agencies, including but not limited to—
(a) the relevant Government department;
(b) the Authority;
(c) the Environment Agency; and
(d) the Drinking Water Inspectorate.
(4) A strategy under subsection (2) must include consideration of how the costs of reducing and preventing chemical pollutants entering the water environment are to be borne or recovered, where such consideration must prevent such cost recovery from resulting in additional charges being made upon consumers.’”
New clause 6—Licence conditions about nature recovery—
“In the Water Industry Act 1991, after section 17FB insert—
‘17FC Nature recovery
(1) reducing flood risk and pollution incidents, improving water quality and benefiting nature restoration in their catchment area.
(2) The Authority must not take any action that discourages or prevents a relevant undertaker from making an investment in accordance with subsection (1).’”
This new clause would make it a condition of all water companies’ licences to consider nature-based solutions to flood risk, improving water quality and benefiting nature restoration in their catchment area, and prevent the regulator from discouraging or stopping such investments.
New clause 7—Review of price review process—
“In section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991, after subsection (2B) insert—
‘(2BA) In furthering its objectives and purposes under subsection (2A), the Authority must, within 12 months of the passing of the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, review its practices as to reviewing price limits.
(2BB) A review under subsection (2BA) must consider—
(a) whether the current practice of price reviews every five years should be replaced with an annual, or otherwise more frequent, system;
(b) how changes to inflation and other financial or economic changes could or should be reflected in prices charged by water companies;
(c) how any future system of price reviews could better support undertakers in planning and delivering investments beyond a single asset management plan period.’”
New clause 8—Prohibition on bail-out of water company shareholders and creditors—
“(1) The Secretary of State and His Majesty’s Treasury must not directly or indirectly discharge, assume, or guarantee any debts of legal entities in any water company group subject to proceedings under section 24 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (special administration orders made on special petitions), except in accordance with subsection (2).
(2) The special administrator of a water company may reduce the debts owed by the regulated entity to its creditors by up to 100 per cent, taking into account the future forecast expenditure over the short, medium and long term and subject to the administrator’s confidence in the company’s ability to accommodate this spending.
(3) The prohibition set out in subsection (1) and the reduction of debts set out in subsection (2) must not include pension, wage and other obligations owed to employees, excluding any past or current member of a board of directors, within the water company group.”
This new clause aims to allow up to 100% of debts to be cancelled in the event of special administration proceedings, taking into account the scale of investment required to hit the future targets established by the Authority.
New clause 9—Ofwat to publish guidance on debt levels after administration—
“In section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991, after subsection (2D) insert—
‘(2DZA) For the purposes of ensuring that relevant undertakers are able to finance the proper carrying out of their functions under subsection (2A)(c), the Authority must establish guidelines to be followed by relevant undertakers who have been in special administration.
(2DZB) Guidelines produced under subsection (2DZA) must—
(a) set out a maximum level of debt which can be accrued by the undertaker;
(b) set out a process for agreeing capital expenditure necessary for service improvements, bill increases, and changes to operating costs while the undertaker is subject to the Special Administration Regime;
(c) state the penalties which will be imposed for breaches of such guidelines, which may include—
(i) financial penalties;
(ii) prohibitions on the payment of dividends or other bonuses; or
(iii) such other special measures as the Authority deems appropriate.’”
New clause 11—Duty on sewerage undertakers to monitor overflows at sewage treatment works, pumping stations and on the sewer network—
“(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 94—
(a) after subsection (1)(b) insert—
‘(c) to make provision for the accurate collection of data relating to its performance in fulfilling its duties under paragraphs (a) and (b).’
(b) after subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) In performing its duties under subsection (1)(c), a sewerage undertaker must—
(a) install volume flow meters in all locations where sewage overflows occur, including sewage treatment works, pumping stations and on the sewer network for which it is responsible;
(b) establish appropriate required capacities for each sewage treatment works and pumping station;
(c) publish information on the data and calculations used to establish such required capacities; and
(d) install all required monitoring tools within 12 months of the passing of this Act.’”
New clause 12—Rules about performance-related pay—
“(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 35D (inserted by section 1 of this Act) insert—
‘35E Rules about performance-related pay
(1) The Authority must issue rules prohibiting a relevant undertaker from giving to persons holding senior roles performance-related pay in respect of any financial year in which the undertaker has failed to prevent all sewage discharges, spills, or leaks.
(2) The rules issued under subsection (1) must include—
(a) provision designed to secure that performance-related pay which, if given by a relevant undertaker, would contravene the pay prohibition on the part of the undertaker, is not given by another person;
(b) that any provision of an agreement (whether made before or after the issuing of the rules) is void to the extent that it contravenes the pay prohibition;
(c) provision for a relevant undertaker to recover any payment made, or other property transferred, in breach of the pay prohibition.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1)—
(a) “performance-related pay” means any payment, consideration or other benefit (including pension benefit) the giving of which results from the meeting of any targets or performance standards on the part of the relevant undertaker or the person to whom such payment, consideration or benefit is given;
(b) a person holds a “senior role” with a relevant undertaker if the person—
(i) is a chief executive of the undertaker,
(ii) is a director of the undertaker, or
(iii) holds such other description of role with the undertaker as may be specified.’”
This new clause creates a new section in the Water Industry Act 1991 to require Ofwat to ban bonuses for water company bosses if they fail to prevent sewage discharges, spills, or leaks.
New clause 13—Rules about competitive procurement in water infrastructure—
“(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 35A insert—
‘Rules about competitive procurement in water infrastructure
(1) The Authority must issue rules requiring relevant undertakers to use competitive procurement processes in respect of procurement relating to water infrastructure.
(2) If the Authority considers that a relevant undertaker is contravening the rules, the Authority may give the undertaker a direction to do, or not to do, a particular thing specified in the direction.
(3) It is the duty of a relevant undertaker to comply with a direction given under subsection (2), and this duty is enforceable by the Authority under section 18.
(4) Rules under this section may—
(a) make different provision for different relevant undertakers or descriptions of undertakers;
(b) make different provision for different purposes;
(c) make provision subject to exceptions.
(3) The Authority may from time to time—
(a) revise rules issued under this section, and
(b) issue the revised rules.’”
New clause 14—Ofwat consideration of pollution targets for price reviews—
“(1) The Water Industry Act 2011 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 17I insert—
‘“17IA Duty to have regard to pollution targets in carrying out price reviews
When carrying out a periodic review for the purpose of setting a Price Control in respect of one or more relevant undertakers, the Authority must have regard to the performance of the relevant undertaker or undertakers against pollution targets across the previous five years.’”
New clause 15—Database of performance of sewerage undertakers—
“(1) The Water Industry Act 1991 is amended as follows.
(2) In Chapter 3 of Part II (Protection of customers etc), after section 27ZA (Power to require information for purpose of monitoring) insert—
‘27ZB Duty to establish database
(1) It shall be the duty of the Authority to establish and maintain a database containing information relating to the performance of sewerage undertakers.
(2) The database must—
(a) be publicly and freely accessible;
(b) enable uploaded information to be updated in live-time;
(c) contain such data or information as the Authority thinks is necessary for the purposes of public transparency as to the performance of sewerage undertakers; and
(d) contain—
(i) current and historic data; and
(ii) data and information which has been independently collected or analysed including—
(a) the start time, end time and duration of all sewage spill events,
(b) flow data from flow monitors,
(c) the location of each flow meter from which flow data is provided.
(3) The Authority may make rules about the provision of data and information under this section.
(4) Rules under subsection (3) must include rules relating to information provided about the location of flow meters.
(5) The Authority may impose penalties on undertakers who fail to provide such information as is required by this section.’”
New clause 16—Establishment of Water Restoration Fund—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 60 days of the passing of this Act, make provision for the establishment, operation and management of a Water Restoration Fund.
(2) A Water Restoration Fund is a fund—
(a) into which any monetary penalties imposed on water companies for specified offences must be paid, and
(b) out of which payments must be made for expenditure on measures—
(i) to help water bodies, including chalk streams, achieve good ecological status, and improve ecological potential and chemical status;
(ii) to prevent further deterioration of the ecological status, ecological potential or chemical status of water bodies, including chalk streams;
(iii) to enable water-dependent habitats to return to, or remain at, favourable condition;
(iv) to restore other water-dependent habitats and species, especially where action supports restoration of associated protected sites or water bodies.
(3) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, list the specified offences for the purposes of this section, which must include—
(a) any relevant provisions of the Water Resources Act 1991, including—
(i) section 24(4) (unlicensed abstraction or related works or contravening abstraction licence);
(ii) section 25(2) (unlicensed impounding works or contravening impounding licence);
(iii) section 25C(1) (contravening abstraction or impounding enforcement notice);
(iv) section 80 (contravening drought order or permit);
(v) section 201(3) (contravening water resources information notice);
(b) any relevant regulations under section 2 of the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999 (regulation of polluting activities etc) related to water pollution;
(c) regulations under section 61 of the Water Act 2014 (regulation of water resources etc).
(4) 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.
(5) The provisions in this section replace any existing provision for the sums received for specified offences, including in section 22A(9) of the Water Industry Act 1991 (penalties).”
New clause 17—Rules about borrowing—
“After section 154B of the Water Industry Act 1991 (financial assistance for major works) insert—
‘Chapter III
Rules about borrowing for undertakers
154C Restrictions on undertakers relating to borrowing
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument implement a limit on borrowing by a relevant undertaker.
(2) Where a relevant undertaker has total borrowing exceeding the limit set by regulations made under subsection (1), the relevant undertaker may not make a payment of dividends, capital, assets, or interest to shareholders or controlling entities.
(3) 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.’”
This new clause would enable limits to be placed on the amount of money that can be borrowed by a water or sewerage undertaker, and prevent an undertaker who has exceeded such limits from being able to pay dividends to shareholders.
New clause 19—Civil penalties: equivalent reduction to customer bills—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make provision for any monetary penalties imposed on a water company to result in equivalent reductions to the amounts charged to customers by the relevant water company.
(2) In fulfilling its duties under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must arrange, annually—
(a) for the total amount of monetary penalties imposed on a water company in the previous year to be calculated;
(b) for that total to be divided by the number of customers of the water company;
(c) for each customer’s next bill from the water company to be reduced by that figure.
(3) Any reduction applied under this section must be indicated on a customer’s statement of account.
(4) In this section, ‘water company’ has the meaning given by section 6(5).”
This new clause would provide for any fines imposed on water companies to result in equivalent reductions to customers’ bills.
New clause 20—Principles of best regulatory practice—
“In section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991, after subsection (4) insert —
(4A) For the purposes of having regard to the principles of best regulatory practice, the Authority shall not employ any individual who has been employed by a relevant undertaker in the preceding three years.”
New clause 21—Environmental duties with respect to protected landscapes—
“After section 4 of the Water Industry Act 1991 insert—
‘4A Environmental duties with respect to protected landscapes
(1) Where a relevant undertaker operates, or has any effect, on land within protected landscapes, that undertaker must—
(a) Secure and maintain “high ecological status” in the water in these areas by 2028;
(b) further the conservation and enhancement of wildlife and natural beauty;
(c) improve every storm overflow that discharges within these areas by 2028;
(d) reduce the load of total phosphorus discharged into freshwaters within these areas from relevant discharges by 2028 to at least 90% lower than the baseline as defined in Regulation 13(1) of the Waste Water Targets set under the Environment Targets (Water) (England) Regulations 2023.
(2) A relevant undertaker must be put into special administration, and not be eligible for a further licence, if it fails to—
(a) demonstrate adequate progress each year;
(b) meet the targets in subsection (1).
(3) Within one year of the day on which the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 is passed, the Secretary of State must lay a report on the undertakers’ implementation of the environmental duties in subsections (1) and (2) before Parliament.
(4) Following the first report being published under subsection (3), a progress report on implementation must be included in the annual environment improvement plan, issued under section 8 of the Environment Act 2021.
(5) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision requiring an undertaker to achieve bespoke objectives for specific iconic and the most culturally and ecologically significant waterways, including, where appropriate, complete removal of sewage discharge from the undertaker’s infrastructure.
(6) 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.
(7) In this section—
“protected landscapes” includes national parks, national landscapes and national trails;
”land” includes rivers, lakes, streams, estuarine and other waterways;
”High Ecological Status” means the classification of water bodies defined in Regulation 6 of The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2017.’”
New clause 22—Consultation on public ownership of water companies—
“(1) The Secretary of State must within three months of this Act coming into force, publish a public consultation on making provision for the transfer of ownership of undertakers to public ownership.
(2) The consultation must consider—
(a) the process of transferring private water companies to public ownership;
(b) the circumstances in which water companies will be transferred to public ownership;
(c) the establishment of new public bodies to manage water services;
(d) transition arrangements for employees, contracts, and ongoing operations;
(e) governance structures for publicly-owned water services, including provisions for local democratic control and accountability.
(3) The Secretary of State must, within twelve months of the passing of this Act, lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on this consultation.”
New clause 23—Special administration for breach of environmental and other obligations—
“(1) Section 24 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (special administration orders made on special petitions) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (2)(a), insert—
‘(aa) that there have been failures resulting in enforcement action from the Authority or the Environment Agency on three or more occasions to—
(i) maintain efficient and economical water supply,
(ii) improve mains for the flow of clean water,
(iii) provide sewerage systems that are effectually drained,
(iv) comply with the terms of its licence, or
(v) abide by anti-pollution duties in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Water Resources Act 1991, or the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 (SI 2016/1154);’
(3) After subsection (2), insert—
‘(2A) In support of an application made by virtue of subsection (1)(a) in relation to subsection (2)(aa), the Secretary of State must compile and present to the High Court records of—
(a) water pipe leaks
(b) sewage spilled into waterways, bathing waters, and private properties, and
(c) falling below international standards of effective water management.’”
This new clause aims to require the Secretary of State to place a water company into special administration arrangements if they breach certain environmental or other conditions.
New clause 24—Special administration: criminal convictions—
“After subsection (2)(e) of section 24 of the Water Industry Act 1991 insert—
‘(f) that has been the recipient of two or more criminal convictions in the last five years.’”
This new clause aims to exert pressure on companies to operate within the law by preventing water companies with numerous criminal convictions from remaining in business.
New clause 25—Companies to be placed in special measures for missing pollution targets—
“In section 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991, after subsection (2D) insert—
‘(2DZA) For the purposes of ensuring that the functions of water and sewerage undertakers are properly carried out, the Authority must establish—
(a) annual, and
(b) rolling five-year average pollution targets which must be met by water and sewerage undertakers, and the penalties to be imposed for failure to meet such targets.
(2DZB) The performance of a water or sewerage undertaker against such targets must be measured through independent analysis of monitoring data.
(2DZC) A timetable produced under subsection (2DZA)(b) must require the following reductions in the duration of sewage spill events, using the annual total hours’ duration of all sewage spill events recorded by Event Duration Monitors, based on an average from the last five years, as a baseline—
(a) a 25% reduction within five years;
(b) a 60% reduction within ten years;
(c) an 85% reduction within fifteen years; and
(d) a 99% reduction within twenty years.
(2DZD) A water or sewerage undertaker which fails to meet pollution targets set out by the Authority will be subject to such special measures as the Authority deems appropriate, which may include—
(a) being required to work on improvement projects with or take instruction from the Authority, the relevant Government department, or such other bodies or authorities as the Authority deems appropriate; and
(b) financial penalties.’”
New clause 26—Independent review: companies exiting a special administration regime—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, either—
(a) commission an independent review, or
(b) take steps to extend the terms of reference of any existing independent review or commission,
to consider the merits of changing the law to provide that a water company exiting a special administration regime becomes a company mutually owned by its customers.
(2) A review under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) the general merits of mutual ownership of water companies in such circumstances, and
(b) what model of mutual ownership would be most suitable.
(3) The Secretary of State must, as soon as practicable after receiving a report of a review under subsection (1), lay before both Houses of Parliament—
(a) a copy of the report, and
(b) a statement setting out the Secretary of State’s response to that report.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of the potential merits of changing the law so that a water company exiting a special administration regime becomes a company mutually owned by its customers.
Amendment 23, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, at end insert—
“(1A) The Authority must use its power under subsection (1) to issue rules which require—
(a) the interests of customers, and
(b) the environment,
to be listed as primary objectives in a relevant undertaker’s Articles of Association.”
Amendment 15, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert—
“(d) requiring the management board of a relevant undertaker to include at least one representative of each of the following—
(i) groups for the benefit and interests of consumers;
(ii) groups for the benefit and interests of residents of the areas in which the undertaker is operational;
(iii) experts in water and sewerage policy and management; and
(iv) environmental interest groups.”
Amendment 16, in clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end insert—
“(d) preventing a relevant undertaker from employing any individual who has been employed by the Authority in the preceding three years.”
Amendment 17, in clause 2, page 4, line 34, after “occurrence” insert “and impact”. Amendment 19, in clause 2, page 5, line 15, after “occurrence” insert “and impact”.
Amendment 18, in clause 2, page 5, line 17, at end insert—
“(ea) the use the undertaker plans to make of nature-based solutions for reducing the occurrence and impact of pollution incidents,”.
Amendment 11, in clause 3, page 7, line 35, at end insert—
“(e) the volume of the discharge.”
Amendment 12, in clause 3, page 7, line 38, leave out “subsection (1)(d)” and insert “subsections (1)(d) and (e)”.
Amendment 1, in clause 3, page 8, line 5, at end insert—
“(c) be published on the home page of the undertaker’s website.”
This amendment would ensure that information regarding a discharge from an emergency overflow must be published on the home page of the undertaker’s website.
Amendment 13, in clause 3, page 8, line 5, at end insert—
“(c) be uploaded and updated automatically, where possible;
(d) be made available on the undertaker’s website alongside searchable and comparable historic data.”
Amendment 14, in clause 3, page 8, line 5, at end insert—
“(3A) The undertaker must ensure that, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, appropriate monitors are installed to collect the information required by subsection (1).”
Amendment 22, in clause 3, page 8, line 27, leave out from start to “in” and insert
“a Minister with specific responsibility for issues relating to the coast,”.
Amendment 2, in clause 3, page 9, line 23, at end insert—
“141H Failure to report discharge from emergency overflows
(1) If a relevant undertaker fails to comply with its duties under section 141F—
(a) the undertaker commits an offence, and
(b) the chief executive of the undertaker commits an offence, subject to subsection (2).
(2) It is a defence for the chief executive to prove that they took all reasonable steps to avoid the failure.
(3) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable, on summary conviction or conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or an unlimited fine, or both.”
This amendment would make it an offence for an undertaker to fail to comply with its duty to report discharges from emergency overflows.
Amendment 3, in clause 3, page 9, line 23, at end insert—
“141H Restriction on the use of emergency overflows in areas used for aquatic sports
(1) A sewerage undertaker must not permit a discharge from an emergency overflow in an area used for aquatic sports.
(2) In this section, an “area used for aquatic sports” is a section of any body of water connected to and within a one mile radius of—
(a) the clubhouse of a rowing club affiliated with British Rowing,
(b) a Royal Yacht association training centre or the clubhouse of an affiliate member, and
(c) the properties or facilities used by any organisation that the Secretary of State deems to provides water-based sporting activities for the purpose of teaching, training or leisure.
(3) If a relevant undertaker fails to comply with its duties under section (1)—
(a) the undertaker commits an offence, and
(b) the chief executive of the undertaker commits an offence, subject to subsection (4).
(4) It is a defence for the chief executive to prove that they took all reasonable steps to avoid the failure
(5) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable, on summary conviction or conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or an unlimited fine, or both.”
This amendment creates an offence for a sewerage undertaker to use an emergency overflow in an area used for aquatic sports.
Amendment 20, in clause 4, page 9, line 29, leave out
“use that is to be made of”
and insert
“priority that is to be given to”.
Amendment 21, in clause 9, page 13, line 40, leave out from “duties” to end of page 14, line 2.
Government amendment 4.
Amendment 9, in clause 12, page 15, line 34, leave out from “to” to “such” in line 36 and insert “recover from its creditors”.
Amendment 26, in clause 12, page 15, line 39, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State may not require or permit any modified charges to be imposed on persons who do not receive services from the company for the purposes of making good any SAO loss.”
Amendment 10, in clause 13, page 18, line 13, leave out from “to” to “such” in line 15 and insert “recover from its creditors”.
Amendment 27, in clause 13, page 18, line 18, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State may not require or permit any modified charges to be imposed on persons who do not receive services from the company for the purposes of making good any SAO loss.”
Amendment 24, in clause 15, page 21, line 4, leave out subsections (2) to (8) and insert—
“(2) The provisions of this Act come into force on the day on which this Act is passed.”
Government amendments 5, 6, 7 and 8.
Emma Hardy
What a delight it is to be back in the Chamber debating this transformational Bill. I will keep my opening comments brief, because I know that many want to speak, and I will respond to amendments tabled by hon. Members when closing this debate after hon. Members have spoken to them, as is established practice.
I want to start by thanking all members of the Public Bill Committee for their careful consideration and scrutiny of the Bill and, dare I say, their comradery in discussions and debates. It is clear that this is an area that everyone acknowledges is in need of change and reform. I also thank the Chairs, the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq). It was a pleasure to serve under them.
Since being in Committee, I have had several further insightful conversations on the Bill with Members from across the House and on the amendments tabled by the Government for consideration on Report, which I will take the opportunity to speak to now. I will start with Government amendment 4, which is a minor and technical amendment that ensures that clause 10 encompasses new enforcement functions arising from the changes made to clause 2 in the other place.
Government amendment 4 clarifies that cost recovery powers for the Environment Agency, expanded by the provisions in clause 10, also extend to costs incurred when enforcing the requirement to publish implementation plans. That requirement was added on Report in the Lords after cross-party discussions and collaboration. The amendment also clarifies that EA cost recovery powers concerning both pollution incident reduction plans and implementation reports are available for plans covering areas that are wholly or mainly in Wales, as well as for plans covering England, which are already included in clause 10. Such clarifications ensure that the EA regulators in both England and Wales can fully recover costs for the extent of their water company enforcement activities and carry out their duties and functions effectively.
The Government have tabled amendments 5 to 7 in order to commence clause 1 on Royal Assent. That will give Ofwat and companies certainty on when the powers to make rules on remuneration and governance will come into force and will therefore be useful to companies in planning for the 2025-26 financial year. Commencement of clause 1 on Royal Assent will ensure Ofwat can implement its rules as soon as possible following its statutory consultation with relevant persons, which include the Secretary of State, Welsh Ministers and the Consumer Council for Water. I know that some Members have expressed concerns around the timeline over which Ofwat’s rules will come into effect. I therefore hope the alteration to the commencement provisions for clause 1 will reassure those Members that the Government and the regulators are absolutely committed to ensuring Ofwat’s rules are put in place as quickly as possible.
I now turn to new clause 18, which is the most substantial of the Government amendments. As I have stated before, this Government are a Government of service, and we are absolutely committed to taking action to address water poverty. We are working with industry to keep existing support schemes under review to ensure vulnerable customers across the country are supported. We also expect companies to hold themselves accountable for their public commitment to end water poverty by 2030 and will work with the sector to ensure appropriate measures are taken to deliver that.
That is why we have tabled the new clause, which adds to the existing powers to provide for special charging arrangements for customers in need. The new provision will enable water companies to provide consistent support for consumers across the country. It will also allow for automatic enrolment on any future scheme and broader information sharing between public authorities and water companies. The clause imposes a requirement for consultation on any future scheme, and it also amends the Digital Economy Act 2017 to ensure that water companies identify eligible customers and that they get the full support to which they are entitled.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and for her ongoing discussions about drainage and local authorities and other water-related matters. On the issue of water poverty, can she confirm that, either as part of the Bill or as an adjunct to it, when water companies fail to deliver an adequate service in new build situations—where new houses are built, but the water infrastructure is insufficient to furnish those new houses with the proper supply of water—the Bill and the regulatory environment that she has just described will allow customers to get their entitlement and to free themselves from water poverty, as she put it?
Emma Hardy
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and also for the many times that he has talked to me about internal drainage boards since I became a Minister. On his question, if customers are not getting the service to which they are entitled, that is absolutely something that should be taken through Ofwat and the regulators. I am more than happy to pick that matter up with him outside the Chamber.
I hope that Members across the House will agree that new clause 18 is a welcome addition to the Bill, ensuring that the Government have the necessary powers in place to bring forward secondary legislation in future—once we have thoroughly considered all options for improving the support available for vulnerable customers.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Does the Minister agree that it is supremely unjust that, in Wales, customers face some of the highest bills for their water, despite having some of the lowest incomes in the United Kingdom?
Emma Hardy
Bills have obviously had to increase in the latest price review because we have had record levels of under-investment in our infrastructure. However, new clause 18 is intended to ensure greater fairness. It is important for struggling customers that he, as the local Member of Parliament, is talking to the water companies to ensure that they are informed about the support mechanisms that are available, and about how they can access them and everything else to which they are entitled.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way. She will know that just 7% of outfalls were monitored when Labour last left office. I am pleased to say that that figure is now 100%. Does she not agree that new clause 16 would ensure that the fines collected from polluting water companies through the water restoration fund, which was founded by the Conservatives in 2022, are used to improve and prevent further deterioration of our waterways, including our precious chalk streams? Will she now do what we all look to Ministers to do, which is pirouette at the Dispatch Box, recognise the rightness of the cause and change course?
Emma Hardy
The right hon. Gentleman is indeed an eager beaver. As much as I do not wish to pour water on his enthusiasm, I will of course respond to all the amendments at the end of this stage of the Bill, as protocol expects. I hope he is able to contain his excitement, and is looking forward to my final comments on that area. And I shall be practising my pirouettes in anticipation.
I wish to pay special thanks to the Welsh Government, the Deputy First Minister and the officials who have worked so openly and collaboratively with the UK Government throughout the development and passage of this Bill. I also thank the Senedd for their consent, which we received on 21 January. I look forward to continuing to work closely with our Welsh counterparts to protect our rivers, lakes and seas, particularly those that cross our borders.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for all her work on this Bill. Does she agree that we have made much more progress on banning bosses’ bonuses in the six months that we have been in office than the Conservatives did in 14 years?
Emma Hardy
That excellent point was well made by my hon. Friend. I hope all hon. Members agree that the amendments tabled by the Government will only strengthen this Bill and will support new clause 18.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We have many contributions to come and quite a tight deadline, so Back Benchers will be limited to four minutes. I call the shadow Minister.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this vital issue of water quality once again. As His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition have maintained through the passage of the Bill, it is just an attempt to copy and paste some of the work done by the previous Conservative Government and the measures taken to identify the problem. We will not shy away from the fact that the Conservative Government were the first to identify the scale of the sewage problem and actually to start to address it. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) just said, when Labour left office in 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were monitored. When we Conservatives left office last year, 100% were monitored and our landmark Environment Act 2021 paved the way to improving the quality of our precious waters.
However, we are under no illusions: there is always more that can be done, and we have always said that we will seek to work constructively to make the Bill as effective as possible. In that spirit, I thank the Minister for her willingness to discuss matters of the Bill with me and with colleagues across the House; the Minister in the other place, Baroness Hayman, showed an equal willingness to listen to suggestions from colleagues. I also thank members of the Bill Committee for their constructive approach and all the Bill team, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and parliamentary staff supporting this legislation and our scrutiny of it.
As a result of that dialogue, the Bill now includes welcome improvements in several areas, such as company requirements to produce implementation reports to outline how they envision their commitments on improving water quality happening, as well as consideration of nature-based solutions in licensing activities. However, in that same constructive spirit, the Opposition today ask the Government to go even further. We want the Government to back our new clause 16 mandating the water restoration fund, which had cross-party support in Committee. I thank the good folk of the Conservative Environment Network and Wildlife and Countryside Link for their support and campaigning on the new clause, as well as the Angling Trust for its discussions. I also thank the former MP for Ludlow and former Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee Philip Dunne for his assiduous efforts to see the fund introduced.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
These are very substantial sums. A water company in my region was fined £100 million the year before last. It is vital that these amounts go to our chalk streams, which are in desperate need of them.
Dr Hudson
I totally agree with my right hon. Friend. It is right that if water companies do the wrong thing, the money levied from them is ploughed back into improving the water and not back into Treasury coffers. The water restoration fund, since being introduced by the previous Conservative Government, provided £11 million for communities to repair their local waterways and restore them to the quality they should be.
Graham Stuart
To follow up the point made by our right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), that money will ultimately come from water bill payers. It will be ordinary families across the country who must contribute to the £100 million fines or whatever is imposed on our water companies. For that to be taken and then swallowed by the Treasury, rather than used to improve water, would be a disgrace. Does he not agree that the Government must accept new clause 16?
Dr Hudson
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I will come on to an amendment we have also tabled to ensure that if fines are levied on water companies, customers’ bills go down accordingly, so that taxpayers and bill payers are not penalised for water companies doing the wrong thing.
The Government have made ejections in this House and in the other place to the principle of ringfencing the funding and have stated the need for the Treasury to have flexibility on how it spends that money, but in this specific case, their argument still does not stack up. Where money comes from taxation, ringfencing is not always the most reliable way to ensure that the Treasury can have the spending power it needs to deliver that spending, but here we are talking about something very different. Fines are much more uncertain and provide less of a guarantee regarding the amount of money they will bring in. To rely on those funds for day-to-day Treasury spending does not make sense. Ringfencing those penalties for our water restoration fund is a sensible measure that enables Governments to guarantee they can meet a specific need. Water companies pay the fines for the damage they have done, and the local communities affected are empowered to have their local waterways restored.
It is worth repeating the finer detail of our amendment; it should not go ignored that this will also improve chalk streams. It was incredibly disappointing that over Christmas, the Government revealed that they had abandoned plans by the Conservatives to recover our chalk streams. Given that England is home to 80% of the world’s chalk streams, a failure to act on this issue neglects a vital duty to protect a key part of our environment. In light of this, we believe that the Government need to think again about rejecting our important amendment, which is a matter of principle, a matter of justice in righting wrongs, and a fundamental commitment to water quality.
When it comes to improving our waters, it is supporting those who are most affected when water companies fail to abide by their duties that are at the heart of the Opposition’s concerns —the British public, as individual consumers, bill payers and members of local communities. Customers must not pay the price for water companies’ failure to do their duties, whether financial, environmental or otherwise. As such, the Opposition have tabled new clause 19, which would require the DEFRA Secretary of State to provide that where a water company has faced financial penalties for failure to comply with the law, a financial amount equal to those penalties must be removed from the bills of that water company’s consumers.
This is very important, as a toxic cocktail of poor behaviour by water companies and rising bill prices has led to many people feeling that they are receiving poor value for money and not getting the quality water services that they deserve. A concomitant reduction in customer bills that people will see directly on their statements will be a real and tangible sign that poor behaviour is not going unchecked. The Government have previously rejected the proposal, but we urge them to think again about this simple yet effective amendment that would do so much to underpin all the work that is being done and protect bill payers.
I turn to some of our further amendments. Our concerns about the water industry and finances extend to what is in the Bill as it stands—in particular, the provisions for special administration orders in clauses 12 and 13, which the Opposition have raised in the other place and in Committee. Those clauses would give the Government the power to recover any losses they make through placing a company in special administration by raising consumer bills. My Conservative colleagues in the other place sounded the alarm on this issue, and I put on record again my thanks to them for doing so. If water companies require the Government to place them in special administration through their own failure, why should consumers foot the bill for failures they have had no influence on or responsibility for? That is particularly the case if a customer’s bills will rise as a result of mismanagement by a company whose services they do not even rely on.
This proposal runs contrary to the nature of all the action taken in recent years to improve water quality, whereby companies that are responsible for failing to get their affairs in order must take responsibility. We have all been starkly aware of concerns surrounding the financial resilience of Thames Water, and as many will know, Ofwat’s “Monitoring financial resilience” report in November identified 10 companies that needed an increased level of monitoring and/or engagement concerning financial resilience. We acknowledge that the Government believe that they expect to use special administration orders as a last resort and in limited circumstances. However, it is the Opposition’s firm belief that an injustice remains, with people having to pay for companies that they have no connection to. We have therefore tabled amendments 26 and 27, which would explicitly forbid the raising of prices for consumers who do not use the services of the water company that is in special administration. We believe this is a fair and reasonable compromise that the Government should accept, so that we can work to improve the water industry’s financial practices.
We have also tabled new clause 17, which would amend the Water Industry Act 1991 to insert new rules regarding limits on the amount of money that can be borrowed by a water company. Regrettably, the Government rejected this sensible measure in Committee, so we have tabled it again to ensure that water companies do not excessively borrow money, which is ultimately bad for bill payers. When we talk about financial resilience, the heart of the issue is concern about borrowing, and the resultant over-leveraging in the industry. We will be pushing that new clause to a Division. We will also be supporting the measures on nature recovery that we tabled in Committee.
We will be looking very closely at some of the amendments from the Liberal Democrats. New clause 2, which they tabled in Committee, would abolish Ofwat. At that stage, we pointed out that the new clause was not explicit about what it would transition to, so we do not believe that is a sensible way forward.
New clause 18 would grant the Government a power to create a unified scheme of charging arrangements for customers in need of support regardless of the specific supplier, and introduce a consultation for that purpose. Although the Opposition welcome looking at that, can the Government please ensure that others consumers do not face rising bills as a result? It will be interesting to see what the Government do with that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Back Benchers are on a four-minute limit.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
First, I thank EFRA Ministers for the work they have done on this Bill, and for everything they have been doing in working on the consultation. It is quite clear to most of the public that not only is England’s privatised model of water failing, but it is an extreme ideological outlier. It is one of the worst for costs and results. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) is chuntering away in his place. We need a long-term, patient approach, especially given the climate crisis, and that is fundamentally incompatible with privatisation.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
While the chief executive officer of Thames Water was getting £195,000 in bonuses, we in Harpenden and Berkhamsted saw over 100 days of non-stop sewage in our river, which is a chalk stream. The same is now happening again, one year later, with 1,000 hours of non-stop sewage. Does the hon. Member agree that the system clearly does not work, and that such bonuses do not provide the right incentives?
Clive Lewis
I agree with the hon. Lady. I hope her party comes to its senses at some point—maybe in the same way that my party needs to come to its senses—and accept that some form of public ownership will probably be the best way to resolve that.
Clive Lewis
That is my personal view; I put that on the record.
These companies have legal obligations first and foremost to their shareholders, which means short-term profit maximisation. When water was privatised, to quote from Unison’s recent report on this matter, to
“ensure the commercial success of the companies, the government wrote off all the existing debts of the RWAs”—
regional water authorities—
“(£6.5 billion in total) and gave the private companies £7.7 billion of public subsidies in tax relief on profits.”
It has come to my attention that even some former chief executives of water companies fear for the future of the industry, because good investors have by and large exited it. It is now the Macquaries and vulture capitalists of this world that dominate shareholding.
This issue goes far beyond regulation. Indeed, our own regulator, Ofwat, has been found wanting, as its own growth duty prioritises business as usual. In other areas, the Government have quite rightly recognised and embraced the value of public ownership, such as in rail and with Great British Energy. Unfortunately, when it comes to water companies there seems to be an inconsistency in Government policy. Many of us on this side of the House ran on a manifesto commitment to reduce the cost of living, and that commitment is one that I think every Labour MP believes in. However, the cost of corruption and of extraction by a private water company should under no circumstances, as is currently configured in the Bill, land on the heads of our constituents should any of these companies go bust or be taken into special administration.
Water is a monopoly industry, which means that bill payers and taxpayers are the same. What message would it send to our constituents if they are asked to pay, via their bills or via tax, to make a payout for the mistakes and excesses of privatised water?
Graham Stuart
Doubtless the behaviour of the privatised firms should be looked at closely, but one of the fundamentals of having a state-run system for such long-term assets was that they were chronically under-invested. They could never win out in the political battle between schools, hospitals and long-term water infrastructure, and only privatisation allowed the record investment that has gone in since. The hon. Gentleman ought to recognise that in trying to get the balance right.
Clive Lewis
I do recognise that, and not for one second am I calling for nationalisation, which is the model the right hon. Member was talking about. There is a plethora of possibilities for public ownership, from mutualisation through to giving regional authorities more scope, and even working with the private sector. We must ensure that the public have a critical say over the future of water, and there are multiple forms that public ownership can take. I am not necessarily in favour of 1970s-style nationalisation, which is pretty much what they have in Scotland at the moment.
I will, however, ask those on the Front Bench to consider new clause 8 and ensure that our constituents—the people we came into politics for—do not foot a single penny more for the failures of privatised water. Investors, shareholders and creditors should be the ones who take the haircut. They should be the ones who foot the bill because of what they have done to our water. This should not be landing on the heads of our constituents. This is a political choice, and I urge my Government to make it clear that we will always back the public, not the private companies that have got us into this mess.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I pay tribute to the Minister and the Bill team from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who are in the Chamber, as well as to all my colleagues who sat on the Committee for what was a genuinely enjoyable and collegiate experience. I hope they will forgive me for making a few criticisms in the next few minutes.
We tabled 44 amendments in Committee, but only 34 today, you will be delighted to know Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] I know—I am failing. I will not speak to all of them for blindingly obvious reasons. We tabled those amendments because we in the Liberal Democrats, humbly yet enthusiastically, have taken on the mantle in this place and beyond of being the voice for many thousands of campaigners, volunteers and citizen scientists who continue to lead the way in exposing the failures and injustices in the water industry, and fighting for meaningful change. We are immensely grateful to those people all across the country.
Our water industry has become a money-making vessel for speculators, who appear to care little for the quality of our rivers, lakes and seas—something I can tell the House is a source of great fury in England’s precious Lake district. The water companies have accumulated £70 billion in debt since privatisation, while still managing to pay out £83 billion in dividends. That is more than a third of the total spent on infrastructure during that time. In the last year, water companies paid out £9.3 million in executive bonuses, and Thames Water’s bonuses doubled to £1.3 million that year. Money leaks out of the industry, infrastructure is failing, and it is our constituents who pay the price.
Meanwhile the regulatory framework has failed utterly and is not fit for purpose. As I speak, £164 million in fines has been levied against water companies by Ofwat, following an investigation that began four years ago, of which it has so far failed to collect a single penny.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Thames Water has had an increase in the number of pollution incidents, which went up 40% in six months last year. It has been issued with fines, but that has not changed anything. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need regulation with proper teeth, and that new clause 25 would do exactly that by putting water companies into special measures when they fail our constituents?
Tim Farron
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. The water companies simply do not fear Ofwat, or indeed any other part of our fragmented regulatory system. They dwarf Ofwat in terms of resources, they flout the limited regulations that they face, and they run rings around the regulators and obviously get away with it. There was the outrage of the water companies being permitted, just before Christmas, to increase water bills by 36% by 2030, and what makes it even worse is that a third of customers’ bills are being spent just on servicing the debt—a debt that was in part run up to fund excessive dividends.
Water companies are already passing on the consequences of their complete financial mismanagement to our constituents—their customers—but this Bill could enable that to go further and to be even worse. According to the Government’s explanatory notes,
“following the provision of financial assistance by the Secretary of State to a company in special administration”,
clause 12 of the Bill, as drafted, would
“require a water company to raise amounts of money determined by the Secretary of State from its consumers, and to pay those amounts to the Secretary of State to make good any shortfall”.
In other words, when a water company goes into special administration, there is a cost to the Government of ensuring that supply is maintained, and the Government need to recoup that cost. That sounds reasonable at first glimpse, but it does not seem reasonable that bill payers should have to pick up the tab, despite bearing none of the blame for the financial mess a water company finds itself in.
My hon. Friends and I are keen to press amendment 9, which would make it explicit that it should be the creditors of the companies—the big financial investors that have loaded debt on to the water companies—that cover those costs instead. The amendment would strike out the Government’s provision in the Bill that opens up bill payers to carrying the cost of paying off company debt, even in the event of bankruptcy.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I fear that the Government’s drive for growth has meant that they have become fearful of the tough regulation that my hon. Friend suggests. They see it only as an impediment, instead of the basis for a stable economy. Does he agree that weak regulation is not only bad for consumers and for the environment, but also for investment over the long run?
Tim Farron
Somebody representing the water industry will say that the water industry, as structured, is deeply unappealing to investors. There is a case for changing the model of how we structure those companies. When a company goes into special administration, we do not think it is right that innocent customers should have to foot the bill. The management of those companies, and their investors and creditors, are responsible for the mess the company is in. They took the risks and speculated in order to make money, so it is only right that they should have to cover the costs of the risks that they took, not our constituents.
One of the positive aspects of the Bill is the Government’s decision to deploy volunteers, citizen scientists and campaigners to ensure scrutiny of the water industry. Only last week, I spent time speaking with the leaders of the Save Windermere campaign and the Clean River Kent Campaign. I also enjoyed getting my hands dirty and my legs very wet alongside the Eden Rivers Trust in the River Eden not long ago. We are lucky across the whole country to have passionate, committed, expert volunteers who are dedicated to cleaning up and protecting our precious waterways, yet we are saddened that the Government have failed to provide those volunteers with the resources they need or the power they deserve.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that one kind of support that such community groups need is water restoration grants? Those are vital and will flow from the water restoration fund, which is the subject of one of his amendments. Those funds are vital to cleaning up bathing waters across the country.
Tim Farron
Those funds are vital. Bathing water status is important. We hope that DEFRA will come out with new criteria soon so that places such as the River Kent can bid to be included.
We have tabled new clauses 4, 10, 13 and 15, which between them would strengthen the hand of those wonderful volunteers, including by ensuring that the Government’s proposed live database, which we support, retains comprehensive historical data. If it does not, the Government are expecting campaigners to be watching that database 24/7. If they have the temerity to go to sleep, look after their kids or go to work, they may miss something. If we are to back campaigners and volunteers, the least we can do is give them the tools to scrutinise water companies’ performance. Knowledge is power, and our amendments would give those campaigners knowledge and power.
New clause 11 and amendment 14 address monitoring. Event duration monitors tell us how long a spill took place over. For instance, they tell us that last February, United Utilities spilled into Windermere for 10 hours in one go, but those monitors do not tell us anything about volume. As a result, they do not tell us enough about the impact of sewage spills on the ecology and wildlife of our waterways. It is equally possible to have a long duration trickle or a short duration deluge of sewage into our lakes, rivers and seas. New clause 11 would insist that water companies have to measure and report on the volume of discharges and that regulators hold them to it.
New clause 25 would put into law concrete pollution targets and proper penalties when companies fail to meet them. Companies who fail to meet those targets would be put into what we are calling special measures, meaning that they would be subject to financial penalties and/or be made to undertake a specific improvement project. No water company chief executive will quake in their boots if they are not held to targets that are ambitious and enforceable with penalties, and which actually mean something.
Catherine Fookes
I thank the Minister for bringing forward the Bill so fast in the first six months of the Government. It was an honour to sit on the Bill Committee and to engage in constructive discussion with hon. Members from across the House. However, I must take issue with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) and his veritable smorgasbord of amendments and new clauses. I will not support them, because, let us remember, this is just the first step in cleaning up the appalling mess we have been left with our water companies. I am sure that the commission will bring forward ideas for more legislation.
I grew up in the countryside on a farm, and one of my favourite memories was running down the garden and out into the river at the bottom, going for a walk and sploshing through the streams. I and my family took it for granted that we could just mess about in the streams. Apart from really annoying my mum when I got back by leaving a messy puddle of water on the floor, there was never any fear that I would get sick or that I had been wading through sewage. What a change there has been, with parents now worried about their children going into the water. They cannot run helter-skelter into the local chalk stream for fear that they will get an ear infection or an eye infection, or perhaps encounter a wet wipe or something much worse.
Sadly, the health of the Wye and the Usk, our two majestic rivers in Monmouthshire, has really suffered over the past 14 years. I have spent many happy hours walking alongside them, seeing herons and kingfishers, and we have had some of our happiest family days out there. The dreadful state that those two rivers are in makes them two really good examples of the 14 years of Conservative failure and flimflam. We have record levels of illegal sewage dumping in our rivers, lakes and seas, and chronic ongoing diffuse pollution from agriculture.
In every constituency across the UK there are amazing groups of citizen scientists who have really brought our rivers to the fore. I pay tribute to Save the River Usk and Friends of the River Wye in Monmouthshire, who are among the best in the UK. [Interruption.] I am afraid that I will not give way as we are under extreme time pressure. One of my key promises in the election campaign was to work to clean up our rivers. Feargal Sharkey endorsed my campaign—when someone like him endorses a campaign, we know that we will be held to account. That is why I am so pleased that in the last six months we have done more than the Conservatives and the Lib Dems when they were in coalition.
I am proud that we are already standing here debating the Bill, only six months in. It will bring criminal charges against persistent lawbreakers, with penalties including imprisonment. In addition, the cost recovery powers of regulators will be expanded to ensure that water companies bear the cost of enforcement action taken in response to their failings.
We have been left a very difficult legacy due to the disastrous inaction of the Tories and the Lib Dems when they were in coalition. It will take much more work and many years across borders, with both farmers and water companies, to restore our rivers, but the Bill makes an excellent start to cleaning up the horrific mess. It will mean that in future, I hope, parents will be able to allow their children to run helter-skelter into their local rivers and streams.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I would like to speak to amendments 2 and 3, tabled in my name. Amendment 2 would further strengthen the Bill by making it a criminal offence for water companies to fail to report discharge from emergency overflows. Amendment 3 would prohibit such discharge in river areas such as the Thames that are used for aquatic sports.
I have the privilege of representing the towns and villages of Beaconsfield, Marlow, Bourne End and the south Bucks villages. Unfortunately, we are served by Thames Water, and we have some of the highest levels of fines in the country. We are blessed with a beautiful waterway setting throughout my constituency, including the River Thames. Our area is rich in watersport clubs—the Marlow rowing club, the Marlow canoe club and the Upper Thames sailing club to name but three. Young people from high schools and grammar schools use the Thames for their water sports as well.
Amendment 3 would give water used for aquatic sports the same protection as that used for bathing. It would establish clear consequences for water companies and their chief executives where they fail to comply with a clear duty to protect the water in which people practise aquatic sports, particularly rowing. That is particularly true of Thames Water and of the Thames. I appreciate the cross-party support in Committee on these amendments.
Aquatic sports are an important part of our sporting heritage in this country, but storm overflow discharge into our rivers has adversely affected the health of participants, creating an ongoing health risk to rowing, sailing, canoeing and other aquatic sports clubs along the Thames and across the country. Many clubs, particularly in places such as Marlow, take their duty of care very seriously, and are having to put in place their own monitoring systems to protect their members.
Amendment 3 would ensure that water used for aquatic sports was put on the same statutory footing as bathing water. It is time for water companies to take responsibility for ensuring that those waters are safe to use, and to protect our young people for the future. The amendments set out a reasonable expectation that a water company must not discharge an emergency overflow within a 1-mile radius of an area used for aquatic sports. The definition of such an area is clearly outlined, and further discretion is provided for the Secretary of State to determine such areas where needed. The amendment would bring much-needed support to our vital aquatic sports.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
My hon. Friend and constituency neighbour and I, along with my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) and the former Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, have held a number of meetings with local stakeholders and the Canal & River Trust about these issues, which affect the River Colne, which crosses our respective constituencies. Does she share my appreciation of the measures introduced by the last Government, which ensure effective monitoring? Will she join me in thanking Conservative-led Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Hillingdon councils for their work to ensure that watersports users have access to good quality, clean facilities?
Joy Morrissey
My hon. Friend raises an excellent point—the previous Government put in place monitoring for all waterways so that we can hold water companies to account. He mentioned the cross-border and cross-party efforts, but mainly those of the Conservative councils that worked together to hold Thames Water and other water companies to account.
I was surprised that the Government did not readily accept amendment 3, as it is not party political. It is about necessary support for our vital aquatic sports clubs, and would further strengthen the protection of waterways used for aquatic sports across the country. That would include the Thames and other rivers across England, many in areas where young people access waterways and where there is storm overflow. I urge the Government to accept these reasonable and important amendments to strengthen the Bill.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
Water quality and sewage pollution is one of the most pressing issues in my constituency. In the past year alone, we have had 57 sewage dumps—the equivalent of 594 hours of sewage spilled—at Bournemouth pier. As many Members will know, Bournemouth pier is a place where people surf, paddleboard, swim and walk their dogs. It is a magnet for tourism. This is more than just an environmental issue; it is a public health issue, with people frequently getting sick from swimming in the sea. It also has massive economic consequences for my constituency, which thousands of people visit over the summer. It is impacting our reputation, our businesses and our tourism industry. However, it is also a matter of deep pride for my constituents. We are proud to be one of the most beautiful bits of coastline in the UK—we are often ranked in the top 20 in Europe. My constituents want to enjoy those coastal waters, not be afraid to go in them. It is a situation that cannot be allowed to continue.
I am truly glad the Conservatives have found some vim on this issue, but I gently remind them that we did not come to power in a vacuum. We are facing a Victorian situation with the amount of sewage, and that comes from a failure to deal with systemic issues. [Interruption.] Despite their protestations, the Conservatives’ actions have spoken louder than their words. Under the previous Government, we heard talk of scrapping nutrient neutrality, and they slashed the Environment Agency’s budget, with the then water Minister instructing the Environment Agency not to publish data. We have heard all about the increase in monitoring, but if they knew so much about the problem, why did they not do anything about it? It is a little too late for that. It is Labour that is bringing forward the legislation to deal with this issue.
I am proud to support this Bill, with its provisions for criminal liability and banning bonuses. The amendments the Minister has outlined today, in particular to improve transparency, give industry certainty and speed up the implementation of these measures, are so important.
I end by saying that my constituents will welcome the actions taken by the Labour Government. We owe it to them and to the next generation to leave this country with seas, rivers and an environment that are protected and thriving.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
I welcome the Bill. While its provisions are modest, I none the less welcome this step to improve on the failures of previous Conservative Governments on sewage pollution.
For too long, water companies have been allowed to operate without proper regulation and oversight. Since privatisation, English water companies have paid out £83 billion in dividends while amassing £74 billion in debt. Shockingly, with the Bill still making its way through the House, water companies have brazenly said that they plan to circumvent the ban on bonuses by jacking up C-suite salaries to compensate. The Bill must do more and be more ambitious to truly hold water companies to account. I am therefore pleased to support the new clauses in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), which would strengthen the Bill, improving monitoring, protecting consumers and ensuring responsibility falls on sewerage companies to clean up their act.
I will speak to amendment 9 and new clauses 11 and 21. Amendment 9 would ensure that creditors, not bill payers, pay for the bail-out of water companies in special measures. It would protect consumers against the reckless financial mismanagement of Thames Water. Ordinary bill payers should not be required to pay for the mistakes of a company they had no choice to use and the folly of investors that indulged it.
New clause 11 would require sewerage undertakers to install volume flow meters in all their locations where overflows occur. Campaign organisations in my constituency, including the famous Henley Mermaids, tell me that flow meters would help to inform them when it is safe to go in the water.
New clause 21 is also of special importance to my constituency, much of which is in the Chilterns national landscape. It would commit sewerage undertakers to secure and then maintain high ecological status in protected landscapes. It would require them to improve outflow from storm overflows in areas such as Goring, in my constituency, which lies within the Chilterns national landscape. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) would very much welcome that, as we both enjoyed stand-up paddleboard yoga in Goring in July.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Gentleman paints a beautiful picture. How much does he think it would cost to implement and how much would that cost impact on bill payers?
Freddie van Mierlo
The measures we propose should be taken in the round. All our amendments significantly improve the Bill.
New clause 21 would also improve sewage outflow in Henley-on-Thames and the villages along the Thames Path national trail. That is desperately needed to end the shame of welcoming the world to our beautiful town of Henley at the royal regatta, only to subject it to what we put down the toilet.
In conclusion, I welcome the Bill and the protections it will deliver to my constituents, but I hope the Government will consider going further very soon.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for all the hard work she and her team have been doing on the Bill. It is very important to my constituents.
To go back to the very basics, we are talking about something that everybody in North East Derbyshire uses every day—water. I believe that everybody in my constituency, and in the whole country, has a right to know that the water in our rivers and streams is clean, clear and free from pollution. The reason I have to state that now in this House is that we have not had the action we should have had over the past 14 years. That is a huge failure of the previous Government to get action taken and completed on this important issue. Instead, in 2023 water was polluted over 2,000 times in North East Derbyshire—and that is in just one constituency.
Last week, I met local residents in Ashover, which is situated on the River Amber, in my constituency. They impressed on me their concerns about pollution in that very picturesque part of the river. We have had good news, in that Severn Trent Water has improved treatment tank capacity in the area, but my residents are worried that that will not be enough, and indeed that we will not know whether it is enough. They are already concerned that the water they see does not live up to the standards they wish to see. That is why I particularly welcome the fact that the Bill is bringing in independent monitoring of water quality. I am afraid I disagree with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). What I think is important is not that we get carried away with volume, but the impact on water quality. That is what matters most.
Tim Farron
They are not mutually exclusive, are they? Knowing the duration of a spill is important, but knowing what went into it and how much also helps to know the impact so we can regulate it. Is that not true?
Louise Jones
The Bill looks at the result—the impact. I do not understand why we need to look at the volume if we are looking at the impact.
A huge amount has been spent on bosses’ bonuses: over £9 million in 2023-24. To put that into perspective, the average salary in my constituency is just over £30,000. If bonuses are received, we expect it to be for work well done and not just as a matter of course for the failings those bosses are responsible for.
Time and time again, we heard from the former Government that the water industry would change. Unfortunately, it did not under the previous measures, and that is why I welcome the action to ensure results as soon as possible. The Bill will mean cleaner rivers, which is my hope for the River Amber and what my constituents deserve; better infrastructure; better protection for those who use our waters for leisure activities; and better protection for the nature in our beautiful constituency. That is why it has my full support.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
As my constituency contains the Rivers Axe, Brue, Parrett and Tone, together with countless streams, brooks and rhynes, it is of the utmost importance to my constituents that the water quality of our rivers is maintained and improved. The parish of Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge is a coastal resort, as are the villages of Berrow and Brean. It is important for the tourism industry, as well as the local people who enjoy those beaches, that we improve the quality of our bathing water, and I therefore welcome the Bill. We are told that it has four key aims:
“To block the payment of bonuses to executives who pollute waterways;
To bring criminal charges against persistent law breakers;
To impose automatic and severe fines for wrongdoing; and
To ensure independent monitoring of every”
—sewer overflow—“outlet.”
I welcome all those aims, building as they do on the work of the last Government to improve our water quality.
I want to speak in favour of new clauses 16 and 19. New clause 16, entitled “Establishment of Water Restoration Fund”, establishes the principle that fines should go towards environmental improvement rather than to the Treasury. I am somewhat curious as to why the Government would not support that, but perhaps the Minister can explain when she responds to the debate. In November 2024, Wessex Water, which serves my constituency, was fined £500,000 for polluting two rivers, one in Wiltshire and one in Somerset. That money should be used to improve the local environment; it should not be swallowed up by the Treasury.
New clause 19 states that when civil penalties are imposed, there should be an equivalent reduction in customer bills. That is important, because otherwise the water company that has been fined will simply pass on that fine to the consumers; the new clause would ensure that there was no penalty for the customer. I am curious, again, to know why the Government would oppose new clause 19—along with new clause 18—and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s explanation.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
I thank the ministerial team for all their hard work in producing the Bill within six months of Labour’s election in July.
Is there anything more emblematic of the decline and mismanagement presided over by the last Government than the state of our rivers and waters? It was fascinating to hear from the shadow Minister that the Opposition seem suddenly to have realised that this is a bigger problem than they ever thought it was when they were in government. As we have heard from Members on both sides of the House, waterways throughout the country have been choked with record levels of sewage. In 2003, 39 sites in my constituency were polluted by Severn Trent Water and United Utilities. Across those sites, there were 2,579 sewage dumps—and what was the punishment for the bosses of those companies? Did any of them face imprisonment? Were their bonuses curtailed, or stopped entirely? Did they feel the hard edge of enforcement action? The answer is no.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
If the hon. Gentleman, as a Back-Bench MP, is presuming to tell a regulator with criminal powers how to investigate and prosecute companies or indeed any defendants, we need to be very careful, because never before in our law have we permitted Members of Parliament and Ministers to direct independent investigators on whom to investigate and prosecute.
Jon Pearce
I welcome that intervention from the shadow Secretary of State, but let me suggest that if the measures in this Bill had been implemented by her Government, we might have seen some of those enforcement actions.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is very kind. I remind him that in 2002 a Labour Government allowed, through their regulatory regime, the uplift in bonuses that he outlined. Can he tell the House how much sewage dumping happened in his constituency between the years 1997 and 2010, and can he justify why only 7% of rivers were being monitored? He will not be able to, because we did not know.
Jon Pearce
I welcome the hon. Member’s intervention. I simply say to him that his party was in power for 14 years and did nothing. To go back 30 years seems rather extraordinary.
In 2002, the United Utilities chief executive received a bonus of nearly £1 million, and Severn Trent lifted its bonus to £3.36 million. That is millions of pounds that my constituents in High Peak have put in bosses’ back pockets to reward their failure. When I speak to residents on the doorstep in High Peak, they ask me, “How did they get away with it? How can they be allowed to do this?” They got away with it because Conservative Members let them. The previous Conservative Government cut the Environment Agency’s budget by half between 2010 and 2024, leaving the agency toothless to tackle the disgraceful behaviour of our water company bosses. Perhaps that helps us to understand the enforcement issues we have been talking about.
I also remember that just before the election, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), in his previous role as Water Minister, told Environment Agency officials not to publish the headline figures of the total number and duration of spills. How typical of the Conservative party’s approach—rather than face issues head-on and tackle them, it chose to hide them and keep them in the shadows. That approach to government has left our water infrastructure crumbling. By failing to confront these issues, failing to invest in our broken infrastructure and letting consumer money be spent irresponsibly, the Conservative Government left my constituents in High Peak paying twice.
These points underpin the importance of this legislation. This Bill, coupled with the Government’s wider programme to safeguard the environment, will ensure that the beauty of the Peak district in my constituency, with our nature-rich rivers, is entrenched for generations to come. The Bill introduces tougher penalties, including imprisonment for water executives who fail to comply with or obstruct investigations. The Bill will ban bonuses for CEOs and senior leaders unless high standards are met on protecting the environment and their consumers. The Bill will also introduce severe and automatic fines for offences, closing the gap in the Environment Agency’s enforcement powers. Importantly, the water companies will have to start covering the costs of enforcement action. Unlike the previous Government, we will not let the water companies hide from their wrongdoing. The Bill will see that every outlet has independent monitoring.
I am proud to support this major step forward in the Government’s wider reforms to fix the broken water system left behind by the Conservative party. This is a great first step, and a commission will look at the whole water industry, which will hopefully address some of the concerns raised by Members. Only by taking these actions with this ambitious plan, which the Government have done in their first six months in office, can we begin to turn the page on years of decline and attract much-needed investment into the sector, which will preserve the beauty of High Peak and the Peak district for the long term.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Unfortunately, colleagues making interventions have eaten into time, so I now have to call the Front Benchers. I call the shadow Minister, Dr Neil Hudson.
Dr Hudson
It has been a wide-ranging debate, although shorter than we had hoped for. I thank Members for participating today. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) for her passion for enhancing the accountability of water companies and protecting watersports, which we are all passionate about, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) for passionately advocating for the water restoration fund.
New clause 16 would establish the water restoration fund, to ringfence money from fines to restore local waterways, not to balance the Treasury’s books. This was a Conservative fund, and the Labour Government must not let ideology stand in the way of evidence-based policymaking. They must take the baton forward and ringfence this money, so that waterways can be restored locally.
Dr Hudson
No, I have no time.
New clause 19 is designed to ensure that fines on water companies result in equivalent reductions in customers’ bills. That is only fair, and we urge the Government to take forward the new clause.
New clause 17 seeks to strengthen the financial resilience of water companies by enabling the Secretary of State to stipulate the limits of borrowing, so that these companies do not leverage too much debt. That is an important new clause that needs to go forward.
Through amendments 26 and 27, we want to protect customers in different parts of the country so that they do not have to pay for the misdemeanours of water companies that do not serve them. We urge the Government to take forward our amendments and make this Bill stronger, so that we can improve our precious waterways.
Emma Hardy
I thank Members for their constructive engagement throughout this debate. As I have said before, it is wonderful to hear the shared passion across this House for improving the performance of the water sector so that it better delivers for customers and the environment. Given the limited time that I have to address over 50 amendments—I am not looking in any one direction—
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Minister makes reference to the very limited time. Why is that? This is a Government who hold general debates on Mondays and Thursdays. They have no business, yet we have less than two hours to debate this really important issue.
Emma Hardy
The hon. Member and I served on the Public Bill Committee, where we spent much time discussing many of the amendments. I cannot comment on decisions about the business of the House and urgent questions.
As I say, I will do my absolute best to cover all the points raised by hon. Members. I hope they accept that I generally try to be generous with interventions, but I want to put on the record my response to the amendments. I hope the House will give forgive me.
A number of hon. Members have tabled amendments that seek to increase transparency around water company operations and pollution incidents. The Government absolutely agree that greater transparency is needed to better enable the regulators and the public to hold water companies accountable. Although I have previously explained why it is not practical to prohibit all discharges from emergency overflows, which are a necessary safety valve in our sewage system, I reiterate this Government’s commitment to reducing the harm caused by sewage discharge. Ensuring that all emergency overflows are monitored is a critical step in enabling the outcomes that we all want to see. Information on the frequency and duration of discharges will help to direct investment to further reduce sewage discharges into our waterways, and to better enable the public to make informed decisions about accessing their local waterways.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Mr Mohindra
I thank the Minister for being so generous with her time. As she will be aware, the United Kingdom has most of the world’s chalk streams, and the River Chess runs through my constituency. How can she ensure that we continue to monitor our unique environment and protect it from the threat of overflows, to which she just referred?
Emma Hardy
I share the hon. Gentleman’s passion and love for chalk streams—the rainforests of the United Kingdom. Part of this Bill will drive the performance change in the industry that we want to see and reduce sewage discharges, which are doing such damage to such precious habitat.
Although some Members have called for the Government to go even further on monitoring, I reassure the House that we have carefully considered how best to increase transparency without driving unmanageable increases in customers’ bills. As promised in Committee, I have provided a factsheet on this issue, and I can make it available in the House of Commons Library. Rolling out event duration monitors over two price review periods will provide the best value for money for customers and the environment, and does not risk compromising water companies’ ability to deliver other vital improvements to our sewage system.
It is important that we direct investment at improving the sewage network to decrease overflow charges, and not just at monitoring, particularly where it does not provide valuable insight into the harms associated with discharge. There is a balance to be struck, and I believe we have got it right. The public know that there is too much sewage in our waterways. Whichever way we look at it—be it through volume or duration—they know there is too much. The focus must be on reducing it.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend talks about the importance of water quality. Will she join me in commending campaigns such as the Ilkley Clean River Group and other citizen scientists across the country? In the absence of data collected under the Conservatives and the work of the Environment Agency, they had to do the work themselves to expose the sewage scandal.
Emma Hardy
I wholeheartedly pay tribute to the Ilkley Clean River Group and to the work that my hon. Friend does in championing it in this House.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I remind my hon. Friend how much this matters to my constituents in East Thanet. We are surrounded on three sides by the sea, yet we manage to clean up our water. However, I was struck by the fact that the Reform manifesto did not contain one word about water pollution or safety. I also want to point out the emptiness of the Opposition Benches in this debate. That should be put on the record.
Emma Hardy
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I would have thought that this would be an important issue for all political parties.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
Residents in Grosmont in my constituency have had a van parked in the street processing raw sewage, with a pipe left open in the street, for months between the processing of the sewage and the holding tank being emptied. Does my hon. Friend agree that disgusting incidents such as these illustrate our crumbling water infrastructure and the importance of the Bill, which will ringfence funding for vital infrastructure?
Emma Hardy
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. What she is witnessing in the streets of her constituency is a perfect example of the crumbling infrastructure that we have inherited.
Several hon. Members rose—
Emma Hardy
Let me try to get through my remarks.
If it becomes feasible in future for companies to install monitors more quickly, they will be encouraged to do so. In addition to reporting requirements for emergency overflows, other measures in this Bill will ensure that water companies have robust plans to reduce pollution incidents and empower the regulator to punish wrongdoing effectively. This includes requirements to produce pollution incident reduction plans and implementation reports, as set out in clause 2 of the Bill, and requirements for water companies to consider the use of nature-based solutions in the production of their drainage and wastewater managements plans, as set out in clause 4.
The transparency provided by these measures will drive a culture change ensuring that water companies have the right incentives to reduce discharges of sewage into our precious rivers, lakes and seas. Let me be clear that the Bill also provides comprehensive powers for Ofwat to enforce the requirements introduced by the Bill to increase transparency, including through use of significant fines. I can reassure the House that where discharges are found to have breached permit conditions, the regulator will not hesitate to take action. In relation to new clause 14, I also make it clear that Ofwat has a duty to secure that companies are able to finance the delivery of their statutory obligations, including meeting pollution targets.
The Government are committed to acting as fast as possible to reduce sewage pollution in our waterways, and already have stretching pollution targets in place, informed by detailed analysis and extensive engagement. These targets will drive £60 billion of investment between 2025 and 2050, and almost £12 billion of that investment will begin this year, improving 2,800 storm overflows by 2030. I hope this reassures the House that, where water companies do not comply with requirements around pollution incidents and the reporting of those pollution incidents, the regulator will not hesitate to take action.
Pippa Heylings
The water restoration fund was created by the previous Government, yet not one penny of the £11 million levied on water companies between 2022 and 2023 reached any restoration of the waterways. Does the Minister agree that our precious chalk streams could be helped by the water restoration fund being continued?
Emma Hardy
As I have mentioned, I am a huge fan of our chalk streams. The hon. Member is right to point out that the much-lauded water restoration fund that some Members are so keen to talk about was established in November 2022, yet 18 months later the grand total of the number of projects supported by it was zero.
A number of hon. Members have also put forward suggestions to improve information and data sharing more broadly. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) has put her name to some of these amendments. Although the Government do not think it necessary to bring forward legislation in this space, we are actively considering ways of making data more accessible to the public through non-legislative means. This includes information on water companies’ performance and data on local sewer networks in map form, which must be made available free of charge under the Water Industry Act 1991.
Matt Rodda
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Her comments on this point will be welcomed by many of our local residents. Will she provide further information about the greater powers for Ofwat?
Emma Hardy
This Bill will, of course, empower Ofwat to take necessary action where it finds wrongdoing, including through changes to remuneration under clause 1. I know my hon. Friend cares a lot about this.
Several hon. Members rose—
Emma Hardy
I am sorry, but I will have to stop taking interventions if I am to respond to all the amendments.
Water UK has published a centralised map on its website of discharge data from all storm overflows operated by English water companies. I genuinely found it clear and useful, so I encourage all hon. Members to have a look.
I have heard calls from across the House for reforming the planning frameworks, the regulators and the incentives that govern the water industry model. Although I understand and, believe me, fully share hon. Members’ frustrations with the performance across the water sector, the fundamental issues facing the water industry and the regulatory framework in which it operates can no longer be addressed in a piecemeal way. I have spoken at great length throughout the Bill’s passage about the independent commission led by Sir Jon Cunliffe, which will make recommendations to fundamentally transform how our water system works.
The broad-ranging commission is bringing together a wide range of expertise to make recommendations in line with eight objectives to deliver the necessary reset to ensure a resilient, innovative and sustainable water sector in England and Wales. It will report to the Government by summer 2025. This includes specific objectives to review the roles, structures, duties and powers of the regulators, the planning frameworks—including the price review process—and the resilience of water companies. That includes financial resilience, which I know matters to many hon. Members.
Points have been raised about taking water companies into public ownership, and the Government have repeatedly made it clear that we do not consider nationalisation to be within the commission’s scope. Nationalisation would cost over £90 billion, and it would take years to unpick the current ownership model, at the expense of delivering and addressing more immediate public priorities. However, the commission will consider alternative water industry models within its scope. I take this opportunity to invite all hon. Members to put forward their views to the commission through the upcoming call for evidence, which will be launching soon.
Emma Hardy
Despite our political differences, the hon. Gentleman and I had a very interesting and—what is the right word?—comradely debate in Committee.
As we explained in Committee, conversations on the water restoration fund are still ongoing. I honestly do not believe that primary legislation is needed, which Conservative Front Benchers know, as they established the fund without primary legislation. I gently point out, as I have already mentioned, that within the 18 months of its establishment under the previous Government, the fund did absolutely nothing.
Emma Hardy
I have two minutes remaining, so I have to skip through as much as I can, as I know Members will want me to answer questions, particularly on the SAR.
Some hon. Members have expressed concern about the rules on performance-related pay and consumer representation. Although the Government agree it is crucial that consumers’ voices are heard and considered in water company decision making, we have already taken action on this. It is not necessary to require environmental experts to be placed on company boards because, following the agreement made with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in his first week in office, nine of the 16 companies have updated their articles of association to include a social and environmental commitment. DEFRA is working with all of them to ensure they do the rest as soon as possible.
I agree with the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) about the representation of environmental non-governmental organisations on company boards. Members of water company boards are subject to a number of duties under the Companies Act 2006, including a duty to promote the success of that company. A director’s fiduciary duties may conflict with the organisational objectives of the environmental group in question, thus preventing their objective participation in board membership. We cannot have a situation in which an environmentalist on a water company board is not comfortable with their duty to promote the success of that company.
I produced a factsheet detailing how the SAR is used to ensure the continued provision of vital public services. However, I remind the House of the facts. I am being very clear: the shortfall recovery power can only be used to recover shortfalls in repaying Government funding. For the last time, I hope, it cannot and would never be used to recover financial creditor or shareholder losses relating to investment in the company. If the amendments were accepted as proposed, it would involve a radical change to insolvency policy, which has been a long-established practice since 1986.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 18 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Our rivers, lakes and seas are awash with pollution. The legacy of 14 years of Conservative failure is the highest level of sewage spills on record, economic growth held back by a lack of water supplies and, now, painful bill rises to fix the problems that they left behind. The British public are rightly angry about the state of our waterways. It has been left to this Government to clean up the mess once and for all. The water sector needs a complete reset, reform that puts customers and the environment first, and a new partnership with the Government to invest for the future and upgrade our broken infrastructure. This Government have a three-stage plan to make that happen.
During my first week in post, I met water company chief executives and announced immediate steps to improve the performance of the water industry, including ringfencing money for investment in water infrastructure so that it can never again be diverted to bonuses or dividends, and ensuring that customers who face frequent water outages or contaminated tap water receive more generous and faster compensation.
This evening, I am delighted to open the Third Reading debate on the Bill. Its core provisions will strengthen the powers of the regulators so that they can better hold water companies to account for poor performance. It will give Ofwat new powers to ban undeserved bonuses when water company executives fail to meet the high standards the public rightly demand. It will introduce stricter penalties, including imprisonment where senior executives of water companies obstruct investigations by environmental regulators, and includes provisions for automatic and severe fines for wrongdoing. We have also extended powers so that environmental regulators can recover costs for a wider range of future enforcement measures—the polluter, not the public, will pay. We have also introduced mandatory monitoring of emergency overflows and pollution incidents so the public can hold companies to account.
The Bill has been strengthened and improved in its passage through both Houses. I am thankful to all hon. Members, and all noble Lords in the other place, for their thorough consideration and scrutiny of the Bill, and for the many and varied amendments that have been tabled and debated. Water companies will now be required to include water supply as well as sewage-related incidents in pollution incident reduction plans, and we have created personal liability for chief executives so that there is accountability for these plans at the very highest level. Water companies will also need to produce an implementation report alongside their annual plans so the public can see what action they are taking to reduce pollution incidents.
We have introduced two clauses to consider more nature-based solutions such as reed beds and wetlands in drainage and wastewater management plans, and for Ofwat to track progress against our environmental targets. A further clause will ensure that measures are in place to support vulnerable customers, as set out by the water Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), earlier this evening.
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
Will the Secretary join me in commending the citizen scientists and local campaign groups that have driven many of these issues right up the political agenda, including the Friends of the River Exe in Exeter? I am delighted that this Government have acted so quickly to hold the water companies to account for the sewage crisis. Does he agree both that this is long overdue, and that it will fundamentally change the way our rivers are treated?
Steve Reed
I echo my hon. Friend’s commendation for the citizen scientists and the work they have done to highlight the scale of the problem.
The support for the Bill across the House and among the public demonstrates our collective desire to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas. I am proud of the progress we have made through the Bill, but it is not the extent of our ambition.
In October, I announced the biggest review of the water sector in a generation. Sir Jon Cunliffe has appointed an expert advisory group with leading voices representing the environment sector, public health, engineering, customers, investors and economists, and is preparing to launch a public call for evidence within weeks.
Tim Farron
The Secretary of State talks about Sir Jon Cunliffe’s water commission, and we are obviously interested in engaging with that. Does he think, though, that today’s appointment of a former Thames Water executive to the commission will fill the public with confidence that it will be independent in any way?
Steve Reed
Of course, it is an independent commission; it is up to Sir Jon to appoint to the board whom he likes. However, it is a very balanced board, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will recognise that voices from many stakeholder groups are represented, as indeed they should be.
The commission will report to the UK and Welsh Governments this summer, after which both Governments will respond and consult on Sir Jon’s recommendations, including on further legislation.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is right that things are getting better. In my constituency, two new investments in water sector upgrades, by Wessex Water and Pennon, are worth a total of £230 million. Clearly, much more has to be done, but will he join me in welcoming those new investments? Does he recognise that such investment is not consistent across the country, which is exactly why we need the Bill?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I welcome those investments. From visiting him in his constituency, I know what a champion he is for cleaning up the water and the beaches in Bournemouth.
I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice and the noble Lady, Baroness Hayman of Ullock for their expert leadership of the Bill through Parliament, and members of staff in the Bill team and in DEFRA for their hard work and professionalism. I thank Members on all sides who participated in the debates at all stages. I extend my thanks to our colleagues in the Welsh Government and the Senedd for working collaboratively with the UK Government on the Bill. I am delighted that, at the Welsh Government’s own request, the benefits brought about by the Bill will extend to Wales.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
Consumers listening to this debate have been concerned about the role of Ofwat. What reassurance can the Secretary of State give them that Ofwat, the regulator, will put consumers’ interests and environmental interests before corporations’ interests?
Steve Reed
Sir Jon Cunliffe’s commission will be reviewing precisely those points, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will take the opportunity to contribute his views when the call for evidence begins in just a few weeks.
The changes the Government have made in a short amount of time show that with collective determination and ambition we can turn the water sector around. The failures of the past are ending. The future of the water sector is full of promise. Our waterways have been poisoned by unacceptable levels of sewage and other pollution for too long. With these changes, finally, we will clean up our rivers, lakes and seas for good.
Victoria Atkins
I thank everyone who has scrutinised and worked on the Bill in both Houses, including the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), our very efficient Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), and the noble Lord Roborough, who led very constructive discussions in the other place. It is a shame that the Government rejected the amendments put forward today. I thank the Doorkeepers, the hon. Members who chaired the Committee and everyone who helped His Majesty’s official Opposition to scrutinise the Bill.
Across the House, we can all agree that there are fundamental problems facing the water and sewerage industry. Since 2010, the number of designated bathing waters has increased; we have seen a significant improvement in water quality ratings, with more water rated as excellent or good; and an increase in blue flag beaches. But of course we want to see more. We were, in fact, the first Government in history to set out that storm overflows must be reduced, and our landmark Environment Act 2021 gave stronger powers to regulators and imposed strict demands for tackling pollution. We set legally binding targets to improve water quality and availability, and to reduce nutrient pollution. We rolled out catchment-sensitive farming to all farms in England. We stepped up the requirements for investment, including investment from water companies and storm overflow improvements, and nationally significant infrastructure projects such as the Thames tideway tunnel super sewer. When we came into government, just 7% of storm overflows were monitored. When we left government, we had increased that to 100%.
We support the Bill, but we do so with some disappointment at its lack of ambition. Frankly, as we have said before, much of what the Bill tries to do, including monitoring, blocking bonuses and fines, was brought in by the Conservatives in government. We say that the primary legislation is not necessary, but we will of course support the Bill.
I am especially disappointed that the Government have declined to accept our amendments. In particular, it is woeful that they have failed to put the water restoration fund into legislation. [Interruption.] I will deal with the Minister’s comments in a moment. The public rightly want to see the Government addressing water quality, but rather water company fines being used to restore water bodies, that money will be going into the gaping hole of the Treasury’s coffers, presumably in an attempt to undo some of the damage caused by the Chancellor’s disastrous growth-blocking, tax-hiking, job-cutting, investment-plummeting Budget.
Now I am going to correct the Minister, and I will do so from the Dispatch Box rather than through a point of order. Last summer it emerged that Thames Water, Yorkshire Water and Northumbrian Water would be fined a record £160 million between them for a “catalogue of failure” over illegal sewage discharges, subject to consultation. However, in August—when this Government were in power—the Treasury held back those fines, which were due to go into the water restoration fund to help clean up affected areas. The Minister gave figures earlier, but it is her Government’s fault that money was not paid into that fund. We on the side of the House believe that the polluters should pay for their mistakes, rather than their fines paying for pay rises for the Government’s trade union buddies. [Interruption.] Yes, I am sure that the train drivers are very grateful.
Tom Hayes
I sat on the Public Bill Committee, and I must say that the tone that the right hon. Lady is striking is very different from that of her colleagues on the Committee. I just wonder whether she as any regrets about her Government’s record on tackling sewage or pollution. Would she acknowledge any regrets?
Victoria Atkins
I do love being mansplained to by Labour Back Benchers. I suppose it is part of the Labour party’s women problem. The hon. Gentleman is now throwing his thumbs up at me—goodness me!
What I will say is that throughout the passage of the Bill, we have said, “We have made some progress, but there is more to do.” That is precisely why we are supporting the Bill tonight, although we will try to improve it and strengthen it.
Victoria Atkins
I will not, because I want to allow others to speak.
The Government have also sadly failed to recognise the importance of chalk streams, refusing to confirm the continuation of protections put in place by us Conservatives. I am afraid that warm words about rainforests, much as we agree with them, will not protect these vital habitats. We want to see improved water quality, and I urge the Government to take stock and seek to adopt a more rounded approach that cleans up our rivers and seas, treats bill payers and taxpayers properly, and builds on our work to construct the water systems of the future.
Tim Farron
Let me say, without going through all the flowery stuff that we did earlier, that I am grateful to Members in all parts of the House for what has been a broadly collegiate debate. However, the shadow Secretary of State said something that is worth reflecting on. I think she was talking about what I am about to mention, namely the fines of £164 million that Ofwat had indeed proposed should be levied against the very three water companies to which she referred. For what it is worth—and I am not here to defend the Treasury—this was not a Treasury decision at all. It was because of Ofwat’s weakness, and a culture of timidity that is evident when it comes to gathering money from the water companies, that the money was not collected. That information is 100% correct, because it was given to me in response to one of my Freedom of Information Act requests.
In any event, the key feature is my disappointment in the Bill. I will certainly support it should it come to a vote, and I support it anyway, but its weakness lies in the fact that it is not radical enough. It does not go far enough, and it does not tackle the weakness in regulation to which, in a roundabout, accidental way, the Secretary of State has referred .
We will engage with the Cunliffe water review and recognise it as independent. My reflection is simply this. The Labour party has been in opposition for a long time. They were a well-funded Opposition through short money—we could only dream of such things—and surely had the capability to come up with a set of plans that meant they could get on with it straightaway, rather than kicking it to halfway into the Parliament. This is an unambitious Bill, but it is good enough, and it will have our support.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.
Jerome Mayhew
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I need some assistance in understanding how the House can express its displeasure at the Government’s manipulation of the business of the House to stop proper consideration of this Bill. Water was at the heart of the last general election—it is really important to our constituents—and yet the Bill’s Report stage was limited to less than one and a half hours, and not a single Back Bencher has been able to contribute on Third Reading. Is there a way that we can express our disapprobation of the Government putting forward two non-urgent statements today on Gaza and on Sudan and the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo—both of them important in their own right but, I suspect, designed to eat up time?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I thank the hon. Member for his prior notice. While that is not a matter for the Chair, his comments are now on the record.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I gently refute what the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) just said? Two important statements were made today. It is for the Chair to decide on urgent questions, of which there were two today, with both running for a considerable time. It was not the Government’s intention at all for this debate, which is on a matter of great importance to many people across the House, to be curtailed. I will certainly take on board what he says, and there will potentially be further opportunities with the Bill. [Interruption.] There will be statements tomorrow, and there were statements earlier this week; there are lots of important matters. We take great care to ensure that important Government announcements are made to the House through oral statements, and we are criticised when we do not do that.
Business without Debate
Family farm tax
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The removal of agricultural property relief and business property relief on inheritance tax on farms will have a devastating impact on family farms across this country. In Northern Ireland, the family structures of our farms, their size compared with elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the significant price of land and the disparity between the statistics from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs of Northern Ireland on the number of Northern Ireland farms that will be impacted by this change are why the Ulster Farmers’ Union petition opposing the removal gathered more than 15,000 signatures. I urge the Government to take note of this petition and ask the Chancellor to meet the farming unions.
The petition states:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government take immediate action to stop the removal of the Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief on inheritance tax on farms.
And the petitioners remain, etc.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Northern Ireland,
Declares that the government should uphold the Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief on inheritance tax on farms; notes the petition by the Ulster Farmers’ Union on this topic with over 15,000 signatures; and further notes the disparity between the DEFRA and DAERA statistics on the number of Northern Ireland farms impacted by this change.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government take immediate action to stop the removal of the Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief on inheritance tax on farms.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003037]
Unionised Workers in the Housing Sector: Pay Discrimination
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this debate. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a member of Unite the Union.
I have spent my life in the trade union movement, so it is no surprise that my first Adjournment debate focuses on the principle of collective bargaining. A dispute in my constituency appears to expose a gap in the legislation, whereby an employer can offer pay increases exclusively to non-unionised workers—an unacceptable practice that can be exploited by employers not just in Knowsley, but across the country.
Livv Housing, the largest housing association in my constituency, manages 13,000 homes across Liverpool and the north-west. In March 2024, Livv reported reserves of £110.6 million. Over the past five years, it has recorded annual surpluses ranging from £14 million to £25 million, yet the workers who keep Livv running have faced years of real-terms pay cuts. Pay has fallen by over 30% in real terms since 2011.
It is no wonder that Unite and Unison members have been taking industrial action since October last year. Livv has refused to engage in meaningful discussions with the unions, but it has also declared the negotiations exhausted. The stonewalling has prolonged the dispute, and it is evident from my inbox that it is having an impact on my constituents who depend on Livv’s services. The casework load involving Livv is mounting up, and it is having a bad effect on people’s lives. Nothing is getting fixed, because its management will not sit down and settle the dispute.
In December, Livv wrote to all staff to say that they could have a 5% pay rise if they replied in writing to confirm that they were not a member of a trade union. The email says:
“If you are a non-union member and would like to accept the pay award offer of 5%, please can you send confirmation of your acceptance and confirm that you are a non-union member. A one-line email to confirm you wish to receive the pay award and that you are not a union member will be enough.”
This practice is completely contrary to the spirit of the Employment Relations Act 2004, which sought to protect workers’ collective voice and to stop inducement and similar practices. However, some employers keep trying to find a way around the protections, and we have to put a stop to it.
I have personally written to the chief executive officer of Livv on multiple occasions, urging the housing association to engage constructively with the unions and to seek a fair resolution, but Léann Hearne has gone as far as to inform me that she will no longer engage with me in writing. I have written to Livv and asked it to bring an end to the dispute, as has Mayor Steve Rotheram, and Knowsley council has passed a motion that asks it to get around the table and solve the dispute with the unions. This is all that any of us wants, especially the workers currently in dispute. Instead of doing that, Livv has focused its efforts on undermining collective bargaining.
We all know that workers get the best deal when they collectively bargain for pay and conditions. The strength of workers standing together is the only thing that can balance the power of an employer, which is why bad employers have done everything they can over the years to undermine the ability of workers to collectively bargain.
Some Members of the House will remember the 2021 case of Kostal UK Ltd v. Dunkley, in which the employer tried to undermine the collective voice of Unite workers.
Before talks had been exhausted, Kostal made a direct offer to the workforce and informed staff that they would not receive their Christmas bonus if they did not accept it by a deadline. Does that sound familiar? Like Livv, Kostal thought it had found a loophole in the law, but that was unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court. In its ruling, Lord Leggatt said:
“Such conduct denies the union its seat at the table and does not allow the union’s voice to be heard.”
Today, Livv Housing is doing just that.
What this behaviour does is create a two-tier workforce, pitting colleagues against each other. Imagine going into a workplace with a culture like that. If some employers can get away with this, you can bet that other employers will follow. It was Winston Churchill who said:
“The trade unions are a long-established and essential part of our national life. We take our stand by these pillars of our British society as it has gradually developed and evolved itself, of the right of individual labouring men to adjust their wages and conditions by collective bargaining, including the right to strike.”
I understand that the Minister cannot comment on individual disputes, but this is clearly something that can be exploited by employers across the country. The Employment Rights Bill provides a clear opportunity to close this loophole that we thought was closed so long ago, so I ask the Minister to commit to looking at amending the Bill to stop employers seeking to undermine collective bargaining by offering non-union members preferential treatment in pay awards, and to update me on those plans.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) for securing this debate and for her excellent speech. She has a long and proud record in the trade union movement, which she has brought to the fore today.
I want to start by setting out the Government’s approach to the important subject of industrial relations. We want employers and trade unions to come together to grow our economy. We know that the world of work is fairer and more productive when people can come together to negotiate fair pay and decent conditions. That is why we are resetting industrial relations through the Employment Rights Bill. We are repealing nearly every part of the Trade Union Act 2016, which tried to smother trade unions in form-filling and red tape and prevent them from doing their core job of negotiation and dispute resolution.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Member for Knowsley (Anneliese Midgley) for bringing forward this debate. I spoke to her beforehand, and I understand what she is trying to do. She has clearly outlined the case for the unions in her contribution tonight. When I started work for Henry Denny’s in Belfast in my early 20s, they asked me if I wanted to join the union. To be honest, I was not sure, but the guy told me it was compulsory, so I said, “That’s okay.” But here’s the story. I had the union on my side when I first started work at Henry Denny’s; I had it to back me up whenever I needed something. I had had a different opinion about what unions were and what they could do for me. The hon. Lady has outlined what the unions can do, I understand personally what they can do, and I look forward to hearing the Minister tell us what he is going to do.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his support for unions. I was a little worried when the debate started because he was not in his normal place. I thought there was going to be some sort of national emergency because the hon. Member for Strangford had not attended the Adjournment debate, but I am glad he is here and that he has spoken very positively about the benefits of joining a trade union.
I shall go back to some of the work we are doing to improve the industrial relations landscape. We are of course repealing the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, which, to our mind, only increased tensions and failed to prevent a single day of industrial action. We are going further in strengthening the voice of working people by making it easier for trade unions to get recognised, giving them the right of access to workplaces and making sure that they have enough time to represent their members. When the rights of working people are flouted, our new fair work agency will be empowered to investigate. We have recently run a consultation on modernising trade union laws so that they are fit for the modern workplace and the modern economy. That consultation closed on 2 December and we are currently analysing responses. We will publish a Government response to the consultation before Report stage of the Employment Rights Bill.
This is a transformative package that marks a new era for working people and I hope that hon. Members are in no doubt about the Government’s commitment to marking this new way forward. It is a way that brings a new deal for working people, making jobs more secure and family friendly, banning exploitative zero-hours contracts, supporting women in work at every stage in their life, and providing a genuine living wage and sick pay for the lowest earners. There will be further and faster action to close the gender pay gap, to ensure that rights are enforced and that trade unions are strengthened, to repeal anti-worker, anti-union laws, to turn the page on industrial relations and to end fire and rehire, while also giving working people the basic rights that they deserve at work from day one. This is a pro-business, pro-worker, pro-growth Bill from a pro-business, pro-worker, pro-growth Government.
As we know, a range of protections exist for workers against inducements and detriment related to trade union membership or activities. Of those, I will mention three that may be relevant to this particular situation. Section 146 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 protects workers against detriment being imposed by an employer for the sole or main purpose of preventing or deterring the worker from being a trade union member or taking part in union activities, or penalising them for doing so.
Through clause 63 of the Employment Rights Bill, we are enhancing protections against detriment by conferring a right on workers not to be subjected to detriment
“for the sole or main purpose of preventing or deterring the worker from taking protected industrial action, or penalising the worker for doing so.”
Section 145A of the 1992 Act protects workers against offers made by the employer for the sole or main purpose of inducing the worker not to be a trade union member or not to take part in union activities. Finally, section 145B of the 1992 Act protects members of trade unions that are recognised, or are seeking to be recognised, by their employer against offers made by the employer for the sole or main purpose of resulting in workers’ terms and conditions not being determined by a collective agreement negotiated by the union.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley indicated, we cannot comment on the extent to which existing legislation applies to a particular case, as that is ultimately a matter for tribunals and courts to determine. However, I hope it has been helpful to state clearly some of the existing protections that may be relevant.
It is also worth putting it on record that this Government expect employers to work in partnership with unions to resolve disputes through negotiation. We certainly do not believe that pay offers should be framed in a way that requires an individual to confirm that they are not a member of a trade union. At the very least, as my hon. Friend said, that goes against the spirit of good industrial relations.
I recognise that disputes are sometimes difficult to resolve, and I take this opportunity to highlight the important role that ACAS plays in this space. Its remit is to promote good employment relations, to advise employers and employees on workplace matters, and to resolve individual and collective workplace disputes. Employees and employers in a workplace dispute may wish to contact ACAS to get advice on employment law and workplace relations, and to help resolve their dispute.
Of course, resolving disputes through ACAS requires both parties to participate, and it is disappointing to hear from my hon. Friend that not only will Livv not engage with her on this matter, but it does not appear that it will engage with the trade union either. I hope Livv reconsiders because, through our “make work pay” agenda, we have been clear that it is our intention to ensure that workplace rights are fit for a modern economy, empower working people and deliver economic growth.
That is why we have introduced the Employment Rights Bill, which represents the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. We will always listen carefully to any arguments on how the law on inducements or detriment could be improved, and we always welcome views on how we can reset industrial relations to create a modern framework that is fit for a modern economy and modern working practices.
I would welcome the opportunity to hear more information from my hon. Friend about the specifics of this issue, and I urge Livv to engage with her and the trade unions. I am open to looking at the case in more detail to understand what action, if any, is necessary, and I am always happy to work with my hon. Friend to ensure that trade union rights are properly observed in this country.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2024
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2024.
It is a great honour to be here under your chairmanship today, Mr Efford, so thank you very much. This draft statutory instrument amends the Armed Forces (Court Martial) Rules 2009 by changing the rank requirements for the president of the court martial board, where the defendant is a very senior officer.
Before I set out the changes that the SI will make, it may be useful for me to provide some context regarding the role of the court martial board in the service justice system. The UK’s separate system of military justice dates back to the Bill of Rights 1689. Having a separate service justice system enables the comprehensive system of command and discipline, on which operational effectiveness is based, to be enforced swiftly and efficiently. The service justice system reflects the need to maintain discipline through sentences, which can be imposed by the commanding officer at summary hearings, or in the court martial for more serious offences.
The constitution of the court martial for trial proceedings comprises the judge advocate and a board of lay members. Depending on the offence or offences being tried, the board will consist of three to six lay members. Their role is similar, but not identical, to that of a jury in the Crown court in England and Wales, as they are solely responsible for deciding the guilt or innocence of a defendant at contested trial proceedings, based on the evidence that is presented to them.
The constitution of a court martial board depends on whether the defendant is a service person or a civilian. When some or all the members of the court martial board are service personnel, the president of the board is the senior officer. The role of the president includes that of the foreperson of a jury. They will chair the discussions during deliberations on the verdict and will ensure that all the members have an equal voice and vote.
An overriding principle is that the constitution of the court should be fair, with lay members drawn at random from the widest potential pool. Crucially, that includes a deconfliction process to identify whether any member knows another member, a defendant or a witness, or whether they have served in the same unit as the defendant since the date of the alleged offence.
A recent case highlighted a risk to this overriding principle of fairness: the court administration unit initially encountered difficulties in finding a president and a board to try a case where the defendant was a senior officer, or a major general. As a senior officer, he was well known—he was connected to the system and had gone through the same career courses as many of those who were to be put on the board. His potential character witnesses included serving and retired OF-9s—so all the way to the senior levels of the military—who were also known to the pool of potential board members. It was exceptionally difficult to find and select that board/jury. By the time of the trial, however, the defendant had left the Army, so the use of civilians as members of the board was permitted. Nevertheless, that would not have been possible in law had the defendant still been serving.
Although cases involving defendants who are senior officers is rare in the UK, it is sensible to close this loophole so that the service justice system is ready and able to deal with those cases if and when they occur. The draft statutory instrument addresses this issue by amending rule 34 of the 2009 court martial rules, which sets out the requirements for the president of the board. Currently, rule 34 requires that where the defendant is rank OF-6—that is, a commodore, a brigadier or an air commodore—or above, the president of the board must be of a superior rank to the defendant. That can include the president holding the same rank as the defendant, if the president is more senior to the defendant within that rank.
The SI before us changes this requirement. Where possible, the president of the board will always be the highest appropriate ranking officer available. However, to close the loophole, if it is too difficult to find an officer of a superior rank due to a lack of impartiality, in particular, or availability, this change allows the military to broaden the pool of potential presidents. In the rarest of occasions where the defendant is the rank of OF-6—so, a brigadier—or above, we will prevent a conflict of interest by selecting a suitably qualified but completely disconnected officer with a minimum rank of OF-6. This will allow them to impartially act as the president of the board, chair the discussions during deliberations on the verdict, and ensure that all the members have an equal voice and vote—importantly, with no conflict of interest.
Every effort will still be made to find the most senior ranking and impartial president of the board. While only likely to be used in exceptional circumstances, this amendment ensures that where the defendant in the court martial is a very senior officer, it will always be possible to select a president of the board with the appropriate seniority for the important duties and functions of the role, eliminating the risk of a legal case being overturned.
I believe that our armed forces personnel should all be held to the highest possible standards, whether they are starting out or at the end of their military careers, and no one should be able to time the system out. I believe in the fairness and rigour of our service justice system: no individual, irrespective of rank, should get off on a technicality. A high-functioning service justice system underpins the operational effectiveness of our armed forces.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Good morning, Mr Efford; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship as we debate the court martial rules 2024. Incidentally, when I served as the Minister of State for the Armed Forces about a decade or so ago, I attended part of a court martial during a ministerial visit to 16 Air Assault Brigade at Merville barracks in Colchester. There is a court martial centre there, and I witnessed part of a case and had the opportunity to observe the system in action at first hand.
This SI seems to be relatively straightforward, but I have three specific questions for the Minister. First, I note that in the accompanying explanatory notes at point 2.1, it says that “Dr Andrew Murrison, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence People, and Service Families…confirms that this Explanatory Memorandum meets the required standard.” I raise that point because it suggests that the SI was approved by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), when he served as a Minister in that capacity under the previous Government. If that is correct, perhaps this Minister can explain to the Committee how long the SI has been in gestation, as the implications are that it appears to date back quite some time.
Secondly, if I read the SI correctly, it seems to relate partly to sentencing provisions as well as the conduct of court martials. The Minister did not really say much about that in his remarks, so I wonder whether he could confirm that my understanding of that is correct.
Thirdly, if this SI is passed this morning—I rather suspect it will be—as we are debating the 2024 court martial rules, and unless I am mistaken, it is now 2025, perhaps the Minister could give us some idea of when the rules will actually come into practical effect.
Mr Paul Foster (South Ribble) (Lab)
I will be brief, Mr Efford. Will the Minister confirm that this SI closes an existing loophole in the current legislation, and that, additionally, it will allow the whole process of court martials to be sped up? Ultimately, that has to be in the best interests of everyone involved.
Al Carns
I will address the point that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble made first. In my view, the SI addresses a loophole that has allowed—albeit not nefariously—senior officers potentially to time the system out because of our inability to select what we call the military jury. Broadening this out will really speed the process up and will bring people to justice in the fastest, most effective and most efficient way.
Let me address some of the questions from the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford. The previous Minister under the Conservative Government pushed this in 2023. It has taken time, within the bureaucracy of defence, to pull this through. It was raised with me when I sat down with the service justice system and I agreed to it almost immediately, because it made complete sense. We have cross-party agreement on that.
From a sentencing condition perspective, the change is primarily about the make-up of the board. It does not affect sentencing as a whole. That system will stay in place. As for whether this is linked to broader armed forces legislation, that will come out in the armed forces Bill in the next 12 to 24 months, when we will have a far greater opportunity to ensure that the correct legislation is in place to enable us in relation to everything from recruitment and retention all the way through to improvements in the service justice system as a whole.
I am grateful for the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble and the Opposition spokesperson. On the rarest of occasions, and where the service justice system is investigating a senior military person, it can prove difficult to find suitably disconnected and impartial senior officers. I believe that the change will ensure that we open the aperture to select and allocate senior officers to deliver service justice in a timely and effective manner, maintaining the integrity and fairness of the service justice system, and in doing so, maintaining the operational effectiveness of our armed forces. I commend this instrument to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
The Lower Thames Crossing
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 28th January 2025
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill 2024-26 View all Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 January 2025 - (28 Jan 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
Neil O'Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 7, page 12, line 13, at end insert —
“(3A) Where staying close support is provided, it must be provided with due regard to the wishes of the relevant person and a record must be kept of that person’s wishes.”
This amendment would require local authorities to take account of the wishes of the relevant young person when providing staying close support, and keep a record of those wishes.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 40, in clause 7, page 12, line 22, at end insert—
“(vi) financial support;
(vii) financial literacy”
Amendment 41, in clause 7, page 12, line 28, at end insert—
“(c) the provision of supported lodgings, where the young person and local authority deem appropriate.”
Clause stand part.
Neil O'Brien
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. As we return to our work on the Bill with clause 7, I want to say that it is still a bit disappointing that we have been through Second Reading, and here we are on the third day of Committee, and we still do not have the impact assessment for the Bill, which could potentially answer some of the questions that we will be raising today. I know the Ministers want to do the right thing in trying to get it out of the relevant committee and published, and I hope they can succeed in doing that pretty soon.
On clause 7, no reasonable person would argue that a young person leaving care does not require some support to live independently. Young people who have not been in care often require years of support to live independently, and they are less likely to be doing so away from home and will be in less difficult circumstances. Again, the Opposition support the Government’s objectives in this clause to provide staying close support, but we have some questions about how it is to work in practice.
First, the Bill gives discretion to the local authority on whether this support is in the best interests of a young person’s welfare. Surely the assumption should be that the support is offered, and it should be the exception to withhold it. One advantage in having the onus turned round would be that the local authority would have to record and explain decisions not to offer that kind of support. What sort of criteria are the local authorities supposed to use to make those choices, and will that be consistent across the country?
Secondly, there is also a question about the process for identifying the person who is to help the young person. The Department’s policy summary quite rightly talks about identifying a “trusted person”, which is obviously very important to this kind of young person. By definition, some young people in care have pretty good reasons not to trust adults around them, so how are local authorities to go about identifying such a “trusted person”? Thirdly, and this is a small point, will there be digital options to support young people? These days, that is clearly the most frequent method that young people use to get information, particularly sensitive information. It gives young people a choice of how they find their information, and there is potentially an opportunity for some good practice here in setting up a good way of communicating with their trusted person.
That leads me to a wider point. As we have gone through this Bill, and we will continue to make this point, there is a risk that local authorities, when confronted with these new duties, will obey the letter of the law, but will they really fulfil the spirit and good intent of Ministers in passing the Bill? Can the Minister be clear that this is not supposed to be just another signposting service? As young people leave care, they need personal advocates who can help them articulate their needs with other agencies, not a phone number or email address to contact. They do not really need more leaflets; they need a human being who can be trustworthy and provide practical help and advice. Signposting can quickly turn into a doom-loop dead end and no help. How does the Minister also envisage the involvement of local charities, some of whom will have had quite long-term links with the young person in care, and how will that be funded?
I will come on to this point on other amendment, but I ask here what the Minister makes of the call from the Our Wellbeing, Our Voice coalition for a national wellbeing measurement of care leavers. That would obviously support some of those points.
Does the Government plan to accept the recommendation of the Family Rights Group to offer lifelong links to all care leavers to help them have better relationships with those that they care about? Again, is there an opportunity here? Many constituency MPs will know people who have been in care and then become carers. There is this cycle—I know several people like this, and I will talk about one of them later on today. If we are getting into the business of continuing relationships after leaving care, which is a good thing, I wonder whether that can become something bigger—a lifelong connection, for those who want it, obviously, as a way of getting much-needed carers to stay in the system.
There is a risk that these measures are all very local authority-focused rather than focused on the needs of the young person. Amendment 23 would ensure that the voice of the child is heard and that we have the information that we need to allow for continuous improvement. It is very light touch. Keeping a record of the person’s wishes would help to protect against the loss of knowledge when personnel change. If things are written down, it is easier for a new person to come in and pick up and understand a bit about what that young person has said they want. In the longer term, it also provides a resource for learning and performance improvement. I talked in the previous session about kaizen and continuous improvement. The amendment is designed to support that, to improve continuity and to make sure that the voice of the young people for whom this very sensible form of care is to be provided is heard.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I rise to support clause 8 stand part. [Interruption.] Sorry, my mistake.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. The Liberal Democrats welcome the new requirements on local authorities in the clause to assess whether certain care leavers aged under 25 require the provision of staying close support. The charity Become, which supports care-experienced children, has found that care-experienced young people are nine times more likely to experience homelessness than other young people and that homelessness rates for care leavers have increased by 54% in the last five years. This is a really important clause.
Amendment 40 deals with the definition of staying close support. It uses the existing definition of the services, which should be set out in the local offer from local authorities. Become’s care advice line has found that care leavers are often unaware of the financial support available from the local authority, such as council tax discounts, higher education bursaries and other benefits. That can lead them to face unnecessary financial hardship. That is the reason for the financial support part of the amendment.
More generally, financial literacy can have a huge negative impact on care leavers, who are more likely to live independently from an earlier age than their peers—they are not necessarily living with parents or guardians. We would really like to see local authorities lay out that financial literacy support to help them understand what is available to them.
Amendment 41 would add information about supported lodgings to the list of available support services. Supported lodgings are a family-based provision within a broader category of supported accommodation. A young person aged 16 to 23 lives in a room within their supporting lodgings, which are the home of a host, who is tasked with supporting the young person as they go towards adulthood and independence, giving them practical help and teaching them important life skills such as financial literacy, budgeting and cooking. Requiring local authorities to signpost care leavers to any of the supported lodging provisions in their area could make a real difference to those young people and their lives, so I would really appreciate support for the amendment.
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
I will speak to amendments 23, 40 and 41 and to clause 7.
Amendment 23 was tabled by the hon. Members for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, and I thank them for it. The amendment draws attention to an important principle that must run through the whole approach that local authorities take to listening and responding to the wishes and feelings of their care leavers. When a local authority is assessing what staying close support should be provided to a young person, it should have regard to their wishes, which is why we intend to publish statutory guidance that will draw on established good practice that we want all local authorities to consider. It will cover how that will work, with interconnecting duties, especially the duty to prepare a pathway plan and keep it under a review. In developing and maintaining the plan and support arrangements, there is a requirement for the care leaver’s wishes to be considered.
In response to the specific questions raised by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, as I said, pathway planning is already a statutory requirement to eligible care leavers, so the statutory guidance will set out how and when care leavers should be assessed based on their own needs and using the current duties to support care leavers with reference to a trusted individual. Those individuals will often already be known to the young person, such as a former children’s home staff member, and that will clearly be set out in the statutory guidance. We will base that on the best practice that we see already in train.
On the lifelong links, we are currently funding 50 family finding, befriending and mentoring programmes, which are being delivered by 45 local authorities. The programmes will help children in care and care leavers to identify and connect with important people in their lives, improving their sense of identity and community and creating and sustaining consistent, stable and loving relationships. I recognise the points that the hon. Gentleman made. The Department for Education has commissioned an independent evaluation of the family finding, befriending and mentoring programme, which will inform decisions about the future of the programme and how it will work.
On amendment 40, each care leaver will have their own levels of need and support. Local authorities have a duty to assess the needs of certain care leavers and prepare, create and maintain a pathway for and with them. Statutory guidance already makes it clear that the pathway planning process must address a young person’s financial needs and independent living skills. Where eligible, they will be able to have access to financial support and benefits as well as support to manage those benefits and allowances themselves. That will be strengthened by the support made available through clause 7, including advice, information and representation, to find and keep suitable accommodation, given that budgeting and financial management issues can be a significant barrier to maintaining tenancies for many care leavers. That will include advice and guidance to local authorities to aid in the set-up and delivery, building on best practice of how current grant-funded local authorities are already offering support to access financial services and financial literacy skills for their care leavers.
To respond to amendment 41, we know that some care leavers may not feel ready to live independently straight away; that is where supported lodgings can offer an important suitable alternative. They are an excellent way for individuals with appropriate training to offer a room to a young person leaving care and a way for that young person to get the practical and emotional support to help them to develop the skills they need for independent living. We will continue to encourage the use of supported lodgings for care leavers where it is in the best interests of the young person.
However, we do not feel that amendment 41 is needed. Clause 7(4)(a) specifies that staying close support includes help for eligible care leavers
“to find and keep suitable accommodation”.
That will include support to find and keep supported lodgings where the young person and the local authority consider it appropriate. We will make that and other suitable options absolutely clear in statutory guidance, building on the best practice from the current staying close programme.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is good to hear that supported lodgings will be referred to in statutory guidance. I heard from the charity Home for Good, which is involved in setting up those networks of local authorities that provide supported lodgings, that in some local authorities money for supported lodgings cannot be found, because the local authority thinks that fostering money cannot be used for supported lodging and that it cannot use staying close support. Real clarity that staying close support funding can be used for supported lodgings is important to make this option work.
Catherine McKinnell
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s interest in this matter. We will produce the statutory guidance to make all this absolutely clear.
Before I come to clause 7 stand part, I want to respond to an additional question from the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston that I did not answer earlier. He asked about digital options and, as someone standing here using an iPad, I recognise the importance of that, particularly for young people. The local authorities already work with a range of digital options to connect with their care leavers, and we would certainly expect that to continue, and expect good practice to continue being developed and to be set out in the statutory guidance.
Turning to clause stand part, clause 7 requires each local authority to consider whether the welfare of former relevant children up to the age of 25 requires staying close support. Where this support is identified as being required, the authority must provide staying close support of whatever kind the authority considers appropriate, having regard to the extent to which that person’s welfare requires it.
Staying close support is to be provided for the purpose of helping the young person to find and keep suitable accommodation and to access services relating to health and wellbeing, relationships, education and training, employment and participating in society. This support can take the form of the provision of advice, information and representation, and aims to help to build the confidence and skills that care leavers need to be able to live independently.
The new duties placed on local authorities by this clause will not operate in isolation. They will be part of the existing legislative framework, which sets out the duties that every local authority already owes to its former children in care aged 18 to 25. This clause enhances and expands the arrangements for those children by supporting them to find long-term stable accommodation and access to essential wraparound services. The new statutory guidance will set out what the new requirements mean for local authorities and will draw on established good practice—for example, the role of a trusted person to offer practical and emotional support to care leavers.
On that basis, I hope I can rely on the Committee’s support for clause 7.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 40—National offer for care leavers—
‘In the Children and Social Work Act 2017, after section 2 insert—
“2A National offer for care leavers
(1) The Secretary of State for Education must publish information about services which care leavers in all areas of England should be able to access to assist them in adulthood and independent living or in preparing for adulthood and independent living.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), services which may assist care leavers in adulthood and independent living or in preparing for adulthood and independent living include services relating to—
(a) health and well-being;
(b) relationships;
(c) education and training;
(d) employment;
(e) accommodation;
(f) participation in society.
(3) Information published by the Secretary of State under this section is to be known as the ‘National Offer for Care Leavers’.
(4) The Secretary of State must update the National Offer for Care Leavers from time to time.
(5) Before publishing or updating the National Offer for Care Leavers the Secretary of State must consult with relevant persons about which services may assist care leavers in adulthood and independent living or in preparing for adulthood and independent living.
(6) In this section—
‘care leavers’ means—
(a) eligible children within the meaning given by paragraph 19B of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989;
(b) relevant children within the meaning given by section 23A(2) of that Act;
(c) persons aged under 25 who are former relevant children within the meaning given by section 23C(1) of that Act;
(d) persons qualifying for advice and assistance within the meaning given by section 24 of that Act;
‘relevant persons’ means—
(a) such care leavers as appear to the Secretary of State to be representative of care leavers in England; and
(b) other Ministers of State who have a role in arranging services that may assist care leavers in or preparing for independent living.”’
This new clause would introduce a new requirement on the Secretary of State for Education to publish a national offer detailing what support care leavers are entitled to claim by expanding the provisions in the Children and Social Work Act 2017 which require local authorities to produce a “Local offer”.
Catherine McKinnell
I will speak to clause 8. Expert reviews have shown that many care leavers face barriers to securing and maintaining affordable housing. Too many young people end up in crisis and experiencing homelessness shortly after leaving care. Although housing and children’s services departments are encouraged in current guidance to work together to achieve the common aim of planning and providing appropriate accommodation and support for care leavers, that is not happening consistently in practice.
To enable better joined-up planning and support for care leavers, the clause will require local authorities to publish their plans, setting out how they will ensure a planned and supportive transition between care and independent living for all care leavers. Our aim is for local authorities to co-ordinate and plan the sufficiency of care leaver accommodation, to plan for the right to accommodation for each individual, and to make early, clear planning decisions that are right for each care leaver’s needs.
The clause specifies that the information that the local authority is required to publish includes information about its arrangements for enabling it to anticipate the future needs of care leavers; for co-operating with local housing authorities in assisting former relevant children under the age of 25 to find and keep suitable accommodation; for providing assistance to former relevant children under the age of 25 who are at risk of being homeless, or who are released from detention, to find and keep suitable accommodation; and for assisting former relevant children aged under 25 to access the services they need.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
The question about securing and keeping accommodation is incredibly important for care leavers; it is closely linked to what the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire was saying about financial capacity. What are the Minister’s thoughts on what the default position should be for care leavers in receipt of universal credit? Should there be automatic rent payments from universal credit, or should it be for the individual to manage? Obviously that can change in individual cases, but what should be the default and what discussions has she had with the Department for Work and Pensions?
Catherine McKinnell
As the right hon. Gentleman will know, we work on a cross-Government basis. We have regular conversations with colleagues in various Departments to ensure that the offer we provide to care leavers will give them the best chance to live independently and that the approach of other Departments to these matters complements and co-operates with what this legislation is intended to achieve.
The right hon. Gentleman raises a specific and quite technical question that relates to the work of the Department for Work and Pensions. As I will come on to, we are working hard to re-establish the ministerial working group to support these young people. I am certain that this matter can be carefully considered as part of that work, so I will take it away and feed it on to colleagues. Given the importance of the clause and the changes it will bring to how local authorities work with children leaving care or young people under the age of 25 who have been in care, I urge the Committee to support it.
I turn to new clause 40, tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, who I believe is not present today.
The Chair
It is within the scope of this debate, so the Minister may respond if she wishes to.
Catherine McKinnell
I am happy to respond to new clause 40, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a national offer for care leavers, mirroring the requirement on local authorities to publish their local offer. There are already examples of additional support provided for care leavers from central Government that complement the support provided by local authorities. Care leavers may, for example, be entitled to a £3,000 bursary if they start an apprenticeship and may be entitled to the higher one-bedroom rate of housing support from universal credit.
We have re-established the care leaver ministerial board, now co-chaired by the Secretary of State for Education and the Deputy Prime Minister. It comprises Ministers from 11 other Departments to consider what further help could be provided to improve outcomes for this vulnerable group of young people.
Damian Hinds
I wonder whether that reconstituted group will pay particular attention to the role of enlightened employers. Bearing in mind the immense breadth of unique life experiences that many people with care experience bring to a business—it will benefit the young person as well as the business—will employers take an extra chance on a care leaver and give them that opportunity? Being in work and having a regular wage opens up so much else in life.
Catherine McKinnell
The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point and advocates powerfully for this vulnerable group of young people. There will indeed be representation on the ministerial group from various Government Departments, including the Minister for business—[Interruption.]
Catherine McKinnell
There will be a Minister from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. That area will form part of the discussions, I am sure, as the purpose of the group is to give the best chance to care leavers—this very vulnerable group of young people—and ensure that we as a Government are working collaboratively to make that effective.
We recognise how important it is that care leavers have clear information about the help and support they are entitled to, both from their local authority and central Government Department. We are therefore reviewing our published information to ensure that it is accessible and clear and that care leavers can quickly and easily understand and access all the support they are entitled to. Once that review has concluded, we will consider how best to publish this information. Therefore, I ask for the new clause to be withdrawn and urge the Committee to support clause 8.
Neil O’Brien
This is a good and sensible clause, and the Opposition support its inclusion in the Bill. I would note that although all these clauses are good, they come with an administrative cost.
We have already discussed the importance of ensuring that the measures are properly funded, but I want to press the Minister for a few more insights on clause 8. There is a list of details about the local offer—that it must be published, must anticipate the needs of care leavers—and it refers to how they will co-operate with housing authorities and provide accommodation for those under 25. This is all good stuff.
The discussion that we have just had prefigured the question that I wanted to ask, which is about co-operation with national bodies. The clause is quite focused on co-operation between local bodies and drawing up a clear offer. That is a good thing—although, obviously, some of those housing associations are quite national bodies these days.
In the “Keeping children safe, helping families thrive” policy paper published a while back, the Government set out an intention to extend corporate parenting responsibilities to Government Departments and other public bodies, with a list of corporate parents named in legislation following agreement from other Government Departments. When we were in government, we also said that we intended to legislate to extend corporate parenting responsibilities more broadly, so I wondered about that connection up to the national level. We have already had one excellent and very canny policy idea from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire about setting the default for care leavers when it comes to how their housing payments are made. The Minister raised a good point about bursaries and making sure that care leavers are clear about what is available to them on that front. However, there is a whole host of other opportunities to write in to some of these—
Damian Hinds
Will my hon. Friend also comment on the particular situation of those young people from care who go on to university? Of course, come the holidays the vast majority of people in higher education go home, but the situation is very different for those who have been in care. Some enlightened universities—including the University of Winchester, in my own county—do very good work in this regard, but will he expand a little on how those young people in higher education can be supported with the offer?
Neil O’Brien
That excellent point is another example of exactly what we are talking about. In one sense, I regret not having an amendment that would insert a specific paragraph about the local offer from national organisations. On the other hand, it is pretty clear that the Minister is very interested in this question and is pursuing it. Anyway, there may even be scope to write that into the Bill as it goes through the Lords.
The DFE’s explanatory notes for the Bill say that, although the housing and children’s services departments are encouraged in guidance—in part 7 of the Children Act 1989, I think—to work together to achieve the common aim of planning and providing appropriate accommodation and support for care leavers, that is not happening consistently in practice; the Minister alluded to that.
My question to the Minister is: what do we know from current practice about where that does not happen and why not? It seems obvious, and something that every well-intentioned social worker—every person who works with care leavers—would want to do. What does the good model of effective provision of that support look like? Are there local authorities that are the best cases of that?
Other than providing the administrative and legislative hook for better gripping of this issue, I do not know whether the Minister has a specific plan to do anything else to try to achieve it more consistently—given that, of all the different things that one wants to join up for the care leaver, the provision of a safe place to live and a stable housing arrangements is probably No.1. Is anything more being done? Does the Minister have thoughts about how that can be done best and where it is done best? Where it has not been done as well as we would hope, why is that?
Darren Paffey
I appreciate your patience, Mr Stringer—this is not the first time I have stumbled over Committee procedure and no doubt it will not be the last. I welcome the Minister’s comments and the inclusion of clause 8, which I strongly support. I want to address the sentiment of new clause 40 as well.
The extension of the requirements around accommodation, extending the Children and Social Work Act 2017, requires councils to publish that local offer. That is crucial. Many of us have served in local government; it is at that local level that these crucial services, which can often make or break opportunities for care leavers, are delivered. The clause also takes steps towards making good on the Prime Minister’s commitment to guarantee care leavers a place to live.
We would all recognise, from the context of our own constituencies, that the barriers faced by care-experienced young people are numerous. The likelihood that good outcomes in life will be harder for them to achieve is simply a fact. It is absolutely right to bolster the local offer, as clause 8 seeks to do. The new provisions will further strengthen what many local authorities, including my own in Southampton, have begun to do over a number of years. As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire suggested, there are measures of good practice under local councils that we now ought to be bringing into this standardisation of the offer.
In terms of a national offer, the new clause certainly has its merits and it is something good to aim for. I had the opportunity to speak to the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), who is responsible for children and families and whose remit this issue comes under. She has agreed to meet me to explore it further, but as my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards has already said, there is a cross-ministerial group. I really welcome the work that it is doing to take these measures forward, because building on the existing measures, which strengthen that national focus, is crucial. It says to young people with care experience that they matter.
I have worked very closely with young people in care over the years, and I know that too many of them feel let down by the systems there to protect them. This is about showing that the Government get what it is like for them, are focused on acting for their good and doing so from the very top. Having that national focus goes a long way towards making those people’s journey to adulthood stronger and as smooth as possible and towards ensuring that they are fully supported to thrive.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer, and it is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen, who is a powerful champion for care-experienced people in speaking from his own personal experience—and the fact that he is my office room- mate helps.
I want care leavers to reach their potential and to be active members of society in Bournemouth and Britain. I want them to have the same opportunities in life as other young adults. As young people in care approach adulthood, they need to be supported to think about and plan their future—to think about things such as where they will live and what support they may need to find accommodation, employment and take part in their communities.
But as my hon. Friend just explained, so many care-experienced people are held back. Some of the statistics are truly startling and appalling. The National Audit Office report entitled “Care leavers’ transition to adulthood” identified poorer life outcomes for care leavers as a “longstanding problem” with a likely high public cost, including in mental health, employment, education, policing and justice services. The Department for Education’s 2016 policy paper entitled “Keep On Caring” said that care leavers generally experience worse outcomes than their peers across a number of areas.
Here are the statistics. It is estimated that 26% of the homeless population have care experience; 24% of the prison population in England have spent time in care; 41% of 19 to 21-year-old care leavers are not in education, employment or training, compared with 12% of all other young people in the same age group; and adults who had spent time in care between 1971 and 2001 were 70% more likely to die prematurely than those who had not. It is no wonder that the independent review of children’s social care described the disadvantage faced by the care-experienced community as
“the civil rights issue of our time.”
In reading those statistics, and in reading that report again, I am struck by just how much of a privilege and an honour it is to be in this Committee contributing to the work of the Bill so early in this Parliament. That is why I particularly welcome clause 8, which is a care leaver-led change that responds directly to the voices of care-experienced people and care leavers.
While we are talking about clause 8, I want to dwell briefly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen did, on the good practice that exists in local government, particularly in my patch of Bournemouth, where Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council has done a couple of things to respond to, work alongside, and listen to care leavers and care-experienced people. That includes the 333 care leavers hub in Bournemouth, which is a safe space for care leavers to visit and relax, and which focuses on wellbeing and learning by helping to teach people practical skills from cooking to budgeting. Care-experienced young people also take part in the recruitment of social workers, sitting on interview panels to make sure that potential social workers have the necessary skills to support care-experienced people.
There is good practice in our country, but that good practice is not consistent across the country. I therefore welcome the efforts in this clause—indeed, in much of the Bill—to make sure that we have that consistency. Requiring the publication of information will mean that care leavers know what services they can access, and, critically, that professionals feel supported to advise on and signpost offers. When professionals have huge demands on their time, and face significant struggles in delivering support, having that additional support available to them will be critical.
I therefore commend this clause, because it is a care leaver-centred approach, a pragmatic approach, and, frankly, a much-needed approach.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen for his powerful and personal testimony, and for his clear commitment to these issues. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East for his clear and important contribution.
My hon. Friends have set out the reasons why we are providing that continuity of support when care leavers reach the age of 18, through the Staying Put programme, and why we are now legislating to add Staying Close to the duties of local authorities. It is to provide that care to leavers; to help them to find suitable accommodation and access services, including those relating to health and wellbeing support; and to help them develop and build their confidence and their skills as they get used to living independently. It is also why we are investing in family-finding, mentoring and befriending programmes to help care leavers to develop those strong social networks, which they can then turn to when they need advice and support.
As hon. Members have rightly said, it is really important that care leavers are supported to get into education, employment or training—the right hon. Member for East Hampshire clearly said that as well. That is why a care leaver who starts an apprenticeship may be entitled to a £3,000 bursary, why local authorities must provide a £2,000 bursary for care leavers who go to university, and why care leavers may be entitled to a 16-to-19 bursary if they stay in further education.
On the question raised by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, more than 550 businesses have signed the care leaver covenant, offering care leavers a job and other opportunities, and we continue to deliver the civil service care leavers internship scheme, which has resulted in more than 1,000 care leavers being offered paid jobs across Government. We have a real commitment to improving education outcomes for children in care, which will help to support them into adulthood and reduce the likelihood of them not being in education, employment or training. We will continue to support that.
The hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston asked how the measure in this clause interacts with national offers. The Government set out guidance for local authorities on the duties and entitlements for care leavers, and we are working to develop the detail of those proposals to make sure that local authorities work together with the Government to improve support for care leavers. With specific reference to higher education, we already have a number of duties to support eligible care leavers in higher education. It will certainly be part of the expectation of the local offer that those options are open to care leavers. It is an important aspect to support.
In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen, we absolutely agree about bringing the good practice of local authorities into the local offer. We work closely with a number of good local authorities, and there is a lot of really good practice around. The Government intend to bring those authorities into our work so that we have updated guidance to ensure that best practice is spread as far, wide and consistently as possible. With that, I urge the Committee to support clause stand part.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9
Accommodation of looked after children: regional co-operation arrangements
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I look forward to working through the measures in this landmark Bill with all Members, as has been the spirit so far.
The children’s social care market is not working effectively. The Competition and Markets Authority and the independent review of children’s social care recommended a regional approach to planning and commissioning children’s care places. My Department will support local authorities to increase the number of regional care co-operatives over time. As Members will have noted, the clause refers to those as “regional co-operation arrangements”. As a last resort, the legislation will give the Secretary of State the power to direct local authorities to establish regional co-operation arrangements.
Where a direction is in place, regions will be required to analyse future accommodation needs for children, publish sufficiency strategies, commission care places for children, recruit and support foster parents, and develop or facilitate the development of new provision to accommodate children. We expect regional care co-operatives to gain economies of scale and to harness the collective buying power of individual local authorities. I hope that the Committee will agree that this clause should stand part of the Bill.
Neil O’Brien
Regional co-operation is something that the previous Government were extremely enthusiastic about and worked to build up, so the Minister will not be surprised to hear that we support the clause. The previous Government’s “Stable Homes, Built on Love” policy paper said that the Government would work with local authorities to test the use of regional care co-operatives—regional groupings of authorities to plan, commission and deliver care places—in two areas. Those two pathfinders would trial an approach within the legal framework, with a view to rolling it out nationally following evaluation as soon as parliamentary time allowed. Were we in office, I suspect that we would be very much considering the same clause. This Government have announced that those two pathfinders are going ahead, in Greater Manchester and the south-east, from this summer.
When we consulted about the idea—it is a good idea —there was a lot of support, but there were also a lot of concerns and questions about the size of the groups, the risk that they would be too removed from the child, and the loss of relationships with small providers in particular. As the Minister said, this is a recommendation from previous work, including from the independent review of children’s social care, which we commissioned. Obviously, we hope that such groups will be useful in providing local authorities with greater purchasing power and more options when they are securing accommodation for children in care, but we think it is important to be clear about the objectives to avoid any unintended consequences. I have come to think that, often, it is when we all agree that we are doing a good thing that we should ask ourselves the difficult questions to ensure that we are not making a mistake.
The key issue in the “children’s home market”—I put that in scare quotes, because I hesitate to use the phrase in the current context—is a lack of supply, which leads to children being placed far away from their roots and support networks in accommodation that does not always match their care plan. We then see children going missing and having repeated placement moves. I wonder whether the Minister will put on record in Committee the aims for the regional care co-operatives, other than purchasing power, and how they will address the other issues.
Will the Minister respond to some specific issues raised in our consultation? One issue is that it is harder for smaller providers and specialist charities, which are obviously part of the offer for children in care at the moment, to engage with regional care co-operatives. What does he think about that risk and what does he plan to do about it?
Munira Wilson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I will ask the Minister a couple of questions about clause 9 that I hope he will address when he responds. We support its intent, but I want to understand what safeguards or guidance will be put in place to ensure that children in care in areas where these regional co-operatives are active do not inadvertently end up far away from their families.
We already know that about a fifth of children in care are placed over 20 miles away from their families and almost half are living outside their local authority area. In some cases, it is important that a child is moved reasonably far away for safeguarding reasons, but often that is not the case. I know from having spoken to care-experienced young people and to the Become Charity, which has done quite a lot of research into the impact of children being moved far away from home, that that can affect their mental health, that they can feel isolated and lonely having moved away from family and friends, and that it can cause stigma in the school or college environment. I want to understand how the Minister intends to ensure that young people are not moved further away than they need to be when these regional co-operatives are in place.
Damian Hinds
Again, as hon. Members have said, we support this approach and it is the approach that we were taking. It is also true that when everybody agrees on something, it is usually the point of most danger for making bad law. It is important to have these Committee proceedings and proper scrutiny.
I was personally never keen on the name of regional co-operatives, although I do not think the word “co-operative” actually appears in the Bill. We can, of course, have co-operation without having a co-operative. This legislation is actually about regional co-operation arrangements.
There are three different types of potential co-operation arrangement: first, for strategic accommodation functions to be carried out jointly between two different local authorities; secondly, for one to carry out the duties on behalf of all; and thirdly, for a corporate body, effectively a separate organisation, to be created to do that. I imagine that Government Members will have different views depending on which of those three forms the arrangements take. Will the Minister say which of those he expects to be most common? As well as the pilots, there have no doubt already been formal and informal conversations with local authority leaders in children’s services in many different areas.
I am keen to know how this arrangement is different from some arrangements that may already take place. For example, the tri-borough children’s services arrangement in London—I will try and get this right—between Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, and Hammersmith and Fulham. Presumably, some of those functions are administered in common there, so how will this be different?
Neil O’Brien
I probably should have asked the Minister about scale. In the two pilots, we have Greater Manchester, which is just under 3 million people, and the south-east, which is roughly 3 million people. I do not know what the Government’s expectations about scale are and whether they would continue to support something like the tri-borough arrangement, which is obviously much smaller.
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend, as ever, makes a very apt point. Where we end up on that continuum of scale depends on what we are going after most. Of course, we want all those things. For purchasing power, a bigger scale is better, but for close and easy working relationships, a smaller scale is sometimes better. When we are talking about children, and the placement of vulnerable children, that may well push us towards the smaller end of the scale.
Perhaps it is possible to perform different functions at different levels, with some functions still being performed by the individual local authority. Even then, as my hon. Friend often rightly says, there is an enormous difference in scale between London local authorities, which are actually quite small even though they are in our largest city, and Birmingham, which is one enormous authority. It might be argued that doing some things at a sub-local authority level makes sense in a very large local authority area, but as I say, it might be possible to do some things as the single local authority, some things at a larger level, and some things—presumably principally in terms of purchasing leverage—on a wider scale again.
If regional co-operation arrangements are not materially different in practice from something that already exists in co-operation between local authorities, even if that is on a smaller scale than what is envisaged, is legislation actually necessary? If it is not, we probably should not legislate. I would like to understand a bit more about the legislative basis that is currently missing.
Finally, the Bill sets out that the Secretary of State may add to the definition of the strategic accommodation functions that we have listed in proposed new section 22J(3) of Children Act 1989. What type of additional functions does the Minister have in mind?
Tom Hayes
I rise to speak in favour of regional co-operation arrangements, primarily because of what we have seen in two important reviews or evaluations. The recent independent review of children’s social care that I referred to highlighted a system at breaking point, as we also heard from the Minister. The insight from that report was that how we find, match, build, and run foster homes and residential care for children in care radically needs to change. When the Competition and Markets Authority looked at this area, it also identified major problems, such as profiteering, weak oversight and poor planning by councils—the verdict on the system is damning.
The independent review recommended that a co-operative model should sit at the centre of bringing about change. The values of our movement could provide the loving homes that children in care need. I particularly support this clause because this feels like a very Labour Government Bill—one that has at its heart the co-operative model that is obviously such a big part of our labour movement.
My hope is that regional care co-operatives could gain economies of scale and harness the collective buying power of independent local authorities to improve services for looked-after children. There are obvious benefits to using a co-operative model to solve those problems—the values of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity apply directly to how these regional care co-operatives would be run. In a social care market that has been described as broken by the Minister and by those reports, it is critical to bring the co-operative model more into what we provide.
Stephen Morgan
I thank hon. Members for their thoughtful comments, suggestions and questions. On the point that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston made about learning from the pathfinders, the Department has consulted widely with the sector on the proposals for regional care co-operatives. Learning from the pathfinders has shaped the proposed legislation and the definition of the strategic accommodation functions. We will develop expertise in areas such as data analysis and forecasting, as well as targeted marketing, training and support for foster carers. Working collectively with improved specialist capabilities should allow for greater innovation so that local areas are better able to deliver services for children in care.
I turn to the points made by the hon. Member for Richmond—
Stephen Morgan
My apologies. I did know that, but I was trying to be impressive by remembering the hon. Lady’s constituency and I got it badly wrong.
On the hon. Lady’s point about where placements should be, local authorities will continue to have the same statutory duties to find the most appropriate place for looked-after children, including that they should live near home, so far as is reasonably applicable. Regional care co-operatives will assist local authorities with these duties. Placement shortage is a key driver of children being placed in homes far from where they live; regional care co-operatives should improve that by increasing local and regional sufficiency, making more places available locally for children who need them.
Neil O’Brien
Will the Minister confirm that—as I think is the case—the Government would use their powers under the clause to impose regional co-operation agreements only as a last resort, and that we would not push this on everybody who does not want it?
Stephen Morgan
The shadow Minister is absolutely correct. We want to work collaboratively with local authorities in rolling this out. We will not force local authorities to do so. I thank him for enabling me to make that clear.
Question put.
Damian Hinds
Forgive me, Mr Stringer; I know that the Minister has finished, but may I speak again, with leave?
The Chair
I have put the Question. I am sorry, but you have missed the opportunity.
Question agreed to.
Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10
Use of accommodation for deprivation of liberty
Neil O’Brien
I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 10, page 16, line 39, at end insert —
“(8A) After subsection (9) insert —
‘(10) Where a child is kept in secure accommodation under this section, the relevant local authority has a duty to provide therapeutic treatment for the child.’”
This amendment would place a duty on local authorities to provide treatment for children in secure accommodation.
Neil O’Brien
We have come to a particularly serious clause—not that the other clauses are not serious, but the use of deprivation of liberty orders for children is always deeply troubling, as is the rise in the number of children who are subject to them. I share the wish of the Children’s Commissioner to see an end to this practice and an end to the use of unregistered provision.
We have seen an increase in the number of young children—including two aged seven last year and 200 under 13—given deprivation of liberty orders. There is nothing in the Bill to differentiate by the child’s age or stage. What consideration has the Minister given to that point? There is something about the use of the orders on very young children that is particularly striking.
When a young child goes into secure accommodation, the Secretary of State has to sign it off, but no sign-off is required from the Secretary of State on deprivation of liberty orders. Why not? The Government are keen on consistency elsewhere in the Bill. Will they bring the same consistency to this clause?
More broadly, do we not need greater clarity on the mechanism for restricting children’s liberty outside a secure institution? I am sure that Members of the other place will be very interested in that question. As the Children’s Commissioner has written, some of the children concerned have physical and learning disabilities, and many are at risk of criminal or sexual exploitation or both. Will the Minister act on the Children’s Commissioner’s recommendation and introduce a proper legal framework and guidance? We believe that much more clarity is needed in the Bill on therapeutic care for those who are under a deprivation of liberty order. Historically, there has been a lot of focus on containment. This amendment is, I suppose, our legislative prod to take the opportunity to think about what therapeutic help a child needs and how to deliver it.
Damian Hinds
Clause 10 will amend the Children Act 1989 such that local authorities can authorise deprivation of liberty of children other than only in a secure children’s home, and will change the term “restricting liberty” to “depriving of liberty”.
In the secure children’s home sector, a distinction is often made between what are called justice beds and welfare beds. There are also children detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 on secure mental health wards and in psychiatric intensive care units, or on non-secure wards. I am assuming that we are talking today only about what are known as welfare beds—I say “beds”, but normally the entire facility is either one or the other.
To speak on justice beds briefly, there has been a big fall in this country since 2010 in the number of children who are locked up in the criminal justice system: the numbers are down from about 2,000 in 2010 to only around 500 now. That has partly been because of a fall in crime, and in the particular types of crime for which young people used to be locked up, but it is also because of the good work of youth offending teams. Most of those children are older and would typically be in a young offenders institution when aged 15 to 17, or indeed, 18 to 21. The very small group of children who are in the secure children’s home sector are a very difficult and troubled cohort of youngsters with complex pasts. I take a moment to pay tribute to the staff; it is an extraordinary career decision to go into that line of work, and they do it with amazing dedication.
The welfare bed part of the secure children’s home sector is where somebody has had their liberty restricted not because of something they have done, but because of something they might do—because of the danger or threat they pose either to themselves or others. It is an enormous decision to take to deprive anybody of liberty on those grounds, but particularly a child. As with those children who are in the criminal justice part of the secure children’s home sector, these are typically extremely troubled children.
On the change in clause 10 to allow local authorities to house those children somewhere other than a secure children’s home, the obvious question to the Minister is “Why that, rather than ensuring that a secure children’s home is properly catering to the needs of that cohort of children?” I am not saying that it is the wrong decision, by the way, but I am interested to know, and it is good to have it on record, why it is a better decision to say, “Let’s take some or all of these children and house them in a different type of facility.” What have the Minister and the Secretary of State in mind for the alternative accommodation that would be set out in regulations? For the benefit of the Committee, and again for the record, it might also be helpful to define what is different. The Minister might clarify the definition of a secure children’s home and explain what it is that we need to deviate from.
My other question is about the change in phraseology. We are talking about moving from the restricting of liberty to the depriving of liberty. I understand from the explanatory notes that this tries to reflect the reality, but it is a legitimate question whether it is a strictly necessary change to make and what the reasoning is. Even when we do deprive people of liberty, we do not deprive them of all their liberty. There are degrees of restriction. We have this as a feature in the criminal justice system, and though this is a different cohort of children, some of the same principles may apply. We may be able to get a lot of the benefit we are looking for from restricting someone’s liberty rather than entirely depriving them of it. I wonder if the Minister might say a word about that distinction and about whether the Government have received representations on the change in wording.
Ian Sollom
My understanding is that this change follows a trend of children being deprived of their liberty outside the statutory route by being housed in unsuitable accommodation not registered with Ofsted, often far from home and family. That has been partly addressed in the questions from the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston.
The success of this provision will depend on the regulations. What actually makes a setting capable of being used for the deprivation of liberty? Will there be a requirement with respect to education in that setting? Will they need to be registered with Ofsted? It is not entirely clear. When will regulations relating to this provision be brought forward? Is it the intention that they will mirror the scheme for the secure accommodation?
The law around the deprivation of liberty is incredibly complex. Without proper legal advice and representation, it is very hard for families to understand what is going on and what options they have. It is not clear yet what legal aid will be available to families or the child themselves when an application is made under the new route. Can the Minister clarify what will be available with respect to legal aid, or put a timetable on when we will get that clarification?
Stephen Morgan
Amendment 24 seeks to place a legal duty on local authorities to provide therapeutic treatment for children placed in secure accommodation—that is, a secure children’s home. The Government’s view is that the amendment is not necessary as there are a number of existing legal duties on local authorities to ensure that wherever children are placed, including in secure accommodation, their needs are met, including the needs for therapeutic treatment. This is part of the duty on local authorities, under primary legislation, to safeguard and promote the welfare of any child that they look after.
Neil O’Brien
I am grateful to the Minister for his informative speech, but can I press him to respond to the specific points made by CAFCASS and the Children’s Commissioner? The Minister is alluding to some of them as he goes along. The first is about requiring explicit Secretary of State approval beforehand. The second is about specifying the frequency of review, particularly for younger children. The third is about having an automatic requirement for children’s protection plans as the child comes out. The fourth, which the Minister has alluded to, is about them being put into illegal settings, and whether something legislative should be done at this point to stop that from happening at all.
Stephen Morgan
I am coming to the end of my speech and hope to answer the points that the Opposition spokesperson made. I will certainly take away the issues that he raised.
I thank all Members for their contributions and questions on this very important matter. On consistency, the views of the Children’s Commissioner and age, I know that this point was raised in the other place only yesterday by a former Minister, and I am grateful for that. It is worth saying here, too, that the child rights impact assessment is informing our work on the Bill. I give the shadow Minister the assurance today that I will take on board these comments.
Neil O’Brien
Is the child rights impact assessment for the Bill published so that we can see it?
Stephen Morgan
There is no legal obligation for England to publish that assessment, but we are certainly using it to inform our work on the Bill.
Neil O’Brien
I think Ministers have said in previous sittings that it will be published during the process of scrutiny, along with the impact assessment. Is that still the case?
Stephen Morgan
I am referring to the conducted children’s rights impact assessment, where children are directly impacted by the policies and/or particular groups of children and young people are more likely to be affected by others. As I mentioned, there is no requirement to publish these documents in England. However, the documents are currently under review and we will advise on our next steps shortly. More broadly, with regards to the impact assessments, these will be published in due course.
Neil O’Brien
I thought I had heard Ministers say previously that they were planning to publish this for our benefit—that we would get both the impact assessment and the children’s rights assessment. Perhaps it is me who is sowing confusion and the Minister may still intend to publish this document. I cannot see any reason why the Government would not publish it, so can I get an assurance that that is going to be published?
Stephen Morgan
To state this clearly, the impact assessment has not yet been published but is obviously informing our work. Obviously, various different assessments are undertaken and I will certainly get back to the hon. Member on those points.
Munira Wilson
The Minister has said a number of times that, by law, the child rights impact assessment does not have to be published. In the interests of transparency and for all of us to do the right thing by children, does he not agree that even if he does not have to publish it, he really ought to do so?
Stephen Morgan
To be clear, we will be publishing the regulatory impact assessments. We will certainly be using the evidence from the children’s rights impact assessments to inform our work.
I turn to the points raised by the Opposition spokesperson on placements of children under the age of 13. Depriving a child of their liberty must always be a last resort, but it is sometimes necessary to keep that child and others safe. These children are some of the most vulnerable in our society. We must do all that we can to keep them safe and help them get on well in life. When a child under the age of 13 is deprived of their liberty and placed in a secure children’s home, the local authority must obtain approval from the Secretary of State before applying to the court. That requirement is set out in regulations that reflect the added seriousness of depriving children so young of their liberty.
The Opposition spokesperson and the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) also made a number of broader points about child protection plans and deprivation of liberty. Local authorities’ care-planning duties are clear that when there are looked-after children, they must have a long-term plan for a child’s upbringing, including arrangements to support their health, education, emotional and behavioural development, and their self-care skills.
The statutory guidance “Working together to safeguard children 2023” is clear about the actions that local authorities and their partners should take, under section 47 of the Children’s Act 1989, if a child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm, as well as the support that should be provided under section 17. If there is a concern about a child’s suffering, or if a child is likely to suffer significant harm, the local authority has a duty to make an inquiry under that Act. “Working together to safeguard children” sets out the actions that the local authority and their partners must take when there are child protection concerns. That includes putting in place child protection plans when concerns are submitted. I hope that the Committee agrees that the clause should stand part.
Neil O’Brien
I hope that we can clear up the confusion about whether we will see the children’s rights assessment. I cannot see any good reason why we would not be able to see that perfectly routine assessment. None of these things is the end of the world, but not having the impact assessment of the thing that we are quite deep into line-by-line scrutiny of seems to further compound this problem. Obviously, no one can defend that; it is not good practice.
I slightly pre-empted what the Minister said—he had scribbled some last remarks—but I was glad that he came to some of the points raised by CAFCASS and the Children’s Commissioner. I raised them partly because I know that their lordships will be extremely interested in these specific questions. There probably is scope for improvement of this clause to do some of those other good things, because this is such a serious issue for those very young children.
We will not vote against clause stand part, but I will press our amendment to a vote. I heard what the Minister said, but I just make the point that there is scope for improvement in the clause, and I suspect that their lordships will provide it.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stephen Morgan
Clauses 11 and 12 will strengthen Ofsted’s regulatory powers to allow it to act at pace and scale when that is in the best interests of children. Specifically, clause 11 strengthens Ofsted’s powers to hold provider groups—parent undertakings, in legislation—to account for the quality of the settings that they own and control. This ensures that Ofsted can take the quickest and most effective action to safeguard vulnerable children, without adding duplication within the existing regime. It will allow Ofsted to look across provider group settings as a whole and take action at provider group level, rather than being limited to doing so setting by setting as it is now. It will also ensure that a provider group is accountable for the quality of the settings that it owns.
Where Ofsted reasonably suspects that requirements are not being met in two or more settings owned by the same provider group, it will be able to require senior people in the provider group to ensure improvements in multiple settings. The requirement applies both to settings operated by a single provider and to multiple providers owned by the same group. Ofsted will be able to request that the provider group develops and implements an implementation and improvement plan to ensure that quality improves. The plan will need to address the issues identified by Ofsted and be approved by Ofsted if it is satisfied that the plan will be effective in addressing the issues.
The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations to provide that non-compliance by the provider group means that the providers that it owns are not fit and proper persons to carry on a setting. That will prevent a person from being registered in relation to new settings if their owner has failed to comply with the relevant requirements under these provisions. That should act as a deterrent and ensure compliance with the requirements.
Clause 12 gives Ofsted the power to issue monetary penalties to providers that have committed breaches of requirements, set out in or under the Care Standards Act 2000, that could also be prosecuted as criminal offences, including operating a children’s home without registering with Ofsted. Ofsted will also be able to issue a provider group with a fine for non-compliance with the requirements set out in clause 11. The fine will be at Ofsted’s discretion and is unlimited in legislation. That will act as a significant deterrent, so that provider groups comply with these requirements. Clause 12 ensures that Ofsted has an alternative to prosecution where that is currently the only enforcement option against those seeking to run a children’s home without registration. Ofsted will not be able to impose a monetary penalty on a person for the same conduct where criminal proceedings have been brought against them in relation to that conduct.
To act as a deterrent and to ensure transparency for the public, the clause gives the Secretary of State the power, by regulations, to require Ofsted to publish details about the monetary penalties that it has issued. Ofsted must also notify local authorities when a monetary penalty has been issued, as it is currently required to in relation to other enforcement actions that it takes. Finally, the clause provides that the issue of a monetary penalty could be used as grounds for cancellation of registration.
Neil O’Brien
We are entering a whole new section of the Bill. I will make a number of points now that we could come back to when we debate future clauses, but I hope we will not have to. I hope that we can have discussions about the principle and philosophy now and we might be able to move faster later, but we can come back to them if necessary.
As we turn to the clauses dealing with children’s homes, I want to start by checking that the Minister has the same basic understanding of the situation, and the same philosophical take on what we are trying to do, as I do. First and most importantly, there is a question about the underlying structural problems that have driven high costs for local authorities in the provision of residential care for children and young people, and there is a second question about the best approach to tackling that, both legislatively and non-legislatively.
On the first, does the Minister agree with me, at least in principle, that the main issue driving the high costs is a shortage of foster care, which is driving local authorities to send children into expensive children’s homes at best, or into unregistered provision at worst? Research by Ofsted in 2022 suggested that residential care was part of the care plan for just over half of the children whose cases it reviewed. To put that the other way round, almost half of children who ended up in residential care should ideally not have been there. Crucially, the research shows that the original plan was for over one third of children to go into foster care.
Although the Bill makes changes to the provision of information about kinship care, which is good, there is nothing that will produce the step change that we need to increase the number of foster carers, which is the thing that would really take down the demand and the high costs. That point is common to the discussions that we will have about cost-capping social workers, cost-capping individual care homes and reviewing whole entities. I do not think that those measures are bad; I just do not think that they are ultimately the underlying solution. That is a point that the Committee will hear me make several times today.
In his independent report commissioned by the previous Government, the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) highlighted that in the year ending March 2021,
“160,635 families came forward to express an interest in becoming a foster carer, and yet just 2,165 were approved”.
That is just 1.3% making it through. It might be that some of those were just initial approaches and not all of those people were deadly serious, but that is still a very small share. He continued:
“Local authorities perform a wide range of roles and appear to be struggling to provide specialist and skilled marketing, recruitment, training and support for such an important group of carers. In 2020/21 recruitment and retention among independent fostering agency services led to a net increase in capacity of 525 additional households and 765 additional foster care places. In contrast, there has been a decrease in capacity of 35 households and 325 places in local authorities over the same period”.
By definition it is quicker, and in quite a lot of cases better, to provide foster care than to build a new children’s home. I want to press the Minister on what he thinks is the explanation for that 99% gap between those expressing an interest in fostering and final approvals. What is he doing to close that gap? He will be aware that there is a perception that it is almost impossible to become approved as a foster carer. We looked at this in my family some years ago. We started in on it through my work as a constituency MP; I have met many constituents who are foster carers. They are incredible people and I pay tribute to them. A woman I know well has fostered 70 children as well as adopting. I honestly think these people are amazing.
The Government really need to use the Bill—this rare legislative slot, as one of the Ministers said—to increase the number of foster and kinship carers. Publishing information is good, but it will not change much unless it is accompanied by a radical attitude to approvals by local authority social work teams. When the alternative—which we are getting to in this clause—is children being sent miles from home, placements breaking down, children going missing and high costs to local authorities, there is obviously a burning platform for change.
If I were the Minister—he is free to take this suggestion or not—I would commission a month-long desktop review to look at the pipeline and all the decisions to reject applications to be foster carers that got fairly far down the track, and understand what can be learned from them. That could shape amendments either here or in the other place and be a huge benefit to him. I can think of a senior official in a Government Department—someone the Government trust to run a major public service—who has two kids, provides a loving home and wanted to foster but was turned down. There are many such cases. Everyone knows the phrase “too many books in the house”, but I strongly encourage Ministers to dig into the underlying question of why we lose so many opportunities to get the foster carers that would take off the pressure that we are trying to take off with these clauses.
A key recommendation of the independent review of children’s social care led by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington was to introduce mixed models combining residential and foster care, particularly for older children, who are the fastest growing part of this cohort. That was part of our brief for the initial pathfinder sites for the regional care co-operatives, which I mentioned in the debate on a previous clause. What assessment has the Minister made of that approach? What impact does he think its adoption might have? Is there any interesting early data from the pilots in Greater Manchester and the south-east?
Speaking of mixed models, I encourage the Minister to look at the incredible work of the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard Foundation, which, as he knows, does amazing work looking after care-experienced and edge-of-care children in a network of state and independent schools. It has been working with the DFE since 2020—something I am very proud that we brought in—and has provided incredible, transformative opportunities for disadvantaged young people. I encourage the Minister to build on that and go further.
On the specifics of clause 11, after the terrible abuse of children supposedly in the care of the Hesley Group, it is absolutely right that the Government are trying to identify systemic safeguarding problems in organisations that manage multiple children’s homes, independent fostering agencies and residential special schools. Our only concern, which is quite serious, is that we should allow for rapid action, not something that drags on and becomes a time and resource-consuming process.
I heard what the Minister said in introducing the clause about providing an alternative to prosecution, but I do not want to lose sight of the importance of prosecution. My noble Friend Baroness Barran told me that when she was a Minister in the Department for Education, she was already able to request inspections of every home in a group where one was judged to be failing, and did so on at least one occasion. Ultimately, we need experienced people to go into a home quickly and see what is actually happening. I think this is within the spirit of what the Minister said, but I hope he would agree that there is often no better alternative to actual inspection and actual prosecutions.
To use an example from a very similar area, the Department can also request an “improvement plan”, which is the main vehicle proposed in these clauses, in the case of independent schools, but that does not always work well in practice. The reasons for that are instructive for the kinds of issues that I hope Ministers will think about here. What ends up happening is that plans are sent in varying degrees of adequacy, and time—in some cases literally years—can be wasted with a lot of letter writing back and forth. I urge the Minister to think about the action he wants in those kinds of cases. Imagine being in the middle of a drawn-out improvement plan process in another case like the Hesley Group case—and that is before the inevitable appeals, which the clauses provide for, kick in.
We have not tabled an amendment to do this—I wonder, though, about the other place—but we think that the Minister needs to confine the improvement plan idea to more minor administrative cases or lower-level concerns. That is where it might be more appropriate. We worry that we might get similar processes to those that we have seen in independent schools, where we have a resource-intensive, rather bureaucratic and slow process that goes on for a long time with a lot of back and forth and appeals. Ultimately, we sometimes just need to get to the point. That is our broad concern.
Stephen Morgan
I thank the shadow Minister for his contributions and questions. He made a number of practical points and asked a number of specific questions.
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 28th January 2025
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 View all Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 January 2025 - (28 Jan 2025)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I remind Members to switch electronic devices off or to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. Before we start hearing from the witnesses, do any Members wish to make declarations of interest in connection with the Bill? No.
We will now hear oral evidence from Professor Sir Chris Whitty, chief medical officer for England, and Duncan Barton, chief nursing officer for England, NHS England. Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I remind Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill. I also remind Members that time is tight, so please keep your questions to the point. We must stick to the timings in the sittings resolution that the Committee has already agreed. For this session, we have until 10.05 am. Will the witnesses please briefly introduce themselves for the record? If you are to give an opening statement, please keep it short.
Professor Whitty: I am Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer for England, and I am also representing the chief medical officer for Wales. One statement, which is on behalf of Duncan and myself, and all the CMOs, is that we are completely neutral on the principles of the Bill, which we consider are entirely for society and therefore for Parliament. Although we are answering technical questions, we will not be answering questions of principle, because we feel that is a societal question. We have made it clear to the medical profession, however, that individual doctors should be able to make whatever statements they wish. Obviously, doctors have strong views on all sides of this argument, as members of society do.
Duncan Burton: Good morning. I am Duncan Burton, the chief nursing officer for England. For transparency, I will say that I am also a volunteer trustee of a hospice.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
Q
“But if any provision of this Act has not been fully brought into force before the end of the period of 2 years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, that provision (so far as not already in force) comes into force at the end of that period.”
My question is: do you believe that it would be safe to implement this legislation if those provisions had not been fully put in place?
Professor Whitty: If this Bill is passed—I want to stress that; I will say it once, but assume it applies for all the answers I subsequently give—we will clearly need both: a period to make sure that there is technical guidance and legislation, via secondary legislation, because obviously the primary legislation is the Bill; and necessary training for people to be able to do this in an appropriate and dignified way, if that is what Parliament chooses.
Naz Shah
Q
Professor Whitty: That is an absolutely critical question, because it is very important that if the Bill is passed, all parts of society, of whatever ethnicity and of whatever background, have equal access to the Bill—or not, as Parliament determines. That will require adjustment in a variety of ways. Some can be done at a macro level—for example, making sure that everything is translated into the major languages spoken in the United Kingdom—but a lot of it will be to do with the individual interactions that doctors, nurses and other healthcare providers have with individual patients, which must take into account their own starting point, their own knowledge and, most importantly, their own beliefs.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Q
Professor Whitty: I will give my view, and it might be useful to get Duncan’s view on the nursing side, because nurses will often be heavily involved in these discussions.
I would divide the kind of training that is needed into two broad groups: training that is essentially normal medical practice but may need some variation, and things that are clearly specific to this Bill. Issues, for example, around mental capacity—as determined by the Mental Capacity Act 2005—are dealt with every day, in every hospital up and down the country; every doctor and nurse above a certain level of seniority should be able to do that normally. It may require some slight adjustment. There is an absolute expectation within the Act, for example, that the more serious the decision, the greater the level of capacity that someone needs to have. That is already built into the principles of the Act and the way that things are done. I would extend that to the management of end of life, which should be a normal part of medical and nursing practice—we will all die eventually, and that has always been part of medicine, and always should be. That training should be generic, but may need some adaption.
There will then be some specific things that will be necessary for people to understand the legislation, including, in some cases—if this Bill is passed—if they are to take part in the final part of prescribing drugs to patients. It is much more likely that a very large number of doctors and nurses may get involved in the very earliest stages, because someone may raise an issue with their GP, nurse or consultant, who will need to have the basic understanding for that. In my view, the more detailed later stages will require some specific training. I think there will be a gradation of doctors: those who are happy to have the general, initial conversation; those who are happy to have the structured conversation that follows; and a minority who will be happy to go on to take part in the final stages.
It is very important that the wishes of the patient are respected. That is the central point of this. We must start with what is good for someone in their last six months of life, and for their immediate family, but we must also make sure that the wishes of healthcare professionals around this area are absolutely protected, when it comes to conscience and to choice.
Duncan Burton: I am mindful that there are two groups of staff who would potentially be working in this service, if the Bill is passed, but also of the wider workforce. At 2 o’clock in the morning, when a patient wants to have a conversation with somebody about end of life, it is going to be a nurse with them, or a nurse in a care home, or a specialist nurse providing cancer care, so we have to think about the training and support that is required for them, be that around signposting or explaining where they can go to access more information. There is an important part about the entire wider workforce that we need to think about.
Clearly, for those people who are working in such a service, we need to think about the safeguarding elements, and how we make sure there is support through safeguarding training and confidentiality—particularly mindful that some patients may choose not to tell their families about this. We need to think about how we enable and support staff in managing those kinds of circumstances and navigating the legal requirements through the Bill. We need to think ahead about what we need to do in undergraduate training for doctors and nurses, and in the curriculum.
Lewis Atkinson
Q
Professor Whitty: You are absolutely right: it is a completely normal part of medical and wider nursing, and other practice, but particularly medical practice, to consider issues of consent and capacity. It can be that someone says they do not want treatment that is clearly going to be lifesaving. A very well-known example is that of Jehovah’s Witnesses, who choose not to have blood products. If they are bleeding heavily, that is an issue that could lead to the end of their life. Provided they understand that and they have capacity, that has to be respected.
The alternative way—the other thing that doctors have to do—is to give people advice before they have major operations, chemotherapy or other drugs that may in themselves lead to the end of their life, but which also may lead to a benefit. Explaining to people the risks and benefits, including the fact that they may lose their life as a result of the next stage—if someone is at high anaesthetic risk, that is not a trivial risk sometimes with operations—is a very standard part of medical practice that you do from the point that you qualify. Obviously, as people get more senior, they tend to be more experienced in it—and, as with most things, if you get more experience, you generally get better at it.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Q
Professor Whitty: If I am honest, I think it would be extremely difficult. If I may, I will explain why, because it is a really important question. Let us take cancer. For the great majority of people with the majority of cancers that are diagnosed tomorrow, the doctor who is seeing them will say, in all confidence, “You have cancer and I expect you to be alive not just next Christmas, but for many years to come.” The fact that they have cancer is not in itself a demonstration that they are going to die. In fact, the majority will not. Almost 80% of people with breast cancer diagnosed tomorrow will still be alive 10 years later, for example.
Equally, there are people who may not have a single disease that is going to lead to the path to death, but they have multiple diseases interacting, so they are highly frail; it is therefore not the one disease that is the cause, but the constellation that is clearly leading them on a path inexorably to a death at some point in the foreseeable future. Exact timings are tricky—we might want to come back to that. I therefore think it is quite difficult to specify that certain diseases are going to cause death and others are not, because in both directions that could be misleading.
Sarah Olney
Q
Professor Whitty: At the extremes —most people are at the extremes—it is very clear what is going to happen. For most people, you can say with confidence, barring some extraordinary accident like being hit by a car on the way out, “You’ll be fine in a year, even though you have heart disease, cancer or whatever.” At the other extreme, there are people who are clearly dying and will die in the next two or three days, and virtually nothing will change that reality.
What we are talking about in the Bill, of course, is a point between those stages, but people will definitely reach a point where there will be an inexorable and, importantly for the Bill, unreversible slide towards a point of death. People can make a reasonable central view, if they are experienced in a particular disease, about when the death is likely to happen, accepting that there is a spread around that. I am sure that the general public and Members of Parliament fully accept that this is not a precise science. This is a central view, and there is a big academic literature around this. Some people will die significantly earlier than they are predicted to; a small number will die very significantly later; and some people will certainly die a bit later or to some degree later. The central view is usually reasonably accurate—that someone is now on a pathway from which there is not going to be a return.
Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)
Q
Professor Whitty: Duncan, why don’t you take the first bit and I will take the second?
Duncan Burton: In terms of looking for signs of coercion, all of our nursing and clinical staff have safeguarding training, which already looks at things like whether people are under financial coercion or other forms of abuse. That training is already in place and it is extensive across the NHS and social care. If the Bill is passed, we will need to look at how we strengthen that training in relation to spotting the potential signs of coercion in this space as well. Given that that mechanism is already in place, I think that would be an extension, so it is important that we factor that in. I am also mindful, given the scale of colleagues we have working across health and care, that the time between the Bill being passed and its implementation is sufficient that we enable everybody to receive that additional training, if it is required.
Professor Whitty: In terms of strengthening the Bill, as a practitioner, I was relieved that the decision was for the Bill—if it stays this way—to stick with the Mental Capacity Act, and that was for two reasons. First, that Act is used up and down the country by doctors and nurses every day; they know it and they understand it. Although, as you say, it is a large piece of legislation, it is one that people have worked through in practice multiple times. If you ask six or seven doctors, “Does this person have capacity?”, in almost all cases you will get six or seven identical answers, because people are used to using it.
It additionally has the advantage of being tested in the courts. That has gone as far as the Supreme Court, and the various ambiguities that were inevitably in the legislation have been clarified by senior judges. Therefore, to practitioners like me, it feels like a piece of robust and predictable legislation. Within the legislation, it is very important that there are some situations where you will need to call for additional assistance. For example, if someone has a co-existing mental health condition, you will probably want to ask a psychiatrist additionally whether that condition is interfering with the decision taken to the point that someone loses capacity for this very important decision. The level of capacity has to be reasonably high.
My own view is that starting this way is the sensible thing to do. That does not mean there could not be arguments for some additional points, but I cannot immediately—again, as a jobbing doctor—see ones where I think, “This is going to make a big difference.” The fact is that this is founded on a very established bit of well-used and well-recognised legislation.
Kim Leadbeater
Q
Professor Whitty: The further you go up in the seriousness of the decision, the more you would do that. For example, if you were setting a finger that had been broken, you are not going to wait until a psychiatrist has said that you can do that. Within reason, provided that someone gives consent, you will do that. You will be much more cautious about moving forward with things like open heart surgery or deprivation of liberty if you think there is uncertainty. It should be clear. For the majority of people, it is very clear they have capacity or very clear they do not. There is a relatively small—but important—number in the middle where that is less clear and where additional views are relevant, particularly where there is a question of co-existing mental health issues. The fact of the mental health condition does not in itself mean that someone does not have capacity, but what has to be taken into account is, “Do they have the capacity for this decision at this point in time?” That is how the Mental Capacity Act works.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
Q
Professor Whitty: As we have seen in covid, the NHS, like any service, can swing very fast if there is a need for speed. In this case, I think most people in society would say that the key thing is to get this right. Personally, I would rather it was not running against a timeline. You would not want it to drag on forever, because then you have uncertainty for everybody, but I think Duncan and I would both say that two years seems a reasonable starting point. With some things, it might take longer than that to work out how we are going to provide this in the most safe and equitable way—for example, in dealing with minority and other groups. We need to get all that right and, at least at first pass, get it as close to good as we possibly can.
Equally, we may find when we first start using the legislation that there are some things that we had not considered at the beginning, and therefore we need to go back and improve on them because we just had not thought about them in the first way through the gates; that is why I hope that some of the more operational issues are done through secondary legislation and regulation. Inevitably, that is true for many bits of legislation, but it is particularly important here.
I go back to my very first comment: the central person here is an average citizen in their last six months of life. What we do not want is a system very difficult for them to navigate so that they spend their entire last six months of life—if the Bill is passed and they choose to take account of it; they are going to be a minority—stuck in a bureaucratic thicket. We need to keep this simple. My view is that the best safeguards are simple safeguards. Overcomplicating usually makes the safeguard less certain.
Rebecca Paul
Q
Professor Whitty: I think that there is a big difference between the Act coming into initial force—that is, “This is now where the law is”—and the service being provided. On the second of those, I would argue against putting a firm deadline, with a reasonable expectation that the NHS and others should be involved in trying to make plans for this as fast as possible. But if the Bill is passed, we are going to have to sort out multiple different things to get this to work. If we were three months away from being able to get something sorted out, I would not want to have a situation where it all had to start the following day. I think that would make it much harder to provide a safe, fair and secure service.
Duncan Burton: In my understanding, the Bill does not call out the NHS specifically in terms of providing this service. A number of steps would have to be gone through to understand the implications—the operational and training implications, as we have already discussed—to understand the timeline required. For the reasons Chris has outlined and as mentioned earlier, when thinking about the wider implications for the workforce there would need to be sufficient time to be able to work through those.
Rebecca Paul
Q
Professor Whitty: That is a key question, and to me that does seem something that Parliament may want to debate. That is not a question for us, but it is a point of principle one way or the other.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Q
Professor Whitty: First, I have had quite a lot of conversations—not just with the chief medical officer for Wales, but all the other chief medical officers and indeed a much wider range of the medical profession; I wanted to feel that I was giving a central view of the medical profession in terms of the practicalities. My view is that, in a sense, the principles of the Bill are no different between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, although the legislation would apply only to England and Wales were it to be passed.
The operational questions we have been talking about will be either subtly or importantly different between the different jurisdictions for a variety of different reasons. I do not think that is a problem, provided it is in secondary legislation and it allows the different jurisdictions to do things in the way that best suits their own set-up. Again, as we saw during covid, different nations will choose to reach the same end state using slightly different practical routes.
Liz Saville Roberts
Q
Professor Whitty: Yes. I think in principle it would be better to be as close as possible, but if there were important practical differences why it was not going to start on the same date, the more important thing would be to get it right rather than to get simultaneous timings.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Q
I also heard what you said about the scaling of decision making, but within the Bill, in some of those scenarios there is no mandating; the word “may” is used rather than “must”. I want to understand your viewpoint on whether it would provide stronger safeguards if those parts of the Bill were tightened to include “must” rather than “may”, and if the reference to capacity were replaced with a separate definition of “ability”, as proposed in our amendments.
Professor Whitty: I am probably not the best person to ask about the exact drafting of the Bill in terms of “may” and “must”, but I can answer the second part of your question, which is really important.
If there were no Mental Capacity Act, there would be an argument, which has been used for a long time, that the Bill would have to define what was meant with a fair degree of clarity. It would not be able to do that with just one clause; there would have to be quite a lot of clauses, if I am honest. All systems of this sort are going to be imperfect. The reason why I think it is sensible to base yourself on the Mental Capacity Act is that it is well used and well understood in practice by practitioners every day. Having a system with two completely separate groups of assessment, one of which has never been tested in the courts or used outwith this Bill, would lead to a whole set of potential complications and ambiguities, which are not there at the moment because we have a well-tested mechanism through the Mental Capacity Act.
People should move away from the Mental Capacity Act with some caution, because I think that will cause as many problems as it solves. It is not clear to me what problem people are trying to solve by doing that, given that the Mental Capacity Act clearly makes the point that the more severe the decision, the greater the degree of capacity that has to be assumed before people can actually take that decision. That is the foundation of some of the disquiet that people have had, but it is central to how the Mental Capacity Act works in practice.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
Q
“reasonably be expected within 6 months.”
Is that in line with your thoughts on the matter?
Professor Whitty: I think that is a reasonable point in time provided that, in taking that period into account, Parliament assumes that we mean a central view that this is six months, although it might be before that and it might be after. Other times would be equally reasonable, but if you are going to choose one, then six months is reasonable. It is generally very predictable that someone is going to die in the foreseeable future, but predicting whether that will be in five months or seven months is a lot harder, and there would be some caution.
Notably, in the countries that have chosen to go down an assisted dying route—a variety of different ones have been chosen—a significant minority of people die before they actually get to the point where that occurs because there is uncertainty in both directions. I think that period is as good as any other, but I want people to be clear that this is not an exact science where you can say, for example, “On 20 August.” It is not as tight as saying that a baby is going be born on a certain date. It has a wider spread of uncertainty around it. In the overwhelming majority of cases, that does not mean that it will go on for months or years longer, but there will be some degree of uncertainty.
Dr Opher
Q
Professor Whitty: Duncan may wish to comment for nurses. For doctors, we should be very mindful of the fact that for some doctors, as for some citizens, this is a point of very strong principle indeed, therefore there will be a gradation of people feeling that they can personally be involved in it. I suspect that if they themselves did not feel able to do it—because of conscience or choice, or because they did not feel that they had the necessary skills—the great majority would have no problem referring on, but it might be an issue for some people.
Personally, my view is that we should be able to have the range, provided that people are aware in general that, if one person cannot provide it and then does not wish to discuss it, there are alternative routes. But that really is a matter for Parliament and if Parliament says, “No, actually, that is unfair on the patient, because then the patient is having to go through an extra step,” that is an alternative and perfectly reasonable principle. Parliament is going to have to balance those two principles; that is not for me as a doctor. I just think that that range of opinion needs to be thought through when people are coming to that final parliamentary decision.
Duncan Burton: If I could add to that, again, I think that bit about the wider workforce and how we would support them is really important. We have situations like this already. We have advice professionally around things such as abortions and working in embryo services and fertility, for example, so we need to make sure that the safeguards for our staff are really clear. As Chris has said, our staff will have a range of views and opinions on this, as will the wider public. So the work you do in creating this Bill is really important in terms of the advice that we give to people about signposting and having those conversations. Actually, our clinicians are having conversations every single day about the choices that people have at the end of their lives.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
Q
Professor Whitty: I would hope that most doctors are capable of identifying that someone has some degree—or a large degree—of mental health distress, or mental health illness, if you wish. What not all doctors will feel comfortable doing is actually deciding whether that is sufficient to interfere with someone’s ability to make a decision with full capacity. That is where help from colleagues from psychiatry, and mental health more widely, is going to be useful.
But that should be good medical practice, in my view, under all circumstances. This Bill takes it to a high level of need because of the seriousness of the decisions being taken, but that is part of medical practice. Duncan will have discussed with senior nurses, when he when he was operating clinically, “Should we actually get an opinion from a mental health colleague”—either a community psychiatric nurse, if it is that kind of question, a psychiatrist or others—“to make that assessment?”
That is really the question, but I certainly would not want to be in a situation where the fact that someone with a terminal diagnosis will have some degree of low mood in itself just rules them out from any kind of medical intervention—this, or any other. That should not be the case. They have to have access to whatever the state and the medical profession are able to provide—again, obviously, depending on what Parliament decides on this particular Bill.
Sojan Joseph
Q
Duncan Burton: I think you are absolutely right—anybody working in stressful environments. If the Bill is passed, we will need to make sure that we have sufficient psychological support for nurses and doctors working in these services, as we do now for many of our nurses and other professionals working in these kinds of situations. People working in end of life, or cancer nurses, for example, often have psychological support to help them deal with some very difficult conversations with patients.
We would need to look at that and make sure that sufficient support was in place for anybody working in these situations. We would also need to be mindful about the wider workforce, given the issues from such a debate as this and how the decisions to signpost people on to services might create—for some people—moral injury. We do need to think about the support in place for those people.
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
Q
Professor Whitty: It is entirely a matter for Parliament, at one level, but I can give a view. It goes back to the point that Naz Shah and others made earlier: the situations that people find themselves in are extraordinarily different—culturally, where they are in their lives, where their families are and a whole variety of other issues. Only the clinicians dealing with that person will really know all the different factors at play. If there is a good therapeutic relationship, and you would certainly hope there was, they should understand a whole variety of things that are very difficult for people sitting around this table to predict, however wise you are—although I am sure you are extraordinarily wise, to be clear. That was not my point. My point is that this is very difficult and I could not, at this point, write down a law that would be helpful to someone dealing with a whole range of different scenarios in which they are going to have to have an end-of-life discussion.
My own view, for what it is worth, is that I would do fewer things rather than more. That is partly because simplicity is the key to really good safeguards, in my experience. If the safeguards are really clear and simple, everybody understands them—if you ask six people, “What does this mean?”, those six will give you the same answer. The more complicated you make things, the more room there is for ambiguity and uncertainty—because different things are playing in—and the more difficult it is for the patient, their family and the medical and nursing professionals assisting them, to navigate the system.
Without in any sense wishing to curtail what Parliament might wish to do, I would make a plea for simplicity wherever possible and for accepting the extraordinary variety of people’s lives, which may have unpredictable consequences in terms of the way the end of their lives plays out.
Jake Richards
Q
Professor Whitty: I would certainly recommend that this is done by guidance or in secondary legislation, which can be adjusted if it turns out that it is not having the desired effect. Two things can change: first, we can spot things we had not thought of in the first place, however far-sighted each of us is. The second is that medicine itself changes, the diseases people suffer from change and so on.
An Act has to be durable and that is why I have my view about secondary legislation and guidance, which have the ability to adapt in a way that primary legislation cannot. The fundamentals obviously need to be in primary legislation, but these kinds of issues are often done better in secondary legislation.
The Chair
I am very mindful of the time, as it is now three minutes past 10. This will be the last question of the session.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
“we must not undermine the provision of good end-of-life care for all including the outstanding work done by palliative care clinicians”.
Do we take it, by implication, that you are fearful that this Bill could undermine good end-of-life care? In your view, how might we mitigate some of those risks in the Bill?
Professor Whitty: I will give a view and then Duncan will be able, as chief nurse, to mention the parallel bit of advice that said similar things. I think all medical, nursing and health professionals very strongly believe that palliative care and pain alleviation, which is not the same as palliative care but overlaps with it, and end-of-life care, which is also not the same but overlaps with it, are essential, and in some areas are not to the high standard that we would hope for. That would be a common view across the medical profession.
My own view and hope is that the Bill should not make the situation either better or worse. It changes one particular aspect in a very important way, but it seems to me that on the principle that we should be improving end-of-life discussions, which is where end-of-life care starts from, as well as supporting further the alleviation of symptoms and the provision of palliative care, there would be no disagreement from anybody in the medical or nursing professions, any other professions or the general public. That must be fundamental to how the Bill is thought about—
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of our allocated time with these witnesses.
Professor Whitty: Duncan, do you want to say if you agree or disagree?
The Chair
Q
Duncan Burton: I absolutely agree with that. This is, obviously, a decision for Parliament, but it is clear that there is increasing discussion in society around death and dying, and I think that is important. It is important that we have discussions and support people with their choices at the end of life, so anything we can do to increase that is important.
The Chair
I thank our witnesses, Professor Chris Whitty and Duncan Burton, on behalf the Committee. I also thank Committee members for their short questions.
Examination of Witnesses
Mark Swindells and Dr Andrew Green gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Mark Swindells: Good morning. I am here from the General Medical Council. The GMC, as the independent regulator of doctors across the UK, does not have a position on what the law should be on assisted dying. Similarly to what the chief medical officer said, we view it as a matter for wider society and, ultimately, Parliament. Having said that, we have looked at the Bill and, were it to pass, we would obviously be willing to work on things like the statutory code of conduct that it talks about to make sure the implementation works as well as possible.
Dr Green: Good morning. My name is Andrew Green. I am a retired GP, and I chair the medical ethics committee at the British Medical Association. We had a big survey of our members in 2020 and, on the basis of that survey, we moved from opposition to neutrality. All that means is that we neither support nor oppose any changes in legislation. That position has enabled us to reach out to people with a wide range of views and produce policy that we believe has broad support, looking particularly at the areas where it impacts on our members. We have had very positive engagement with legislators throughout the United Kingdom and the Crown dependencies, with the aim not of supporting the Bill, but of making sure that if it goes ahead, it works for doctors and patients. We have always believed that those things go hand in hand.
The Chair
Thank you very much. For broadcast purposes, can everyone make sure that they are as loud and clear as possible?
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Q
“No registered medical practitioner is under any duty to raise the subject of provision”.
What are your views on the compatibility of that element of the Bill with the principles under Montgomery consent?
Dr Green: Both of these items came about because of things that were in our policy, and we are pleased to see them in the Bill. You are right that assisted dying must not become just another tick-box thing that doctors mention to patients. That must not happen, and that is why we believe that it should not fall within those two Supreme Court judgements that you mentioned. But there is another side to that coin: we think that there are some circumstances in which doctors should be able to mention this to their patients.
I will just explain why that might happen. The consultation shows that some patients find it very difficult to bring up sensitive subjects with their doctors, even when those are the most important thing on their mind. Doctors are aware of that, and I hope that we get very good at reading between the lines of what patients say to get at what is left unsaid. In those circumstances, we need to be able to open the door for the patient, so they can go into a safe space and have those difficult discussions. That is what we are talking about here.
As a clinician, it is very difficult to know when to have those conversations. When we are battling with that internally, the last thing we would want is to feel the weight of legislation behind us, so please do not pass legislation that makes it harder for doctors to understand their patients. That is why it is important that in particular circumstances we should be able to gently raise the subject.
Mark Swindells: The GMC sets guidance on decision making and consent, as you will know. That is based on the existing law, including the case law on Montgomery, so it puts a lot of weight on the patient’s autonomy, the patient’s role and the doctor’s role in supporting that in the provision of information on different options, including the option of no treatment. Our guidance follows the law, so were the law to change, we would look at it and accommodate. We do not have a formulated view on what the eligibility should be, but we know the BMA’s stance.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
Q
Mark Swindells: We have not done a forensic legal assessment of that nature, but obviously Montgomery is in case law, and Parliament has the power to set primary law. I listened to what the chief medical officer said and what Dr Green says about how restrictive or otherwise that might be in terms of the doctor’s role with the patient.
Jack Abbott
Q
Dr Green: Obviously, it would be great if we worked in a system where doctors had all the time they needed to deal with their patients. I believe that the Bill mentions a duty to provide information from the chief medical officer, and having read the Bill, to me it seems very much like this might be in the form of a website or leaflet. We believe that it is important that patients should be able to access personalised information, and we would like to see an official information service that patients could go to, either as a self-referral or as a recommendation from their GPs or other doctors. That would give them information not just about assisted dying, but about all the other things that bother people at this stage of their life, and it would mention social services support and palliative care. It could be like a navigation service as much as an information service. That might address some of your concerns.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
Q
Dr Green: You are right: all medical staff have safeguarding training, and of course patients make important decisions often with the influence and help of their family members. Usually this influence is helpful, and it almost always comes from a position of love. The point at which such influence becomes coercion is difficult to find out, but my experience is that it is rare. I would recommend that you look at what has happened in other parts of the world that have more experience with this, because they have it as part of their training modules. Certainly, we would expect capacity and coercion training to be part of the specialised training that doctors who opt in would receive. I anticipate that the general safeguarding training should be sufficient for other doctors, who would obviously only be involved at that very early stage.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Q
As I understand it, the General Medical Council already has guidance on dealing with assisted dying if it is raised by a patient, and how doctors should handle that. How easy would it be to translate that guidance—the process struck me as something that does not hinder but also does not enable—into something more informative?
Mark Swindells: It is important to note that our guidance on assisted dying is framed in the current law, so it guides doctors to explain that it is not lawful for them to assist their patient to die. It talks about the importance of explaining other available treatment options, including palliative care; making sure that the patient’s needs are met; and dealing with any other safeguarding matters. Oure guidance does follow the law, so if the law were to change, we would obviously attend to that. It is not framed quite as you are suggesting, so I do not think that would lift and shift into what the guidance would need to be for doctors if this were to pass.
Dr Green: I do not have any experience with what you are describing, but it would certainly make sense to look at best practice in other areas.
Kit Malthouse
Q
Dr Green: As a general principle, I do not believe that unnecessary barriers should be put in the way of communication. This is such an important area for patients that it is vital that they form a good, trusting relationship with their key medical adviser, who would usually be a doctor. I also have to say that at the end of life, we depend a lot on our specialist nurses— Macmillan or Marie Curie nurses—and it might well be that they are the person whom the patient trusts most. Please do not put barriers in the way of understanding.
Kit Malthouse
Q
Dr Green: Indeed. I believe that in New Zealand—and I think in the state of Victoria, but I would need to check that—there have been official reviews that have identified those concerns, and they are looking to review the legislation.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
Q
I would like a quick clarification from Dr Green. In terms of the survey, my understanding is that the British Medical Association’s official position is to be neutral. The majority in favour of neutrality—moving away from an opposed position—were junior doctors and those not working with the elderly and the dying, whereas the great majority of doctors who work in palliative care and work with dying people remain firmly opposed to a change in the law. Is that your understanding?
Dr Green: There were some variations between specialities; that is true, but within all specialities, there was a wide variety of opinion. It is that wide variety of opinion that the BMA has based its policy on.
Danny Kruger
Q
I have a question for you, Dr Green, on the delivery of the service if it is brought into law. Is it your understanding that the Bill mandates the NHS to provide an assisted dying service? I appreciate that it is not clear in the Bill. Nevertheless, it does authorise the Government to pay for it and it establishes this right. My question to you is this: is this a medical procedure that we are proposing to legalise, and should the NHS provide it? If the answer is yes, should that be a separate service within the NHS or should it just be part of general practice?
Dr Green: We have not taken a view as to whether it should be inside or outside the NHS. That is not for us to take. We do believe that it should not be any part of any doctor’s normal job to provide assisted dying. In other words, it should be set up through a separate service with a degree of separation.
We believe that is important for patients, because it would reassure patients who may be anxious about the service that it would not just be part of their normal care. It would reassure patients that the service they were going into had proper quality and proper audit attached to it. It would reassure doctors, because doctors who did not want to have any part would not feel that it was part of their normal job, whereas the doctors who wanted to go ahead would be assured of having support, emotional support and proper training. Also, it should, hopefully, reassure the providers, who would then be assured that it would not be expected of them just as part of their normal duty. We believe a degree of separation is very important.
Danny Kruger
Q
Dr Green: I think we are always concerned about resourcing, and I can only back up what Dr Whitty said about the importance of palliative care.
Danny Kruger
Q
Mark Swindells: I would agree with you that there certainly needs to be really clear guidance for doctors on that scenario. We have not taken a view on whether that needs to be in the Bill, in regulation or in the statutory code of practice. What I would say is that we would be willing to participate in the setting of that. It would be very important to listen to the view of doctors and indeed patients who might be interested in taking such a course of action, to understand their issues.
Danny Kruger
Q
Mark Swindells: I am not trying to duck the question, but because we do not take a general view on whether the Bill should pass or not, we have not taken an established view on the delivery mechanism for it.
Lewis Atkinson
Q
Mark Swindells: We do get inquiries from doctors who are concerned that they are doing the right thing when it might become apparent to them that a patient wants to travel overseas to access assisted dying. We have taken legal advice, and on that basis, we guide doctors that it is permissible for them to provide the existing medical records to that patient, as you might under a subject access request, but to be really cautious about going any further in terms of recommending that or assisting the process more than that. That is based on our understanding of the existing law in the Suicide Act.
Dr Green: Of course, that leads to a further issue. As we heard from Dr Whitty today, this measure may progress at a different speed in Scotland and England and Wales. We also have the Crown dependencies, which are some way further ahead than the mainland Governments on it. That raises an issue for doctors who work in England and Wales but treat patients in the Crown dependencies. We would want clarity about the legal situation regarding a doctor in Liverpool who is treating a patient in the Isle of Man, should the law allow assisted dying in the Isle of Man.
Lewis Atkinson
Q
Dr Green: I do not think I ever suggested that doctors should recommend assisted dying. If I did, I apologise—
Lewis Atkinson
Sorry—I meant the provision of information for someone.
Dr Green: The provision of information would be very useful, because in a situation where a doctor was unwilling to have an initial discussion with the patient, it would provide a way for the patient to get that information that was in no way obstructive.
Lewis Atkinson
Q
Dr Green: We have not taken an official view on doctors recommending it, but I do not think it was ever in any of our minds that doctors would be recommending it as a course of action to patients.
Lewis Atkinson
Q
Dr Green: I am reluctant to make a statement on that in this forum. We will go away and discuss it, and come back to you.
Naz Shah
Q
The question that worries me is, to be able to fulfil all those actions in all cases, without fear of mis-determining, the two doctors would have to be specialists in all the relevant diseases. For example, if somebody has a brain tumour, lung cancer, or a different type of cancer, would the doctor have to be an expert in that to determine that the person is terminally ill?
From the GMC’s point of view, would we find ourselves in a situation where doctors are working outside their professional competencies and expertise? From the BMA’s point of view, how do we protect doctors from finding themselves having to diagnose life expectancy for a disease they are not a specialist in, or to determine capacity when they are not a specialist in that, or to determine a lack of coercion when they potentially do not know the patient and do not have experience of that? Finally, when the next step is taken and the court has to rely on the testimony of these doctors to protect the patient, can those testimonies safely be relied on by a court and by a judge, given all those concerns?
Mark Swindells: There are quite a few points there—let me work through them backwards. We have some existing guidance for doctors when they act as a witness—for example, in a court setting or a medical legal situation—that talks in general terms about the importance of being an appropriate witness. Inherent to that is some expertise and understanding of the topic they are assisting the court on. I suppose that those sorts of principles would be ones that, if the Bill is passed in this form—I say again, the GMC does not have a view on what the delivery mechanism or the Bill should look like—are applicable points from the guidance, which would read across.
You heard from the chief medical officer his caution with regards to going with a condition-based assessment for this sort of thing. We would not have a particular view on that, but there is one thing that I want to highlight. The Bill talks about specialism in the context and seeking advice from a psychiatrist. On the specialist register held by the GMC, there are five specialisms connected with psychiatry, so some clarity—whether the Bill is intended to cover any, or a particular one, of those—would be good.
I know that it is not restricted in the “independent doctor” and “coordinating doctor” roles in the Bill either, but we are aware that when doctors pursue a specialty, in the sense that they become accredited and go on to our specialist register, that does not fix in time their individual scope of practice or expertise. Many doctors will go into slightly different fields, or focus on one particular area, so one cannot necessarily rely on the specialist register as a current indication of a doctor’s area of competence in that way. On what the precise delivery mechanism is and the point you make about whether either of those two roles of doctor have seen the person, because we have not taken a view on what the law should be, we have not taken a firm view of any process or eligibility, but I note the point.
Dr Green: If I may, I will clarify my previous answer, having had a little more thought. I do not believe that it is ever appropriate for a doctor to recommend that a patient goes through an assisted dying process. My internal thoughts on whether it should be on the face of the Bill, contained in guidance or contained in good medical practice was the point that I was unsure about.
Lewis Atkinson
indicated assent.
Dr Green: With regard to the specific questions, no, I do not believe that a doctor has to be a specialist in the individual disease at stake to advise a patient about prognosis. I can only refer you back to what Dr Whitty said: that in the majority of cases, it is fairly clear—this applies to capacity, too—but in some cases, it is not so clear. What is important is that the doctor has the ability to seek further advice if they need it; it is not always required.
Dr Opher
Q
“registered medical practitioner who is unwilling”
to go forward with the assisted dying request
“must, if requested…refer…to another registered medical practitioner”.
Are you happy with that clause?
Dr Green: No, we are not, because we know from our survey that some doctors feel very strongly about this. The word “referral”, to a doctor, means writing a letter or communicating with another doctor to see, but some doctors would find themselves not able to do that. For that reason, we believe that there should be an information service for the doctor to direct to. There is a particular problem with the word “referral”. Doctors would not be able to be obstructive; they have the same duties under good medical practice as they do, for example, with termination of pregnancy requests.
Dr Opher
Q
Dr Green: We have not taken a view on the qualifications of the doctors involved. We had discussions about what grade they should be, for example, but we took the view that their skillset and training was more important than their grade or position.
Dr Opher
Q
Dr Green: We did not take a view on that. We thought that training and experience was more important.
Sarah Olney
Q
Dr Green: That is why it is important that doctors should be able to opt out at any stage of this. There are doctors who would find it difficult to do that, and it is important that their position is respected.
Kim Leadbeater
Q
Dr Green: What would happen is that the doctor would provide the patient—through their receptionist, through leaflets or through a telephone number—with somewhere they could get the information. You cannot just abandon a patient. They have to be sure that the patient has the ability to do what the patient wants to do.
Kim Leadbeater
Q
Dr Green: Yes. It is the “referral” word that is problematic for us.
Kim Leadbeater
Q
“respect competent patients’ right to make decisions about their care, including their right to refuse treatment, even if this will lead to their death”.
I am interested in how that fits in with those very difficult conversations. When a patient executes that right to refuse treatment, are those cases logged? Are they monitored or reported on?
Mark Swindells: There was an important piece of case law—I think in the 1990s—that clarified that a patient refusing treatment and subsequently dying is not an act of suicide. You are right that our guidance talks about the importance of a doctor explaining to the patient about the likely course of action in terms of the option for no treatment. Again, that is intertwined with the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and puts a lot of autonomy in the space of the patient, along with the consent case law that we covered before.
On the previous point about referrals, our guidance is similar to what Dr Green was saying: in the case of conscientious objection—for example, on abortion—the important point is that, from the patient perspective, they are not left with nowhere to go. If that assists, that may be a principle that helps and reads across.
Kim Leadbeater
Q
Mark Swindells: Yes. It would be important for the patient’s records to cover the points of consent and that the doctor has recorded that they have interacted with the patient that way. I do not believe it is centrally held or collated in any sense like that, but I may be wrong.
Jake Richards
Q
Dr Green: Yes, with the exception of the referral.
Jake Richards
Thank you. I just wanted to clarify that.
Dr Green: Of course, we would regard much of clause 4(4) as normal care in any case.
Jake Richards
Q
Dr Green: As Dr Whitty said, I think simplicity is the key here.
Liz Saville Roberts
Q
Dr Green: In terms of the cross-border issues?
Liz Saville Roberts
Yes.
Dr Green: I think the concerns are that patients, particularly those from the Crown dependencies, might be looking for some things—for example, report on life expectancy—from doctors on the mainland. I think it is clear that if a doctor travelled to the Isle of Man or Jersey to do the work there, the GMC would be happy for them to do so, but we would want a clear understanding that they would not be at risk of any other legislative problems—from the DPP, for example.
Liz Saville Roberts
And of course legislation is progressing in Scotland, which has different definitions from the legislation that we are discussing here.
Dr Green: Correct.
Liz Saville Roberts
Q
Mark Swindells: There are aspects in which the law will differ, including on capacity. As a UK-wide regulator, we have managed to attend to that in our guidance, so that doctors are as clear on their responsibilities as possible when they lie either side of a devolved border. There is a nuanced point with the Crown dependencies. In law, we are a UK-wide regulator, and we know that the Crown dependencies and Gibraltar will choose to use doctors who are on the GMC register. Officially, we do not legally cover those areas, but it does give us some regulatory purchase there. If a doctor wishes to remain licensed to practice on the GMC register, there is a commitment to follow our professional standards.
Sojan Joseph
Q
Mark Swindells: We do not hold data. I have seen the coverage of the Bill and the uncertainty. I think we would agree with a lot of what the chief medical officer said to you about the stepped decision that a doctor will make, depending on the importance of the situation. We try to capture that in our end-of-life care guidance. We also agree with the point about a doctor giving a central estimate. In the guidance we talk about, for example, issues with taking a second opinion where there is a greater degree of uncertainty, and the importance of doctors keeping up with the latest clinical knowledge on the efficacy of different treatment courses to come to that determination. We would agree that there is inevitably a degree of uncertainty in the central ground that the chief medical officer was talking about.
Kit Malthouse
Q
Mark Swindells: I do not believe that we use the word “refer”, but I will double-check. The word “referral”—this is part of the BMA’s position—has a particular meaning in the world of medicine. We talk about the importance, from a patient perspective, of not being left with nowhere to go, so there is some professional responsibility on the doctor to guide.
Kit Malthouse
Q
Dr Green: We would expect that to be done with sensitivity.
The Chair
Order. We have come to an end, but you may complete your sentence, Dr Green.
Dr Green: That was my complete sentence.
The Chair
Excellent. That was perfectly timed.
That brings this session to a close. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the witnesses: Mark Swindells, assistant director of standards and guidance at the General Medical Council, and Dr Andrew Green, chair of the medical ethics committee at the British Medical Association.
Examination of Witnesses
Glyn Berry and Professor Nicola Ranger gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Glyn Berry, via Zoom—hello and welcome—and from Professor Nicola Ranger. We have until 11.25 am. Will the witnesses please introduce themselves?
Glyn Berry: Good morning. My name is Glyn Berry. I am a palliative care social worker and a lead allied health professional. I am co-chair of the Association of Palliative Care Social Workers.
Professor Ranger: I am Professor Nicola Ranger, chief exec and general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing. Previously, I was a chief nurse in acute hospitals for 10 years.
Rebecca Paul
Q
“There is a risk that without a more sustainable model of funding for palliative care, many people will choose an assisted death, as the only way to escape from unbearable suffering.”
Can you elaborate on why you say that?
Glyn Berry: Yes. As experienced social workers, working within the realms of a society that is quite often split into “have” and “not have”, we already see the despair and the difficulties that people encounter with inequitable care in palliative care services. We know that a lot of services are delivered by charities as well as statutory agencies and the trusts, and we know that the funding for palliative and end-of-life care is a real issue and has been heading that way for some years.
We would hate to see what has been happening in other countries in which assisted dying is already in place, where people feel that they have no option other than to apply for assisted dying, because they do not know what else might be out there for them. That is the role of a social worker when we work with our patients: we look at the bigger picture, not just at what is happening clinically. Obviously we depend hugely on our clinical colleagues and expertise, but our specialism, if you like, is to look at what else is out there for a patient—and for their family and friends, because they are as much a part of the patient’s journey as the patient themselves.
We also know that palliative and end-of-life care is hit and miss in terms of what people can access. Marie Curie reporting in 2024 showed that there are massive disparities in terms of better care for people at end of life or with a palliative condition, and they have a significant effect. What we say to people is that we will help them to live as long as they can as well as they can in palliative and end-of-life care situations, but that is really difficult when the resources are not there and things become a huge priority.
Rebecca Paul
Q
The Chair
Order. We are going slightly off topic, so could we have a brief answer?
Glyn Berry: It would be something that is equitable for everybody. At this moment in time, it is not. As I say, some people get it and some people do not. A sustainable model would give fair access to everybody.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Q
Glyn Berry: We work very closely with clinicians and other health professionals. We talk about a multidisciplinary approach, because a person is not just two-dimensional; everything about their life needs the input of others in these situations. As social workers, our expertise and strength is in being able to ask difficult questions and really dig into people’s thoughts, feelings and opinions, giving them an opportunity to say things that sometimes they have never said in a whole lifetime. Other areas are around assessing capacity and giving people the option of knowing that there is not just one way of doing things.
I have worked in a hospice setting for the last six or seven years. I see daily how social workers contribute to the wider MD team in terms of safeguarding, capacity and applications for deprivation of liberty, but we also do the psychosocial aspect of palliative and end-of-life care. We sit and talk with patients, we do advance care planning and we deal with practical aspects such as supporting the arrangement of funerals. For families in which the parent or primary caregiver is the person who is ill, we will work with external statutory agencies like local authorities to give support where there may be children or vulnerable adults who are being cared for by the patient, to have provision put in place for after the death of the person. We also provide pre-bereavement support for both the patient and the family, and post-bereavement support for the family.
We have quite an extensive skills catalogue to support patients and families, but one of our biggest skills we have is in communication and in not being afraid to go where other professionals may feel uncomfortable going. Having conversations about people wishing to end their life is not a new thing: we have those conversations quite regularly.
Tom Gordon
Q
Glyn Berry: In our association, we have a list of recommendations. We are very conscious that the Bill is very heavy from a clinical perspective. There are a number of things. We do not feel that the decision and assessment should be all on the shoulders of a health professional, the clinician. Some clinicians are fantastic with assessing capacity and being aware of the safeguarding aspects of situations, but not all are, and we feel that our expertise lies in that particular area.
When we look at the overview of the process set out in the Bill, it is very, very clinical. Nowhere does it talk about the clinician exploring the other aspects of a person’s life; it is very much around the clinical aspect, and quite rightly so, because these are experienced clinicians. We feel that we should be involved in these decisions from the capacity and safeguarding aspect, but also in seeing whether there are things we can do to help the person make a more informed choice. If their decision to take their life is based on the fact that they do not have secure housing, that their benefits or finances are all over the place, that they do not want to be a burden on their friends or family, or indeed that they have nobody at all, those are areas that are very familiar to us in our daily practice. We therefore feel that we are well placed to support the clinicians in the whole process.
Tom Gordon
That was a really comprehensive answer. I think the key point that you touched on is the multidisciplinary approach.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
Q
Professor Ranger: I think there is something really important about having a big difference in the beginning with regard to palliative care and assisted dying, and pain management. It is essential that those two things are slightly separated, because it would be heartbreaking to think that pain management was the primary reason that someone wanted to be assisted to die. We should be able to control and support someone’s symptoms and pain.
I think the primary thing with regard to being referred to another organisation is autonomy. I absolutely agree with what was said earlier: you would want anyone who is considering assisted dying to be slightly separated out of their normal clinical pathway, so it is not part of mainstream care for someone in a hospital or an organisation. There is something really important about separating that out, both in the discussions around the decision making and in any care involved in assisting them to die. I think those two things do need to be separated.
Juliet Campbell
Q
Professor Ranger: Well, you would not really want any clinician to push this view on any patient. It has to come from the person themselves. That is the key thing around capacity and autonomy. I do not think that people should ever say to a patient or an individual, “Is this something you have considered?” It has to be led by the patient.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Q
Professor Ranger: It is vital that any of those barriers be removed and that we always maintain outstanding care at the end of someone’s life. The reality is that the majority of palliative care is given by nursing staff, whether it is in the community, in someone’s home, in a hospice or in a hospital. It is key that it be an expertise and a specialist practice in which someone has extra training and extra education. The skills of listening to patients, advocating for them and ensuring that they are pain-free at the end of their life—these are skills that nurses have now, and it is vital that our nursing members maintain them. They are often the one a patient will speak to at 3 in the morning when no one is there.
As Glyn said, it is vital that the wider team be included in the Bill. The Bill talks about the guidance and recommendations being for the chief medical officer, but I think it is absolutely vital that the chief nursing officer be a key part of the guidance and the drawing up of any care, because even in these circumstances it is nursing staff who will give the majority of the care.
Dr Tidball
Q
Professor Ranger: Safeguarding is part of our professional responsibility now. Whether it is for a child, an adult or an elderly person, part of our role is to be vigilant against financial misconduct, physical abuse and mental health abuse: any of those things is a responsibility of every nurse now. It is a very good and simple process. You do not have to investigate or give a judgment; you need to refer it to be investigated. That takes the pressure off an individual clinician. Our job is to be vigilant and to refer safeguarding anywhere we think that there is any form of abuse. I think that that process would remain and could be part of how we do things now.
Dr Tidball
Q
Professor Ranger: We would want more support. I am not going to say that we always get it right. Sometimes things happen that we miss and we do not report. I cannot say that we get it right 100% of the time. When the Bill talks about education and training for medical staff, it is absolutely vital that nursing staff are included because we will need to be vigilant around anyone feeling they are a burden.
The Bill would add other skills that we want to make sure that nurses are included in. Education for medical staff is absolutely pertinent for nursing staff, so that nurses build on skills they already have. There will be a difference between the care of someone wanting assisted dying and palliative care. Those are two slightly different skills and it is really important that they are not always lumped together. Being involved in assisted dying will require a specialist skill and specialist training, and we would very much want nursing to be included within that.
Dr Tidball
Q
Professor Ranger: I do. They are professionals, and I believe they would be able to.
Jack Abbott
Q
Secondly, what level of training would that person need in terms of time? We have, for example, been talking about a two-year process. If this new role came into effect, how long would that person need to be trained for to fulfil it adequately? Thirdly, do you have a sense of how many of these professionals we would need to make this a functioning system? Those are three separate questions.
Glyn Berry: To answer the first question, we feel, for the reasons I outlined earlier, that the role of an approved palliative care professional would sit beside the role of clinicians, balancing clinical and social observation and assessment.
In terms of the training, we, as social workers, already have continuous training opportunities to become best interests assessors, practice educators and approved mental health practitioners, so we envisage that the training would very much be along those lines. Doing those roles currently requires a course of training at university.
Our thoughts, at the moment, are that that would be for palliative care social workers, whether they are in charities, trusts or local authorities, or are independent, because that is where things sit with us at the moment and we know our roles. We like to think that it would roll out to other professionals, however, because assessing capacity is not specifically the role of the social worker; other professionals are able to, and do, complete capacity assessments.
It is quite difficult to answer your question in terms of numbers at the moment. If we were talking specifically about palliative care social workers, we currently have around 200 members in our association, but there will be other people out there who are not members and we do not know who they are. It is a role that could expand.
One of our other recommendations is that palliative and end-of-life care, as an aside to your question, is also brought into qualifying roles for people in training, such as doctors, nurses and allied health professionals, as well as social workers. We could see that happening in the future.
Kim Leadbeater
Q
I want to ask a bit more about what this end-of-life conversation looks like in your experience, because you are absolutely right; of all the people who are spending time with patients in their last few months of life, it is often nurses and palliative care social workers. You have a really important role to play.
I am also interested in what this would look like in reality. There has been talk of a kind of separation of palliative care and assisted dying, but, actually, I think we should be looking to embrace a holistic approach to end-of-life conversations and end-of-life care, which is what has happened in other jurisdictions. You might have a patient who has signed up for assisted dying but never does it because they have good palliative care and they work with their palliative care experts and specialists. Therefore, I think it is important that we do not try to separate these things.
I would like your views on that, but I think that one of the strengths is that having these conversations about death, about dying and about end of life is a really positive thing. Your members have an important role to play in that, so could you talk a little bit about the holistic approach that your members take?
Professor Ranger: You are right regarding the conversations and the care around dying. Having those conversations with people around pain management and symptom management is particularly the role of palliative care nurses. With assisted dying, I think the conversation is sometimes slightly different. It is talking more as a nurse in some ways, because the primary reason that assisted dying is often a discussion is a lack of autonomy, not pain. Therefore, the conversation generally tends to go in a slightly different way.
Symptom control, and being scared of pain, is understandable, and we absolutely have the ability to get that right for people, but when it comes to seeking assisted dying, the primary reason is usually autonomy, rather than pain and fear of dying. Therefore, in a practical way, I think an experienced nurse or doctor will start to gauge the difference in those conversations, because they are different. I think it is about being really clear around those conversations and really listening to what people have to say, and then having a way to be able to ensure that what an individual wants is something that you have got, and that you listen to.
I absolutely agree with Glyn about safeguards and all the things that we absolutely need to make sure are there, but the whole point of assisted dying is not to be paternalistic, but to respect autonomy. Whatever safeguards we put in with that, we have to be really careful not to ignore that right of autonomy, which is primarily what this Bill is trying to preserve.
I think it is about being really vigilant and listening. A primary role of a nurse is not to advocate their personal view, but to really listen to somebody else and to ensure that what they want is pursued. In all that discussion, it is really important that that does not get lost.
Kim Leadbeater
Q
Kim Leadbeater
Yes. It sounds as though you are saying that your professionals are trained to have those conversations, which is very reassuring. Glyn, do you want to add anything?
Glyn Berry: Just to say that I absolutely agree with Professor Ranger. My experience of working with palliative nurses, and nurses in general, is long, and I have historically had exceptionally positive experiences and continue to do so. I think that we learn from each other, and it is really important that we can have those conversations with the person and ask questions that they might never have been asked before, such as, “What is it that you want?”
Professor Ranger is absolutely right in terms of autonomy and the person having control, because once that diagnosis is given, it can be a downward spiral for a person and they feel that they lose control. Patients and families talk about that—about having no control over what is happening. In effect, that is true in terms of what is happening in the disease or illness trajectory, but it is so important to remind a person that they are still the person that they were before that diagnosis, that they will continue to be that person, and that they still have a voice. In both our roles professionally, and alongside other clinicians, that is what we seek to do all the time. That is why a multidisciplinary team approach is so important.
Ultimately, we could find that, once you have asked all the appropriate questions and you have put potential safeguards in place following conversations, a person may not choose that particular point to end their life—as you mentioned, Kim—and may continue to live to the end of their natural life.
Sojan Joseph
Q
Professor Ranger: Yes, we would want to see more support and protection for nurses. Of course, in the exploring of assisted dying legislation in Scotland, the second clinical decision maker is a nurse—so it a doctor and a nurse, whereas in England and Wales we are looking at two medically qualified practitioners. We absolutely want to make sure that the skills and support is there for nursing staff, and the ability—as I heard our medical colleagues saying—to not be involved in assisted dying absolutely has to be supported. It cannot be an expectation of the role; it has to be something you choose to proactively take part in as a conscious decision. It cannot ever be just an expectation of a nurse. We are absolutely adamant about that. The Bill cannot just support the needs of medical staff—nursing absolutely has to be included within that, both in skills and support.
Kit Malthouse
Q
Professor Ranger: It is difficult. If I am honest, we have probably not explored that enough within our thinking as a college. We know what we would not want to see, which is a situation where there is an expectation that it becomes part of a pathway. It has got to be something you actively seek and opt into. I think how that is administered probably requires more thought, if I am honest, but I would not want to see it becoming an expectation of a pathway, because then the pressure on the individual may change. That is something we need to safeguard against.
I am worried that we should not make it so bureaucratic for the individual that it becomes impossible to have their autonomy respected, but how that happens is something that needs further exploration. We would fully support making it as clear and unbureaucratic for the person as humanly possible. But we would not want to see it as a sort of pathway within our current setting, because there could then be a sense that this is something that is externally influenced rather than being something that someone actively seeks for their autonomy.
Danny Kruger
Q
Professor Ranger: It is difficult, but in my experience there are ways to try and get people palliative care, whether that is, as was said earlier, via other organisations outside the NHS and within hospice care. There are ways through the current routes to get people the care that they need.
Danny Kruger
Q
Professor Ranger: I do not think it is as good as it needs to be. We know that it is sometimes hard for people to access care. We know the struggles regarding hospices. We know far too many people die in hospital. We know there are real challenges in social care and the health service. I cannot say it is not without challenge.
Danny Kruger
Q
Professor Ranger: When you put it like that, it could be possible, but we would want to strive to have a system that does not leave anyone in distress.
Danny Kruger
Q
Do you think—I cannot decide for myself what the answer is—it should be possible for a care home director to exempt their whole service, that care home and the people who work in that care home, from being involved in assisted dying? That is where people live, after all. If somebody is having it there, it could affect the entire atmosphere of the place, and the work that all of the people there have to do. Do you think they should be protected as an organisation?
Professor Ranger: Particularly for nursing homes, I think that would be difficult. How and where people end their life probably needs further thought and further explanation. There is something about being really clear— if you are the leader of that nursing home, we would have to explore your ability to be able to advocate for the care that you want to be able to give in that nursing home. All of these practical things need further exploration.
It is difficult, because for someone who wants to end their life, if that is their home, they may want to be there. It is all of these practical things that probably need further thought and exploration, because I think it could be argued either way.
The Chair
Q
Glyn Berry: I do not think so. I think that the last question around care homes was a really good one. I am already thinking about the implications for registrations with the Care Quality Commission and what that would mean in terms of the process and the protection of staff, residents and families. It is a really helpful question to think about.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of the time allocated for the Committee to ask any questions. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee, Glyn Berry, co-chair of the Association of Palliative Care Social Workers, who appeared via Zoom, and Professor Nicola Ranger, chief executive and general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing. Thank you all very much indeed.
Finance Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 28th January 2025
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Finance Bill 2024-26 View all Finance Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 January 2025 - (28 Jan 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Will everyone please ensure that all electronic devices are turned off or switched to silent mode? Tea and coffee are not allowed in the Public Bill Committee.
We are here today for line-by-line consideration of the Finance Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. A Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first. In the case of a Government amendment or stand part debate, the Minister will be called to speak first. Other Members are then free to indicate that they wish to speak in the debate by bobbing.
At the end of the debate on a group of amendments, new clauses and schedules, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw it or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press to a vote any other amendment in a group, including grouped new clauses and new schedules, they need to let me know.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 28 January) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 28 January;
(b) at 11:30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 30 January;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 4 February;
2. the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 6; Clauses 13 and 14; Clause 19; Schedule 4; Clauses 20 to 25; Schedule 5; Clauses 26 to 31; Schedule 6; Clauses 32 to 35; Schedule 7; Clauses 36 to 38; Schedule 8; Clauses 39 and 40; Schedule 9; Clause 41; Schedule 10; Clause 42; Schedule 11; Clause 43; Schedule 12; Clauses 44 to 46; Schedule 13; Clauses 54 to 86; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those Clauses or those Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill.—(James Murray.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(James Murray.)
The Chair
Copies of the written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.
I remind Members about the rules on declarations of interest as set out in the code of conduct. Does any Member wish to declare any interests? No. Then let us begin.
Clause 1
Income tax charge for tax year 2025-26
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 2 to 4 stand part.
New clause 3.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee with you as the Chair, Mr Mundell. Clauses 1 to 3 impose a charge to and set the rates of income tax for 2025-26, and clause 4 maintains the starting rate for savings limit at its current level of £5,000 for the ’25-26 tax year.
Income tax is the largest source of Government revenue and helps to fund the UK’s schools, hospitals and defence, and other public services that we all rely on. In ’25-26, it is expected to raise around £329 billion. The starting rate for savings applies to the taxable savings income of individuals with low earned incomes of less than £17,570, allowing them to benefit from up to £5,000 of income from savings interest before they pay tax. It specifically supports those taxpayers with low levels of earned income.
As Committee members will be aware, both the income tax rates and the starting rate limits for savings must be legislated for each year. The Bill will not change the rates of income tax. We are confirming that they will remain the same, thereby meeting our manifesto commitment not to increase the basic, higher or additional rates of income tax.
Clause 1 imposes a charge to income tax for the year ’25-26. Clause 2 sets the main rates of income tax, namely the basic rate of 20%, the higher rate of 40% and the additional rate of 45%. These will apply to non-savings, non-dividend income of taxpayers in England and Northern Ireland. Income rates in Scotland and Wales are set by their respective Parliaments.
Clause 3 sets the default rates at the same levels as the main rates, namely 20%, 40% and 45%. These rates apply to the non-savings, non-dividend income of taxpayers who are not subject to the main rates of income tax, Welsh rates of income tax or Scottish rates of income tax. For example, they might apply to non-UK-resident individuals. The clause also sets the savings rates of income tax—again at 20%, 40% and 45%.
Clause 4 will maintain the starting rate limit at its current level of £5,000 for the ’25-26 tax year. The limit is being held at this level to ensure fairness in the tax system while maintaining a generous tax relief. In addition to the starting rate for savings, whereby eligible individuals can earn up to £5,000 in savings income free of tax, savers are also supported by the personal savings allowance, which provides up to £1,000 of tax-free savings income for basic rate taxpayers. Savers can also continue to benefit from the annual individual savings account allowance of £20,000. Taken together, as a result of these generous measures, around 85% of savers will pay no tax on their savings income.
Finally, I should mention the Government’s efforts to encourage those on the lowest incomes to save through the help to save scheme. We recently extended the scheme until 5 April 2027, and we have extended the eligibility to all universal credit claimants who are in work from 6 April 2025. I encourage Committee members to do what they can to promote the scheme to their constituents.
New clause 3 would require a review of how many people who receive the new state pension at the full rate are liable to pay income tax this year and in the next four tax years, and specifically what the tax liability of their state pension income will be. The Government consider the new clause to be unnecessary, given the information that is already publicly available.
His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has published statistics for this tax year and past tax years that cover the number of income taxpayers, including breakdowns by marginal rate, tax, band and age, and the Department for Work and Pensions has published figures for pensioners’ average incomes. The Office for Budget Responsibility is the Government’s independent economic forecaster and most recently published projections of the number of income taxpayers for future years in its “Economic and fiscal outlook” at autumn Budget. Those projections include a breakdown by marginal rate.
Income tax is a vital revenue stream for our public services and the clauses will ensure that that remains the case in 2025-26, while also retaining the starting rate of savings at its very generous existing value. I therefore commend clauses 1 to 4 to the Committee, and I urge the Committee to reject new clause 3.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell. This is one of many Finance Bill Committees that I have participated in. The subjects have changed somewhat each time, but something has remained consistent: the presence of the hon. Member for Ealing North. It is a pleasure to see him in his place, and I hope that his experience as the Treasury Minister in a Finance Bill Committee is as unpleasurable as mine when I was facing him.
As the Minister rightly set out, clause 1 imposes a charge to income tax for the year 2025-26, which is a formality. Clause 2 sets the main rates of income tax in England and Northern Ireland for 2025-26—the 20% basic rate, the 40% higher rate and the 45% additional rate—leaving them unchanged. Clause 3 sets the default rate and savings rate of income tax for the tax year 2025-26 for the whole of the United Kingdom. Clause 4 freezes the starting rate limit for savings at £5,000.
Of course, the Government’s big announcement on income tax in the Budget was that they would not extend the freeze to income tax thresholds beyond April 2028. Committee members will be aware that that announcement does not need to be legislated for, as the income tax personal allowance and the basic rate limit are subject to consumer prices index indexation by default, unless Parliament overrides that via a Finance Bill, and Parliament has not overridden indexation beyond the 2027-28 tax year.
As the current legislative framework did not allow the Government to enact their announcement on income tax thresholds at the Budget, we must take them at their word that they will keep their promise and not succumb to the temptation to override the thresholds in future. Given the possibility that rising borrowing costs have eliminated the Chancellor’s headroom under the Government’s own stability rule, I would be grateful if the Minister could reconfirm that they will allow CPI indexation to resume from 2028-29 and that they will not renege on that promise.
On a point of clarity, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether the unfreezing of income tax thresholds in 2028-29 will involve an increase to the fixed portion of the income tax higher limit, which he will be aware of. The limit is set at £100,000 plus twice the personal allowance, and that £100,000 is not indexed to CPI by default. Should we expect the additional rate to rise only in so far as the personal allowance rises, or will that £100,000 be unfrozen too? I would appreciate an explanation on that.
I leave it to others to interpret what it says about this Labour Government and Budget that a non-binding commitment merely not to raise some tax thresholds in three years’ time is presented as a big win for the British taxpayer. On income tax, as with most of the Government’s more positive policy announcements, the benefits are prospective and entirely speculative.
Meanwhile the pain, as we have seen with national insurance contributions and in other areas, is very much immediate and certain. Pensioners left out in the cold by the Government this winter will recognise that all too familiar pattern. A pensioner who receives the full rate of the new state pension without additional income—whose income from April is roughly £12,000—is now in most cases no longer receiving the winter fuel payment. The Government have defended that decision by referring to the triple lock.
Will the Minister update the Committee on when the Government now project the full rate of the new state pension to exceed the income tax personal allowance, and how many pensioners they expect will be newly taken into income tax as a result of the development? If he cannot tell the Committee, perhaps he and his colleagues will vote in favour of new clause 3, which would require the Treasury to produce and publish forward projections for the number of people receiving the full rate of the new state pension who are liable to pay income tax, and specifically what the tax liability of their state pension income will be.
Pensioners cannot easily alter their financial circumstances, yet they were given less than six months’ notice of the withdrawal of the winter fuel allowance. They must not be blindsided for a second time by the taxman—especially not those who are just about getting by without additional income beyond the state pension. I urge Members and the Minister to vote for new clause 3 to prevent that from happening.
James Murray
I thank the shadow Minister for the comments at the beginning of his speech, if not for all the questions subsequently. First, on the question about whether the £100,000 threshold will be unfrozen in due course, that threshold does not move, and it sets the personal allowance taper beyond that level.
The shadow Minister asked broader questions about the personal allowance and our decision to change the policy we inherited from the previous Government. In the many Finance Bill Committees that he and I served on before the general election, the personal allowance would routinely be frozen for more and more years into the future. That is what we have inherited: the personal allowance is frozen up until April 2028. We made clear that we would do things differently. As well as not increasing the basic higher and additional rates of income tax, as we set out, we did not freeze the personal allowance beyond April 2028, which means that it will continue to rise with inflation.
The shadow Minister asked specific questions about how the change affects pensioners, and referred to new clause 3, which I addressed earlier. I will repeat what I said: new clause 3 is not necessary because the data the shadow Minister requests is already in the public domain. We need to ensure that as the personal allowance begins to rise from April 2028, that will benefit not just people in work but pensioners, because they will see the personal allowance that applies to their pension income rising as well. That is underlined by the fact that we are maintaining the triple lock, which will see generous increases in the state pension as the bedrock of state support for pensioners.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Appropriate percentage for cars: tax year 2028-29
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
James Murray
Clauses 5 and 6 make changes to ensure long-term certainty on company car tax by setting the rates for 2028-29 and 2029-30. The increases in the appropriate percentages will help to ensure that the tax system contributes to supporting the sustainability of the public finances. The effect of the clauses is to gradually narrow the differential between zero emission and electric vehicles and their petrol and diesel counterparts, while ensuring that significant incentives to support the take-up of EVs remain in place. The provisions also increase rates for hybrid vehicles.
Company car tax applies when a company car is made available to an employee or their family member for private use. Company car tax rates were confirmed by the previous Government up until 2027-28. In the 2024 autumn Budget, the Government set out the rates for 2028-29 and 2029-30, to provide certainty.
The Government recognise that the company car tax regime continues to play an important role in the EV transition by supporting the take-up of EVs and their entry into the second-hand car market. Although it is important to maintain strong incentives to encourage the take-up of EVs, the Government need to balance that against the responsible management of the public finances by gradually withdrawing them over time, as EVs become more normalised. That is why we have committed to raising the company car tax rates—or appropriate percentages—for EVs, hybrids, and petrol and diesel vehicles in 2028-29 and 2029-30, gradually narrowing the differential between EVs and other vehicle types, and bringing the treatment of hybrids closer to that of petrol and diesel cars.
The changes made by clauses 5 and 6 will set the company car tax appropriate percentages for the tax years 2028-29 and 2029-30. Appropriate percentages for EVs will rise by two percentage points per year, rising to 9% by 2029-30. Meanwhile, the appropriate percentages for cars with emissions of 51 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre or over will rise by one percentage point per annum. By 2029-30, the appropriate percentages for petrol and diesel cars will rise to between 20% and 39%, depending on the car’s specific emissions. Together, the measures will gradually narrow the gap between EVs and their petrol and diesel counterparts, while maintaining a generous incentive for EVs.
On the changes to the hybrid appropriate percentages, I draw the Committee’s attention to recent research from the European Commission that has shown that the real-world emissions of hybrid vehicles are in fact three and a half times higher than previously thought. Consequently, the Government have announced that they will align the treatment of hybrids more closely with that of petrol and diesel cars.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
On aligning hybrid cars more closely with petrol and diesel cars, what assessment has been made of the impact on the hybrid car market and the take-up of hybrid cars, if we are ultimately looking to move away from petrol and diesel in the long term?
James Murray
Over the coming years we need to make the transition to electric vehicles. Hybrid cars obviously play an important part in the car market and car manufacturing in the UK. The clauses are about a plan over the next five years or so regarding what will happen to the appropriate percentages. This is not an overnight change. Actually, one of the important principles of our setting out the appropriate percentages now for some years in advance is to give car manufacturers and everyone interested in the car industry certainty about what will happen. That is why, as I have been setting out, the appropriate percentages for EVs will rise, thereby narrowing the gap between them and petrol and diesel vehicles, but there will still be a generous incentive to help to shift people towards purchasing EVs.
Hybrid vehicles obviously fit within the general scheme of appropriate percentages. However, as I was setting out, European Commission research shows that emissions from hybrid vehicles are in fact three and a half times higher than previously thought, so in setting the rates for 2028-29 and 2029-30, we have decided to reflect that fact in the appropriate percentages that we are legislating for. That means all cars with emissions between 1 gram and 50 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre—those that largely fall in the hybrid category—will see their appropriate percentages rise to 18% in 2028-29 and to 19% in 2029-30. As I outlined to the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan, by setting out the rates until 2029-30 we will give the industry and consumers certainty about the future rates.
The company car tax system offers generous incentives to encourage EV take-up and makes an important contribution to the EV transition. The Government, however, must balance incentives against responsible management of the public finances. We are announcing the rates for 2028-29 and 2029-30 to start to narrow the differentials between EVs, hybrids, and petrol and diesel vehicles. I therefore commend clauses 5 and 6 to the Committee.
Gareth Davies
As the Minister set out, clauses 5 and 6 set the appropriate percentage used for calculating the taxable benefit for a company car for tax years 2028-29 and 2029-30. In those tax years, the appropriate percentage for EVs will increase by 2% to 7% in 2028-29 and 9% in 2029-30. For most other vehicles, the appropriate percentage will increase by a further 1% in each year, up to a maximum of 39%. Hybrid vehicles are the standout exception. The effect of these clauses for vehicles capable of operating on electric power while producing between 1 gram and 50 grams of CO2 per kilometre is to introduce a steep increase in the appropriate percentage of as much as 13% in 2028-29 to reach 18%, before rising to 19% in 2029-30.
Whereas previously the appropriate percentage for cars with emissions between 1 gram and 50 grams of CO2 per kilometre would rise as the electric range reduced, from 2028-29 that system will be replaced with a single flat rate, regardless of the electric range. That means that hybrid cars with the greatest electric range, which are presumably the least polluting, will see the steepest tax rise. Any distinction between hybrid vehicles will be eliminated for the purposes of these provisions. Indeed, as the explanatory notes make very clear, rates for hybrid vehicles will align more closely with the rates for internal combustion engine vehicles, as the Minister just pointed out.
It will not have escaped Members that these new rates take us to 2030. The Government have confirmed their intention to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by that date. What has not yet been confirmed is the future of hybrid vehicles. The Department for Transport is consulting on which hybrid cars can be sold alongside zero emission models between 2030 and 2035. The Minister, naturally, will not pre-empt the outcome of that consultation, but these measures effectively do just that. While the Department for Transport parses the differences between plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and hybrid electric vehicles, the Treasury is eliminating that distinction altogether by 2028, let alone by 2030.
Not only that, but the Treasury is effectively lumping all hybrid vehicles in with those powered by internal combustion engines. Treasury Ministers will be aware that the manufacturing of hybrid vehicles and engines supports thousands of British jobs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan alluded to, and car manufacturing firms operate on a multi-year investment cycle. The contradictions between the Bill and the Department for Transport’s consultation send a less than clear signal, which puts those jobs at risk. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister clarified the Government’s intention in making these changes, especially when the House of Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee has heard that these rates have been the single most effective intervention to date in changing consumer behaviour around different types of vehicles.
I would also be grateful if the Minister outlined what steps the Treasury and HMRC are taking to make the general public aware of these changes. I grant they are quite technical, but they could impose a significant additional tax bill on certain taxpayers with plug-in hybrid vehicles. The Chartered Institute of Taxation raised that as a key area of concern, which could confront unsuspecting taxpayers—those seeking to do the right thing by purchasing a less-emitting vehicle— with a massive and steep tax rise. A higher rate taxpayer on £51,000 whose company car is a plug-in hybrid VW Golf could face an additional tax bill of as much as £1,600 in 2027-28. That strikes me as neither fair nor proportionate.
It has been reported that this Labour Government ordered no fewer than 10 petrol hybrid Jaguars upon assuming office to supplement the existing departmental, chauffeur-driven pool cars. If the Minister is confident that the consequences of the changes have been communicated and fully understood, I am sure he will be able to inform the Committee of the extra tax liability in 2028-29 of someone on a salary similar to that of a Treasury Minister—£110,000—whose full-time work car is a plug-in hybrid Jaguar F-Pace valued at roughly £60,000 with an electric range of just under 40 miles.
As the Committee can tell, we have serious reservations about the communication of the changes, the unfair overnight tax hikes they impose on taxpayers just trying to do the right thing, and the mixed messages they send to vehicle manufacturers by contradicting other areas of Government policy and consultation. The measures concern the ’28-29 and ’29-30 tax years, so the Government have time to think again and to bring back a better calibrated policy in a future Finance Bill. For the reasons that I have set out, we will vote against the clauses.
James Murray
I listened to the shadow Minister’s comments, and he must have a different definition of “overnight” from me. Legislating now for changes that will come in in 2028 does not feel like overnight. Some Budget changes come in on the day of the Budget—had he called one of those overnight, I might have had some sympathy with the description, but not for legislating now for changes that will come in in 2028, toward the end of this decade. Part of the point of legislating now for changes that will happen some years down the line is precisely to give that signal to consumers and manufacturers, to ensure that the consumers are aware of what is to happen and manufacturers know what is planned.
Harriet Cross
People might be buying cars now—that is, overnight—that they still have in ’28-29, when the changes come in. They will be making decisions now that will be caught up in future changes.
James Murray
The hon. Lady makes a similar point to that made by the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne, which is that the changes will come in further down the line, but they are critical of the fact that we are pre-announcing the changes now so that we give greater certainty and stability. I cannot understand that criticism, because I thought that giving as much forecasting, certainty and stability as possible would be welcomed by the industry and consumers. People expect taxes to change over time, and the greater the forecasting and advance notice they have, the better for consumers and for manufacturers. Without making this too political, I know that the Opposition were not a great fan of certainty and stability when they were in office, but we are rather different. That is why we are setting out the changes now.
The shadow Minister referred to the DFT consultation, and of course, he is right that I would not pre-empt its outcome. In combination, our giving information about what the appropriate percentages will be towards the end of the decade, thereby providing certainty and stability, will help us to work closely with other Departments to ensure that consumers are well informed about what is likely to happen towards the end of the decade and manufacturers have the certainty and stability that were so desperately lacking under the previous Administration.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
James Murray
Clause 13 sets the charge for corporation tax for the financial year beginning April 2026, setting the main rate at 25%; and clause 14 sets the small profit rate at 19% for the same period. As Members know, the charge for corporation tax must be set every year, so it is important to legislate on the rate for 2026 now to provide certainty to large and very large companies, which will pay tax in advance on the basis of their estimated tax liabilities. That is also why we have committed to cap corporation tax at 25% for the duration of the Parliament, as set out in the corporate tax road map published at the autumn Budget. The changes made by clause 13 will establish the right of the Government to charge corporation tax from April 2026. The clauses maintain the current rates of 25% and the small profits rate of 19%. Tax certainty is of great importance to businesses, and clauses 13 and 14 ensure that they continue to benefit from stable and predictable tax rules. I commend both clauses to the Committee.
Gareth Davies
As the Minister set out, clauses 13 and 14 set the charge and rates of corporation tax for financial year 2026. The main rate remains unchanged at 25%, with the standard small profits rate at 19%, and the standard marginal relief fraction remains three 200ths.
In Committee on the last Finance Bill, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, who was then the shadow Financial Secretary to the Treasury—a great Opposition role—told the House that if Labour won the election, they would bring certainty back for businesses by capping the rate of corporation tax at 25% for the whole of the next Parliament. At that point, he spoke of capping corporation tax and publishing a business taxation road map as though they were two separate things.
This year’s Budget makes clear that there is no cap outside the road map, and once again, as with income tax, we must take Labour at their word that they will stick to a non-binding commitment, which is not legislated for in this Finance Bill. It is unclear how much certainty or stability such a loose commitment will bring, especially when the Budget blindsided businesses with a £25 billion tax hike. Not only that, but the corporate tax road map itself says that, while the Government are committed to providing stability and predictability in the business tax system, they cannot rule out changes to the corporate tax regime over the course of this Parliament.
Given the Government’s ongoing worries about headroom and the uncertainty and instability that has created, will the Minister reconfirm for the parliamentary record the Government’s commitment, first, not to raise the headline rate of corporation tax for the duration of this Parliament; secondly, not to raise the small profits rate or reduce the marginal relief currently available; and thirdly, to maintain full expensing and the annual investment allowance, as well as writing down allowances and the structures and buildings allowance without meaningfully altering their eligibility?
James Murray
I was expecting a series of amendments from the Opposition; I was not expecting the shadow Minister to quote back at me an amendment I tabled several years ago. It is a new, although interesting, approach to opposition to rely on what I tabled in opposition and quote that back at me. I am sure it was an excellent amendment, although I cannot remember its exact detail.
On the hon. Gentleman’s questions about corporation tax rates, I am sure he will remember from his time in the Treasury that it is standard practice to legislate the charge to corporation tax on an annual basis, even when the rates remain unchanged. That is a long-standing convention that applies to income tax as well. However, because we were so determined to give businesses stability and certainty, we published the corporate tax road map alongside the Budget. In that road map, we made clear our commitment to maintaining the main rate—or, indeed, to capping it—at 25% for the duration of the Parliament.
The small profits rate and marginal relief will also be maintained at their current rates and thresholds. Full expensing and the annual investment allowance are also guaranteed for this Parliament. When it comes to corporation tax, full expensing and the annual investment allowance, the various Finance Bills in this Parliament will be quite a different experience compared with those in the previous Parliament.
Harriet Cross
Although we of course welcome a road map as a way to give businesses confidence on corporation tax, we should not get mixed up in the smoke and mirrors of what business taxes are. Because of the Budget, businesses now face many taxes and the uncertainty that they bring. Will we also see road maps for things such as the national insurance rises, the increase in business rates, minimum wage increases and measures in the Employment Rights Bill, all of which have an impact on business?
James Murray
The hon. Lady mentions business rates. I do not know whether she has read the discussion paper “Transforming Business Rates”.
James Murray
I am glad the hon. Lady has read it, because it sets out our approach to business rates in the coming year, from April 2026, and what we want to do over this Parliament. Businesses want stability and certainty from Government; they recognise that, over a five-year period, things will happen that cannot be predicted on day one, but they want that certainty and predictability. That is why, in the corporate tax road map, we give certainty on capping the main rate and on the small profits rate, marginal relief, full expensing and the annual investment allowance—everything on which we can give full certainty. However, where there are areas that we seek to explore or consult on, we are also clear about that. We developed that approach in partnership with business to make sure that we give as much certainty up front as we can, while also signposting those areas that we want to discuss.
Gareth Davies
Let us be clear: it is good when a Government set out a tax rate over a multi-year period; we accept that that is a good thing. However, does the Minister accept—to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan—that although a road map has been set out on corporation tax, the Labour party has created uncertainty by saying, before the election, that it would not increase national insurance contributions and then, immediately after the election, hitting businesses with a £25 billion tax rise, including not only a rate change but a threshold change that brings many new businesses into the tax regime? Does the Minister accept that the problem is about more than corporation tax? It is about the entire business tax ecosystem. On that basis, the charge is very clear: his Government have caused great uncertainty and great damage to British businesses.
James Murray
Although I am mindful that the clauses are on corporation tax, Mr Mundell, let me briefly respond to the shadow Minister’s comments. This Government were elected to bring an end to the instability that had become endemic under the previous Government. I like the hon. Gentleman a lot, but for him to imply that the previous Government had stability from day to day is for the birds. I was in the House of Commons Chamber so many times for debates on Finance Bills. I think we went through the entire introduction and repeal of the health and social care levy in the space of a few months. There was no stability under the previous Government, and that was a large part of what led people to vote for change at the last general election. They wanted us to sort out the public finances, get public services back on their feet and restore the economic stability that is the bedrock on which investment can rise and on which we can get the economy growing as we know it can, supporting British businesses, entrepreneurs and wealth creators to do what they do best.
To bring us back to the clauses, publishing the corporate tax road map shows our commitment to not just campaigning on the prospect of bringing stability but delivering it in our very first Budget. The corporate tax road map clearly sets out our approach to corporation tax, related allowances and other areas we will look at. I may have discerned support for it in the shadow Minister’s comments; it was bound up in other comments but, reading between the lines, I think he supports the publication of the corporate tax road map. He is welcome to intervene if he disagrees.
Gareth Davies
I will intervene anyway. As I said, any certainty that can be provided to businesses regarding the tax system is a good thing. The point I am trying to make—I will try again—is that corporation tax is just one tax paid by businesses. They also pay national insurance contributions. They also use reliefs such as the business rates relief the Minister talked about—by the way, the Government have cut that from 70% to 40%, although I am not sure that it was clear before the election that they would do that. The uncertainty has been caused by all the things that the British public were told would not happen, but that then did happen.
We are talking about corporation tax today, and I can see that you are, quite rightly, about to bring us back in scope, Mr Mundell. I will leave it here by saying that British businesses pay more than just corporation tax, and what they need is certainty across the board. We have a corporation tax road map, but why do we not have a holistic, comprehensive business tax road map that includes national insurance, business rates and other taxes borne by businesses? That is my point.
James Murray
With your indulgence, Mr Mundell, I would like to briefly address—
James Murray
Yes. In the context of this discussion on corporation tax, I will address the comments about other taxes. The shadow Minister again mentioned business rates and business rates relief, but he might want to recall the situation we inherited on business rates relief. This year it is operating at a 75% discount for retail, hospitality and leisure properties, up to a cap of £110,000, and it was due to expire entirely in April 2025. What we inherited was not just instability, but a cliff edge—it was going to go entirely in April this year. I notice that that part of the story is conveniently erased from the shadow Minister’s account of history.
Business rates relief was going to expire entirely in April 2025, so we were keen to ensure that we continued it, while being mindful of the public finances. Our decision to continue it for a further year at 40% was the right thing to do while we ensure that we are ready from April 2026 to have permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses with a rateable value of below £500,000. That is the stability that businesses so badly need. Frankly, the shadow Minister, who is talking about business rates in the context of corporation tax, overlooked that fact entirely. Under the previous Government, the reliefs were extended one year at a time, with the rates going up and down, which provided no stability for businesses trying to make investment decisions. From April 2026, with our permanently lower rates, we want to provide exactly that stability.
To return to corporation tax, which is the subject of these two clauses, one of the conversations that I had many a time with businesses while in opposition was about their desire for certainty on corporation tax and the system of allowances. I recall challenging the shadow Minister, when he was a Treasury Minister himself, about the number of changes there had been to full expensing, the annual investment allowance and indeed to the super-deduction, which came and went entirely within one Parliament. That instability is what prompted our desire to provide stability for businesses, and publishing the corporation tax road map and these clauses begins to implement the commitments we made.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Pillar Two
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 1 to 3, 21 to 23, 4 to 11, 24 to 29, 12 and 13, 30, 14, and 31 to 37.
Schedule 4.
James Murray
Clause 19 and schedule 4 introduce the undertaxed profits rule—the third and final part of the internationally agreed global minimum tax known as pillar two. They also amend the existing legislation on multinational top-up tax and domestic top-up tax to incorporate the latest international agreements and stakeholder feedback.
It is essential that multinationals pay their fair share of tax in the UK. Pillar two protects the UK tax base from large multinationals shifting their profits overseas to low-tax jurisdictions, by requiring multinationals that generate annual revenues of more than €750 million to pay an effective tax rate of 15% on their profits in every jurisdiction in which they operate. Where their effective tax rate falls below that, they will pay a top-up tax.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve on the Committee under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. As we heard from the Minister, clause 19 and schedule 4 amend the parts and schedules of the Finance (No. 2) Act 2023 that implement the multinational top-up tax and domestic top-up tax. Part 2 of schedule 4 introduces the undertaxed profits rule into UK legislation, and part 3 makes amendments to the multinational top-up tax and domestic top-up tax. These taxes represent the UK’s adoption of the OECD pillar two global minimum tax rules, and we are supportive of the measures before us.
In October 2021, under an OECD inclusive framework, more than 130 countries agreed to enact a two-pillar solution to address the challenges arising from the digitalisation of the economy. Pillar one involves a partial reallocation of taxing rights over the profits of multinationals to the jurisdictions where consumers are located. The detailed rules that will deliver pillar one are still under development by the inclusive framework. As the Minister said, pillar two introduces a global effective tax rate, whereby multinational groups with revenue of more than €750 million are subject to a minimum effective rate of 15% on income arising in low-tax jurisdictions.
The multinational and domestic tax top-ups were introduced in the Finance Act 2023, as the first tranche of the UK’s implementation of the agreed pillar two framework. Measures in the Bill extend the top-up taxes to give effect to the undertaxed profits rule. That brings a share of top-up taxes that are not paid under another jurisdiction’s income inclusion rule or domestic top-up tax rule into charge in the UK. The undertaxed profits rule will be effective for accounting periods beginning on or after 31 December 2024.
Following discussions with the Chartered Institute of Taxation, I have a number of points to raise with the Minister. First, as the institute points out, there is an open point around the application of the transitional safe-harbour anti-arbitrage rules. The OECD’s anti-arbitrage rules for the transitional safe harbours are drafted very broadly, and may therefore go further than originally anticipated. Will the Minister clarify HMRC’s view of the scope of those rules?
There are also questions about taxpayers’ ability to qualify for the transitional safe harbours. A transitional safe harbour is a temporary measure that reduces the compliance burden for multinationals and tax authorities. There has been some uncertainty as to whether a single error in a country-by-country report could disqualify all jurisdictions from applying the transitional safe harbours. HMRC has recently indicated that it would be open to permitting re-filings of country-by-country reports where errors are spotted. Can the Minister provide further clarity on HMRC’s proposed approach?
The UK’s legislation will need to be updated regularly to stay in line with the OECD’s evolving guidance. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that clear guidance is provided in a timely manner? The new top-up taxes and undertaxed profits rule are complicated. Schedule 4 runs to over 40 pages and includes an eight-step method to determine the proportion of an untaxed amount to be allocated to the UK. It is important that the Government minimise the cost of implementation and compliance. How will the Minister ensure that it is kept to a minimum?
While I welcome the work the UK is doing at a global level, there are still significant issues. I was interested, as I am sure the Minister was, to see that one of the first actions of President Trump, just hours after he took office, was to issue a presidential memorandum stating:
“This memorandum recaptures our nation’s sovereignty and economic competitiveness by clarifying that the global tax deal has no force or effect in the United States.”
It states in clear and unambiguous terms:
“The Secretary of the Treasury and the Permanent Representative of the United States to the OECD shall notify the OECD that any commitments made by the prior administration on behalf of the United States with respect to the global tax deal have no force or effect within the United States absent an act by the Congress adopting the relevant provisions of the global tax deal.”
The OBR estimates that pillar two is expected to generate £2.8 billion by the end of this Parliament. What impact could the US position have on the future operation of pillar two and the UK’s ability to levy top-up taxes on multinationals as planned? The same memorandum issued by President Trump notes that
“a list of options for protective measures”
will be drawn up within 60 days. What action are the Government taking to engage with the US Treasury and to prepare for such actions? Has the Chancellor raised this with her opposite number?
The Minister referred to the more than 30 Government amendments that have been tabled to schedule 4, which correct errors in the calculation of the multinational top-up tax payable under the UTPR provisions that would have resulted in an excessive liability; secure that eligible payroll costs and eligible asset amounts are allocated from flow-through entities in a manner that is consistent with pillar two model rules; and ensure that multinational top-up tax and domestic top-up tax apply properly in cases involving joint ventures. They are all perfectly sensible, but the number of amendments tabled underlines the complexity of the issue.
As I mentioned, this is a two-pillar system. The corporate tax road map confirmed the Government’s support for the international agreement on a multilateral solution under pillar one and the intention to repeal the UK’s digital sales tax when that solution is in place. The digital sales tax raised £380 million in 2021-22, £567 million in 2022-23 and £678 million in 2023-24. I would welcome an update from the Minister on pillar one and the future of the digital sales tax.
The Opposition will not be opposing the clause, but I look forward to the Minister’s response to the specific points I have raised, including those on developments under the new Trump Administration and on implementation.
James Murray
I thank the shadow Minister for his support for the provisions before us and our general approach.
First, it is the case that we are amending the Bill in Committee, but that is because, as his colleagues may remember from their time in government, these are complex rules and it is important that pillar two rules work as intended. This is a complex international agreement and it represents one of the most significant reforms of international taxation for a century. It is to a degree inevitable that revisions would be needed as countries and businesses introduce pillar two and set it in progress. It is complex, but we should not forget that pillar two applies only to large multinational businesses, and the reason it is being introduced is to stop those businesses shifting their profits to low-tax jurisdictions and not paying their fair share here in the UK. The rules need to respond to that, and we need to make sure that they work for all sectors and all types of businesses.
James Murray
The clause repeals the offshore receipts in respect of intangible property legislation, known as ORIP, which was aimed at disincentivising large multinational enterprises from holding intangible property in a low-tax jurisdiction if the intangible property was used to generate income in the UK. Such enterprises could thereby gain an unfair competitive advantage over those that held intangible property in the UK. The policy is no longer required, because pillar two—the global minimum tax—will more comprehensively discourage the multinational tax planning arrangements that ORIP sought to counter.
As set out in the corporate tax road map, which we debated earlier, the Government are committed to simplification of the UK’s rules for taxing cross-border activities in the light of pillar two. Repeal will take place alongside the introduction of pillar two’s undertaxed profit rules in the UK from 31 December 2024, which we debated with clause 19. Clause 20 simply repeals chapter 2A of part 5 of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005, and I commend it to the Committee.
James Wild
As we heard from the Minister, clause 20 repeals the ORIP rules, which are about ensuring that profits derived from UK consumers are taxed fairly and consistently, regardless of where the underlying intangible property is held. The previous Government announced in the 2023 autumn statement that they would abolish ORIP, so we support the clause.
The ORIP rules were a short-term, unilateral measure introduced in the Finance Act 2019 to disincentivise large multinational enterprises from holding intangible property—assets such as patents, trademarks and copyrights—in low-tax jurisdictions if it was used to generate income in the UK. Such multinationals could thereby gain an unfair competitive advantage over others that hold intangible property in the UK, as well as eroding the UK tax base. However, the legislation is no longer required, because the OECD/G20 inclusive framework pillar two global minimum tax rules will comprehensively discourage the multinational tax planning arrangements that ORIP sought to counter.
As the Minister said, the repeal will happen alongside the introduction of the pillar two undertaxed profits rule from 31 December 2024. Has he assessed how successful the ORIP rules have been since their introduction? HMRC’s tax information and impact notes state that this measure will have a negligible impact on around 30 large multinational groups and a negative impact on the Exchequer, peaking at £40 million in 2026-27. Can the Minister clarify why the repeal of the ORIP rules is having a negative impact on revenues to the Exchequer? I note that the Chartered Institute of Taxation has welcomed the measure and specifically said that
“any reduction in the legislative code to minimise overlap and unnecessary measures is welcome.”
We say amen to that.
As I have set out, we will not oppose the clause, but I look forward to the Minister’s response to my specific points about ORIP.
James Murray
I thank the shadow Minister for his support for the clause. I think his question was about the impact of repealing ORIP. A fundamental point here is that pillar two, which we debated previously, will now tax the profits that were the target of ORIP. Pillar two is expected to raise more than £15 billion over the next six years, so ORIP is simply no longer needed. The Government believe that simplifying and rationalising the UK’s rules for taxing cross-border activities is important, and as such it is right that we use this opportunity to repeal ORIP.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
Application of PAYE in relation to internationally mobile employees etc.
James Murray
I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 21, page 11, line 21, after “is” insert “or has been”.
This amendment makes it clear that new section 690 applies if an employee has been internationally mobile in a tax year, even if the employee is no longer internationally mobile.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 16 to 19.
Clause stand part.
James Murray
I will briefly address clause 21 before explaining what the amendment seeks to achieve.
The clause makes changes to simplify the process for operating pay-as-you-earn where an employee is eligible for overseas workday relief. It relates to some of the reforms we are making around non-UK domiciled individuals, which we will return to later in Committee, because those clauses are in a different part of the Bill. More broadly, the context of this measure is that the Government are removing the outdated concept of domicile status from the tax system, and replacing it with a new, internationally competitive, residence-based regime from 6 April 2025.
Currently, where an employer makes an application to treat only a portion of the income that they pay to an employee as PAYE income, they are required to wait for HMRC to approve an application, which can result in delays. The changes made by clause 21 will mean that from 6 April 2025, an employer will be able to operate PAYE only on income relating to work done in the UK once they have received an acknowledgment from HMRC of their completed application, rather than having to wait for HMRC to approve it. That approach will simplify the operation of overseas workday relief for employers, while still allowing HMRC to direct employers to amend the proportion of income on which PAYE is operated, should it be necessary to do so.
Amendments 15 to 19 are needed in order to ensure that the legislation regarding the correct operation of PAYE works as intended. The Government are committed to making the tax system fairer so that everyone who is a long-term resident in the UK pays their taxes here. The new regime ensures this, while also being more attractive than the current approach, as individuals will be able to bring income and gains into the UK without attracting an additional tax charge. That will encourage them to spend and invest those funds in the UK.
James Wild
As we have heard from the Minister, clause 21 amends the process by which employers can operate PAYE on a proportion of payments of employment income made to an employee during the tax year. It is a welcome change. We will be supporting the clause and the simplification that it introduces.
By way of background, the clause amends section 690 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003. Section 690 provides a mechanism for an individual or employer to seek a decision from HMRC regarding the tax treatment of certain earnings. The resulting determination under section 690 is an agreement between HMRC and a UK employer on the estimated percentage of duties that an internationally mobile employee expects to carry out in a tax year. Once that determination is provided, the employer can operate PAYE on only that percentage of the employee’s salary.
Unfortunately, that is easier said than done. According to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, historically HMRC has missed its four-month target to agree employers’ applications, and in some cases it has taken up to a year to obtain HMRC’s approval. This is just one example of the difficulty that taxpayers have in engaging with HMRC. I welcome the comments that the Minister made at Treasury questions last week about the work that he is doing—he chairs the board of HMRC, I believe—to ensure that HMRC delivers a better service for customers. We all wish him well on that.
Perhaps this is an opportune time to remind the 3.4 million people who have to submit self-assessment tax returns to do so before the 31 January deadline. Colleagues may wish to ensure that they have submitted theirs.
In the absence of an agreement, PAYE must be operated on the whole salary, meaning that the employee would be overtaxed and must claim relief after the year end. That is not a satisfactory outcome for anyone. These changes will allow employers to immediately operate PAYE on only the proportion of earnings that they believe relates to UK duties, rather than having to wait for HMRC to approve the application. This new process is a welcome step forward in dealing with an issue that HMRC has had in meeting its legal obligations under the current tax system.
James Murray
I thank the shadow Minister for his support for the clause and the amendments. He rightly recognises that this is a simplification to make things happen quicker in the tax system, and we can all agree on that. He raised some specific points, and I will write to him on the detail of the operation of the clause so that he has a record of that. I endorse his call for anyone who has not already submitted their self-assessment tax return to be mindful of the deadline of the end of the month.
Amendment 15 agreed to.
Amendments made: 16, in clause 21, page 12, line 4, after “being” insert “or having been”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 15.
Amendment 17, in clause 21, page 12, line 22, after “is” insert “or has been”.
This amendment makes it clear that a notice under new section 690A can be given during the mobile tax year if the employee has been internationally mobile during that year, even if the employee is no longer internationally mobile.
Amendment 18, in clause 21, page 13, line 22, leave out “public notice given” and insert “general direction made”.
This amendment means that the requirements of notices under new section 690A will be specified in a general direction made by HMRC rather than a public notice.
Amendment 19, in clause 21, page 15, line 38, at end insert—
“(3) Any direction given by an officer of Revenue and Customs under section 690 of ITEPA 2003 (employee non-resident etc) has no effect in relation to tax year 2025-2026 or any subsequent tax year.” —(James Murray.)
This amendment means that any direction given under the old section 690 will cease to have effect in relation to future tax years.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 22
Advance pricing agreements: indirect participation in financing cases
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
James Murray
Clause 22 introduces technical amendments to provide certainty that advance pricing agreements are available for all financing arrangements covered by the transfer pricing rules, in line with the existing HMRC guidance.
The transfer pricing rules ensure that transactions between related parties, such as companies in the same multinational group, are priced as though they were between independent entities, in line with the arm’s length principle. This makes sure that each related party pays the appropriate amount of tax in the country in which it operates. That ensures a fair distribution of tax revenues across different jurisdictions and prevents companies from manipulating intra-group prices to shift profits to lower tax jurisdictions.
The UK’s advance pricing agreement legislation provides for agreements to be entered into between HMRC and businesses in scope of the transfer pricing rules, which determine the transfer pricing method that businesses should use to determine the arm’s length price. An advance pricing agreement is not special treatment for that taxpayer; rather, it provides improved certainty to taxpayers in areas where the correct application of the transfer pricing rules may be in doubt.
HMRC has recently become aware of a technical gap in the legislation that was contrary to its long-established statement of practice. The said statement of practice allows for an advance pricing agreement to be entered into where the parties are acting together in relation to financing arrangements. The changes made by this clause fix that gap and will ensure that HMRC can provide businesses with tax certainty in relation to the application of the transfer pricing legislation to all in-scope financing arrangements, in line with HMRC’s statement of practice.
The intention of this clause is to fix a technical gap in existing legislation and to ensure that HMRC can provide certainty in line with its existing published guidance.
James Wild
As we heard from the Minister, clause 22 makes amendments to parts 4 and 5 of the Taxation (International and Other Provisions) Act 2010 concerning the meaning of indirect participation in relation to advance pricing agreements. Once again, we welcome these changes. An APA is a procedural agreement between one or more taxpayers or one or more tax authorities on the future application of transfer pricing policies. Advance pricing agreements can help to provide certainty and avoid transfer pricing disputes.
HMRC recently became aware that there is a technical gap in the circumstances in which an advance pricing agreement may be entered into. Clause 22 aims to rectify that gap and provide clarity on what constitutes indirect participation in the context of APAs. The clause amends both the transfer pricing and APA legislation to ensure the validity of advance pricing agreements in cases where the parties to the provision are connected only by virtue of acting together in relation to the financing arrangements.
The clause will ensure the validity of advance pricing agreements with businesses in such circumstances and is intended to ensure that HMRC can provide businesses with tax certainty in relation to the application of transfer pricing legislation. We have spoken a lot during this Committee about the importance of certainty for business, so that is a welcome step.
By providing clarification on what indirect participation means, the Government are confirming the scope of advance pricing agreements, which should improve certainty and dispute resolution. The Chartered Institute of Taxation notes that
“this measure will be helpful for taxpayers that have applied to or want to apply to HMRC for APAs in relation to financing arrangements (such as Advance Thin Capitalisation Agreements) in circumstances where the UK’s transfer pricing rules are only in scope due to persons acting together in relation to those financing arrangements.”
The clause will likely improve the process both for businesses and HMRC. It is, however, a little hard to understand the real-world impact from the tax information and impact notes. Now that indirect participation has been defined and the scope of advance pricing agreements effectively broadened, will there be any extra enforcement cost? I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm how many businesses the change is likely to impact. It would also be useful to know whether the Government have calculated the economic benefits of advance pricing agreements and, subsequently, how the change will impact the Exchequer. As I have set out, we welcome this technical change, but I would welcome the Minister’s comments on the issues I have raised.
James Murray
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the clause. We are on a roll of him supporting clause after clause—may this continue throughout the rest of the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman rightly recognises that this is a simplification measure on which all Members can agree. As it is a simplification measure, it is non-scoring, so it does not have an Exchequer impact—it simply provides certainty on how the rules as intended will apply. It does not change how the rules apply or make a policy change to the Government’s approach; it makes sure that there is total certainty and clarity about how they will apply. Only a limited number of taxpayers will be affected, and we expect them to welcome the change because of this certainty.
I welcome the Opposition’s support for this clause, because I think we can all agree on giving as much certainty to taxpayers and businesses as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Expenditure on zero-emission cars
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
James Murray
Clauses 23 and 24 make changes to extend the 100% first-year allowances for qualifying expenditure on zero emission cars and plant or machinery for electric vehicle charge points by a further year to April 2026. The first-year allowance for cars was originally introduced for expenditure incurred from 17 April 2002 for low CO2-emission cars, including electric vehicles, and eligibility was later restricted to cars with zero CO2 emissions from April 2021. The first-year allowance for electric vehicle charge points was originally introduced for expenditure incurred from 23 November 2016. These first-year allowances were introduced to support the UK’s transition to cleaner vehicles and were due to expire in April 2025.
The changes made by clauses 23 and 24 will extend the availability of the capital allowances for a further year to 31 March 2026 for corporation tax purposes and 5 April 2026 for income tax purposes. This ensures that investments in zero emission cars and charge point infrastructure continue to receive the most generous capital allowance treatment. By extending the first-year allowances for zero emission cars and charge point infrastructure, the measure will provide continued support for the transition to electric vehicles.
Gareth Davies
As the Minister set out, clauses 23 and 24 extend the availability of the 100% first-year allowance for business expenditure on zero emission cars and for expenditure on plant or machinery for an electric vehicle charging point. Both allowances are extended for a single year from April 2025. In their current forms, both allowances were introduced by Conservative Governments. Although we will not oppose the clauses, there are a few questions that I would like the Minister to address.
The first relates to a point that has been highlighted by the Association of Taxation Technicians concerning clause 24. The ATT has queried why the specific allowance for charging points is being extended when this expenditure has been covered by both the annual investment allowance and full expensing since the Conservative Government made those reliefs permanent in 2023. That means that the allowance is really relevant only to unincorporated business—for example, a partnership or sole trader— that has already used its annual investment allowance in full, which is a scenario that the ATT considers to be quite rare.
According to the ATT, we should be able to tell how rare this is from the number of claims made for this specific allowance on tax returns. Will the Minister provide any information that he has to hand on that? HMRC has said it expects 6,000 unincorporated businesses to be impacted by clauses 23 and 24. Does the Minister have a figure for clause 24 alone and for specific unincorporated businesses that have exhausted their annual investment allowance? At the very least, I would be grateful if the Minister explained to the Committee the rationale behind that specific extension, given the context that the ATT has so clearly set out.
The cost to HMRC of implementing the clauses is a cool £1.2 million—a relatively high figure for the extension of a pre-existing allowance for a single year. If clause 24 is largely redundant, this hardly seems good value for money on HMRC’s part. I therefore ask the Minister to provide a clause-by-clause breakdown of the £1.2 million of taxpayers’ money that HMRC will spend to be able to execute the relief.
Turning back to clause 23, electric vehicles, unlike charging points, are not in scope of the annual investment allowance or full expensing, so I will not question the extension of that specific allowance, which we welcome. However, given the Government’s ambition to accelerate our transition to electric vehicles, I cannot help but wonder why they are putting a brake on the allowance after just a single year.
The Red Book states that the allowance will
“help drive the transition to electric vehicles”,
yet from April 2026, a business investing in these cars will receive relief only through annual writing-down allowances of either 18% or 6%, depending on the car’s emissions—those incentives are less generous and less immediate. At Budget 2020, we extended the EV allowance by four years to provide the support and certainty to businesses that the Minister says he so desperately wants. This Labour Government have declined to do the same, creating what some—not me—may call a cliff edge. As Labour increases the pace and the burden of the transition to net zero, they are also shifting the burden away from His Majesty’s Government and on to British businesses and British consumers. Once again, it is they who will pay the price for the Government’s obsession with decarbonising our grid and imposing net zero policies on the British public.
James Murray
I thank the shadow Minister for his questions and his support for the clause. He mentioned a question that the ATT raised about the interaction between the extension of the 100% first-year allowance we are proposing, particularly for charge points, and the context of full expensing in the annual investment allowance. For businesses that are investing over the annual investment allowance limit, there may be circumstances where, if the first year allowance were not extended as it is by these clauses, some investment in EV charge point equipment would qualify for only a 50% first-year allowance rather than 100% full expensing. The Government want to support investment in EV charge point infrastructure by providing full relief for investment in equipment for EV charge points. That is why we have introduced this measure.
The shadow Minister asked for a specific figure. I do not have that to hand, but I am happy to look into what information is available and get back to him. More broadly, the 100% first-year allowance was due to expire in April 2025. This conversation has echoes of an earlier discussion we had around retail, hospitality and leisure business rates relief, and reliefs or allowances that we inherited and which are due to expire in April 2025. We have decided to extend this, and the reason why is to help support businesses and individuals who are buying or making electric vehicles and associated infrastructure. We see this as one of a series of measures to support the EV transition. It has come up in relation to a number of clauses, so I think it is clear to the Committee that the Government are pursuing a range of different interventions and policies to carefully calibrate the right level of Government support.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
In the interest of providing certainty, would the Minister explain why the Government did not choose a multi-year allowance on this, rather than going for an extension of only one year?
James Murray
As I was saying, we are seeking to calibrate the incentives carefully for the transition to EVs to support manufacturers and consumers and to give as much certainty as possible, while making sure that we have the right support in different parts of the tax system to provide value for money and support the transition in the right way. It is not a question of a single measure being responsible for supporting the transition. This relies on manufacturers and consumers playing their part, but the Government need to play their role, too, which is why this measure sits alongside others we have debated, including those that are not part of the Finance Bill but are part of the Government’s broader agenda. Collectively, they will support this transition.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Commercial letting of furnished holiday accommodation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
James Murray
The clause and the schedule abolish the furnished holiday lettings tax regime from April 2025, removing the tax advantages that landlords who offer short-term holiday lets have over those who provide standard residential properties. Furnished holiday let owners benefit from a more generous tax regime than landlords of other property types, such as standard residential properties. The advantages of that tax regime include capital gains tax reliefs: FHLs can qualify for gains to be charged at 10%, unlike buy-to-let properties and second homes. FHLs also benefit from unrestricted income tax relief on their mortgage interest, rather than the 20% restriction on relief for standard lettings, and from capital allowance on furniture and furnishings. FHL profits are also counted as earned income for pension purposes.
The previous Government announced at the spring Budget 2024 that they would abolish the FHL tax regime to level the playing field with landlords of standard residential properties. We are now legislating for that measure and abolishing the FHL tax regime from April 2025, which will raise around £190 million a year by 2029-30 and thereby support the vital public services we all rely on. The changes made by clause 25 and schedule 5 mean that FHL landlords will be treated the same as other residential landlords for the purposes of income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax.
Harriet Cross
Does the Minister recognise the difference between properties with a use clause compelling them to be used for holiday let accommodation and houses that do not, and that can therefore be used as residential properties? Those two things do not necessarily line up in terms of what the owner can use the property for.
James Murray
If I understand the hon. Member’s question correctly, it might relate to clauses in the lease of the property, but I am not quite sure what her point was. I will come back to this if I have misunderstood her question, but clause 5 relates specifically to the tax treatment of these properties. It is about how FHLs, which can still operate in the same way as they have previously in terms of lettings, will be treated by the tax system to bring them in line with standard residential property tax treatment. This is about equalising the tax treatment of FHL landlords and standard landlords, rather than seeking broader changes, which may be what she was alluding to, but I am happy to return to it later in the debate if I have misunderstood her question.
This measure does not penalise the provision of FHLs; it simply brings their tax treatment more in line with long-term lets. It does that to remove the tax advantages that FHL landlords have received over other property businesses in four key areas. First, finance cost relief will apply in the same way as for long-term lettings, with income tax relief on their mortgage interest restricted to the basic rate. Secondly, it will remove the capital allowances rule for new expenditure and allow replacement of domestic items relief. Thirdly, it will withdraw access to reliefs from taxes on chargeable gains for trading business assets. Fourthly, FHL income will no longer count as earned income for pension purposes. After repeal, former FHL properties will form part of a person’s UK or overseas property business and be subject to the same rules as non-furnished holiday let property businesses.
However, the Bill does not equalise tax treatment entirely. Holiday lets, whether they qualify as FHLs or not, are subject to VAT, whereas longer-term, private rented sector accommodation is not. Withdrawal of finance cost relief will mainly affect higher rate and additional rate taxpayers, with basic rate payers largely unaffected. The Government have also introduced transitional arrangements. FHL properties will become part of a person’s overall property business and past FHL losses can be relieved against profits of that business in future years. Existing capital allowance claims can be continued, but new capital expenditure will be dealt with under the rules for standard residential let properties. The legislation also confirms that where a business has ceased prior to April 2025, business asset disposal relief may continue to apply to a disposal that occurs within the normal three-year period following cessation, which is in line with current rules.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
Did the Minister consider the different legislation in Scotland, where we have short-term letting licences, visitor tax and a whole load of extra legislation coming in, which is making it difficult and reducing the amount of holiday letting available? How relevant is the proposal for Scotland?
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman’s question goes slightly beyond the ambit of the tax measures we are discussing. As I understand, he is talking about the wider regulation and the approach to lettings in Scotland. To echo my response to the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan, the measures really relate to the tax treatment of FHLs in comparison to standard property lettings, making them more equal. It does not make them entirely equal—VAT remains a point of difference—but it is about levelling the playing field between FHL landlords and the landlords of standard lettings in the tax system.
Mr MacDonald
My point was really about the cumulative effect of many different taxes and restrictions making it more and more difficult for people in the letting business, which is crucial to the economy of tourist areas.
James Murray
We know that in any local area there needs to be a balance between visitor accommodation and long-term accommodation. I am sure that the hon. Member and others recognise the tension inherent in getting that balance right. We need to ensure not only that we are supporting our visitor economy, but that the tax system supports long-term accommodation for people who live in those areas—not least because those who work in the tourism sector need somewhere to live near their place of work. It is about the balance between supporting visitor economies and long-term residential lets. We agree with the previous Government, who introduced the reform, on this point. The tax treatment of FHL landlords is better if brought more in line with standard residential lets.
I will briefly mention the anti-forestalling rule, which is also introduced as part of the Bill. It will prevent the obtaining of a tax advantage through the use of conditional contracts to receive capital gains relief under the current FHL rules. That rule applies from 6 March 2024.
In summary, the changes made by the provisions will make the tax system fairer by eliminating tax advantages for landlords who let out their properties as short-term furnished holiday lets compared with those who let out properties for longer periods. FHL landlords will now be treated the same as other residential landlords for the purposes of income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax. We are grateful to all the stakeholders who have already fed in following the publication of the draft legislation and supporting documents.
Gareth Davies
As the Minister set out, clause 25 and schedule 5 repeal special tax rules relating to the commercial letting of furnished holiday accommodation. The changes were first announced in our Government’s Budget in March 2024, and we will not oppose them. However, it is important to view the measures in the context of the wider changes to the circumstances of the hospitality sector as a result of Labour’s Budget—most notably the hike in national insurance contributions.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
Might it not be more appropriate to view the measure in the context of the housing crisis that our country is currently in, and the record proportion of under-35s living at home with their parents rather than being able to live in their own accommodation? Does the hon. Member agree that there should be no tax incentives for accommodation to be turned into short-term furnished lets as opposed to long-term living places?
The Chair
Order. Can we keep the discussion within the context of the clause and the schedule?
Gareth Davies
Thank you, Mr Mundell. I am grateful for the hon. Member’s intervention; we all want to see people able to get on the housing ladder, particularly younger people. There is much work to be done on that. However, I would say two things. First, I question how much of an impact the measures will have on that, but I am happy to see evidence and data from the Treasury to prove her point. Secondly, we cannot deny that the hospitality sector is in different circumstances to when the previous Government announced the measures in March 2024. As I will discuss, the measures will have an impact on the sector. I think the hon. Member would agree that it is important to support our hospitality sector, hear their concerns and for me, as the official Opposition spokesperson, to make remarks on their behalf.
As I was saying, this is not just about national insurance contributions, but the reduction in the secondary threshold for that tax, as well as the reduction in business rates relief, which has gone down from 70% to 40%. Each of those measures creates significant new costs for the hospitality sector, which is crucial to rural and coastal economies across the country. It is those same rural and coastal economies that will be disproportionately affected by the provisions of clause 25 and schedule 5.
Blake Stephenson
Does my hon. Friend think that, by suggesting that farmers should diversify into holiday lets, the Environment Secretary intends that farmers should pay even more tax to the Treasury?
Gareth Davies
It is clear that the Government have launched an attack on farmers across rural communities in our country. The family farm tax is a disgrace. Farmers have protested and tried to make their voices heard, but still cannot get a meeting with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I urge the Minister, who is very open to meetings, to have a word with his Chancellor, who is consistently in hiding and running out of the country when things get difficult as a result of her decisions.
Perhaps it is true that the Environment Secretary wants farmers to pay even more tax. Why else would he say to farmers in Oxford, “Convert your barns into holiday lets,” while over the road the Treasury is taking away these reliefs and making it more tax inefficient for them to do so? This is yet another area where the Labour Government seem intent on cancelling out genuinely pro-growth deregulation, which we welcome, with anti-growth taxation.
Gareth Davies
Does the Labour Member who is about to intervene on me support holiday lets?
Yuan Yang
I am glad that we have returned to this topic, because I was about to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he might clarify the relationship between his remarks and the commercial letting of furnished holiday accommodation—[Interruption.] But of course I support the equalisation of tax measures provided for by the clause.
Gareth Davies
I am sorry, but there was a very loud cough when the hon. Lady intervened. Would she repeat her intervention?
Gareth Davies
Oh, so it was more of a heckle than an intervention, but that is very welcome too; it makes it a bit more lively for the very large audience we have today.
I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the policy of this Labour Government. Do they support holiday lets? The Environment Secretary clearly supports them and wants farmers to diversify into them, while at the same time the Treasury—yes, we announced the policy in March—clearly wants to tighten up the rules on taxation. It would be great to hear the Minister clarify that, but it seems that the answer depends on which Minister one talks to on any given day. Let us see what the answer is in this Committee, from this Minister, today.
Clause 25 also touches on a long-standing issue of whether letting constitutes a trading activity or a property business. The FHL regime created a clear distinction by deeming a letting business to be considered a trade for certain purposes. Some organisations, such as the excellent Chartered Institute of Taxation, are concerned that removing the regime removes this distinction and could open up a whole can of worms, leading to costly disputes for both the taxpayer and HMRC. Can the Minister clarify what defines a letting as a trading activity in the absence of the FHL regime, or at least commit to the publication of updated, clearer guidance for the industry on that subject? The Chartered Institute of Taxation is also seeking confirmation on the following points—
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I am confused as to why a party that brought in the proposals is now arguing so vehemently against them—perhaps it is still attached to its chaotic approach to government. What I am not following in the hon. Gentleman’s remarks is the argument that the equalisation of the taxation could have negative consequences. Has the hon. Gentleman interrogated the evidence that has been brought forward by those people who are letting out their holiday lets, and does he really think that there would not be an economic benefit to supporting a change in use of those homes?
Gareth Davies
These sittings are long, but I did say at the beginning of my speech that we announced in March 2024 that we would bring in this same measure and that we will support it today.
I am not saying that we are against it, but I am saying two things. First, as I was saying at the beginning of my speech, the context in which the measure is being introduced is very different from the context in March 2024. The context today is that hospitality businesses across the country, but particularly in rural communities, are being hit by a series of taxes that they did not ask for, did not vote for and were told would not happen. That is the context in which we find ourselves.
Secondly, His Majesty’s official Opposition have a duty to communicate the concerns of the British public and the sectors that will be directly impacted by this measure. It is vital that His Majesty’s Opposition scrutinise whatever policies are put in front of us, with a forward look at how that will economically damage or benefit communities. As you can tell, Mr Mundell, and as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster can tell, I take a constructive tone. When we do support measures, we will say so, and when we do not, or we feel that additional scrutiny is needed, Members better believe that I will be there. That is what I am doing today. I hope that addresses the intervention from the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster.
In the interests of scrutiny on behalf of the many thousands of people that will be impacted by the measure and in a context of a wider hammering through the tax system by this Labour Government, let me continue my questions on behalf of the Chartered Institute of Taxation.
First of all, I seek confirmation from the Minister that an FHL disposal must be made before 6 April 2025 in order for a qualifying replacement asset to be eligible for roll-over relief, even though the replacement asset itself can be purchased up to three years after FHL disposal. Secondly, I seek confirmation that lettings must cease altogether before 6 April 2025—not just furnished holiday lettings, but even unfurnished long-term rentals—for an FHL disposal to qualify for business asset disposal relief. Thirdly, I seek confirmation that married couples or civil partners who jointly own an FHL must make an election if they are to continue to split the income unequally, rather than reverting to the normal 50:50 rule, and make a declaration to HMRC before 6 April 2025 if this is to have effect in the 2025-26 tax year. I ask those questions constructively, on behalf of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, and if the Exchequer Secretary is not able to answer them, of course I will take a written answer by way of letter following this sitting.
In addition to the confirmation on those three points, I would be grateful if the Minister could provide reassurance that HMRC guidance has been specifically and sufficiently clear on these points, so that those affected are aware of the implications of the changes. It is important to remember that when the Government make changes and when we made changes, we were very conscious—I am sure he is too—that the public are aware. He should take all measures possible to ensure that people are aware of these changes, but I appreciate his guidance on what measures are being taken.
Finally, on the case of joint ownership—
The Chair
It is finally, because we are at 25 minutes past 11, and the Committee will now adjourn.
Tobacco and Vapes Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Tuesday 28th January 2025
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 View all Tobacco and Vapes Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 January 2025 - (28 Jan 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 127 stand part.
Schedule 16.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Pritchard.
Clauses 126 and 127 and schedule 16 pertain to audiovisual and radio broadcasting restrictions on tobacco, vapes and the related products that we have been discussing endlessly in this Committee. Although there is a strong argument for the measures from a public health perspective, there may be legitimate concerns regarding freedom of expression and the impact on broadcasters and advertisers —I may be pre-empting points my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor will raise.
One of the most compelling arguments for the clauses is their role in protecting young people from exposure to tobacco and vaping products. Studies have consistently shown that advertising plays a significant role in influencing smoking and vaping initiation. Research from Cancer Research UK indicates that young people who are exposed to tobacco advertising are more likely to start smoking, and similar findings have been observed with vaping products, where targeted marketing strategies have contributed to a rise in e-cigarette use among teenagers.
By restricting tobacco and vape-related advertisements on television, radio and on-demand services, the clauses aim to reduce the normalisation of smoking and vaping. The UK has already seen the benefits of such measures in relation to tobacco: since the implementation of the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Act 2002, smoking rates have declined significantly. Extending similar restrictions to vaping is the logical next step to ensure that history does not repeat itself, with a new generation becoming dependent on nicotine.
Critics might argue that the clauses may have unintended consequences for broadcasters, advertisers and the creative industries. The sector relies heavily on advertising revenue, and restrictions on tobacco and vaping-related content may limit potential funding sources, particularly for smaller, independent broadcasters, in an already challenging economic environment. However, as we have seen with the existing bans in relation to tobacco, the public health benefits clearly outweigh the potential issues with the funding that broadcasters could get from vape advertisements.
There is a practical consideration about how the clauses are enforced. We must ensure that broadcasters and on-demand services comply with the new restrictions, and that will require regulatory and oversight resources. Perhaps the Minister could give us some idea of how the provision will be enforced, whether that is through Ofcom or some other means. There is also a concern about what I describe as cross-border broadcasting. Many streaming services operate internationally, so content produced abroad but accessible in the UK may not be subject to the same restrictions, and if it is, ensuring compliance with UK regulations on the global platforms will present a significant challenge. How does the Minister intend to enforce the provisions in those cases?
This is a complex issue and a balanced approach is necessary, but as I have said, investing in public health campaigns alongside the regulatory measures could help to ensure that the public receive accurate information about smoking and vaping. I therefore support the clauses.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I support the clauses too, although I have a couple of questions. I hope the Minister will be so kind as to answer them.
Clause 126 outlines that part 6 does not apply to independent television or radio services, services provided by the BBC or Sianel Pedwar Cymru, on-demand programme services, or non-UK on-demand programme services that are tier 1 services as defined in the Communications Act 2003. Essentially, they will be covered by Ofcom. Paragraphs (a) and (b) specify exclusions for independent television and radio services regulated by Ofcom, provided they are not classified as additional services. Will the Minister clarify how additional television services and digital additional sound services are defined in practice, and what criteria will be used to classify services at the margins of those categories?
The clause exempts services that are defined as on- demand services under section 368A of the Communications Act from provisions of the Bill. In the rapidly evolving digital media landscape, does the Minister believe that the definition of an on-demand programme service is sufficiently clear to encompass emerging service models? Given the rapid growth of online platform streaming services and the desire he previously expressed to future-proof the bill, does he foresee current exclusions in clause 126 remaining relevant in the future? Should how these platforms, whether UK or non-UK based, are regulated be reconsidered, to ensure they adhere to the same standards as traditional broadcast media in relation to tobacco and vapes while being viewed in the UK? We keep coming to this point—how online services can be used to circumvent measures of the Bill.
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend makes a good point, raised in a number of our debates, about future-proofing the Bill. There is a big discussion going on about artificial intelligence and how that plays in. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has thought about that, or whether the Minister can clarify how artificial intelligence may be used by the tobacco and vaping industry to get round some of the provisions, and whether the future-proofing is strong enough to deal with that.
Dr Johnson
I know my hon. Friend is very interested in AI. I am sure that if it is possible to do so, these industries will use any means available to them to maintain their market.
The clause extends the regulations from tobacco to cover all vaping products, herbal smoking products, cigarette papers and nicotine products. Given my concerns about children and vaping and the use of nicotine, I think this is a sensible measure, which I support.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. Clauses 126 and 127 and schedule 16 contain provisions relating to audiovisual services and radio broadcasting. Clause 126 provides that part 6, which deals with advertising and sponsorship, does not apply to certain categories of television and radio service. That is because these services are already prohibited under the Communications Act 2003.
Clause 127 introduces schedule 16, which amends the Communications Act 2003. The amendments extend provisions in that Act that ban advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products in certain TV and radio services to include herbal smoking products, cigarette papers, vaping products or nicotine products. That ensures that the advertising ban on tobacco in television, radio and on-demand programme services is extended to all of those products. In practice, the measure means we will no longer see banned products or promotional material for those products on any of those mediums.
The shadow Minister rightly points out that the services listed in the clause include ITV, independent television and radio, the BBC and Sianel Pedwar Cymru, and on-demand programme services—that covers the points that Members have made—and non-UK on-demand programme services, which are tier 1 services as defined in the Communications Act 2003. I hope that reassures the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon that it also includes programmes produced and aired outside the United Kingdom that are brought into the United Kingdom.
As a helpful aide-mémoire for the Committee, the Communications Act 2003 regulates telecommunications broadcasting. It confers functions on the Office of Communications, a regulator, to oversee the services. The Act puts in place effective rules for the advertising of tobacco on television, radio and on-demand services. By amending the Act, we ensure that this existing framework also applies to vaping products, nicotine products, and cigarette and herbal smoking papers. There is no need to reinvent the wheel and add more to the Bill, as we can use the existing provisions in the 2003 Act. I therefore commend the clauses to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 126 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 127 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 16 agreed to.
Clause 128 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 129
Enforcement authorities
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
The clause outlines the responsibilities and jurisdictions of enforcement authorities tasked with ensuring compliance with part 6, which covers advertising and sponsorship. Subsection (1) establishes that the enforcement authorities are legally bound to enforce the provisions of the Bill, and subsection (2) contains the definition of an “enforcement authority”. All that sounds very straightforward and sensible, but my question is about funding. If the weights and measures authorities are given an obligation to enforce something but not given the resources to enforce it, they are being given a legal obligation with which they have not got the resources to comply.
Paragraphs 613 and 614 of the impact assessment state that the average trading standards service, of which there are 197, has 9.4 full-time equivalent professionally qualified staff. It is assumed that all those staff would need to be familiarised with the policies and all the various regulations once they are passed through Parliament. We have talked about the amount of regulations that will be created under the Bill; staff will need to be trained in all that. In 2024, the cost of such training was estimated at £23,137, but given that the Bill will not come into force until later—we are in 2025 now—that is a moot point. How much does the Minister think training will cost once all the regulations are up and running? Clause after clause of the Bill provides for regulations to be made, which may be done in one go or several, repeating the need for training.
The impact assessment also talks about the cost of training for the Advertising Standards Authority, estimating it to be £1,945. If it costs that to train all the staff from the ASA on a given topic, it suggests the rest of the public sector’s training could definitely be made more efficient. I suggest that the Minister has a chat with the Chancellor about it—I believe she is looking for ways to make the country more efficient, which she has done so far by making businesses not exist—as it seems a little out of kilter, although I was not sure whether it was a dot or a comma. The impact assessment also measures what it believes Ofcom would need to enforce the training under the new measures. It estimates £3,500 for the staff there, but again, does the Minister think that is realistic?
Clause 130 is about the power of Ministers to take over enforcement functions in a specific case. We have talked at some length in previous debates about the potential for abuse of power in such measures. Clause 131, similarly, is about the power of Ministers to take over proceedings as part of the enforcement functions in respect of a specific case. Again, while I can understand the Minister’s desire to be able to take over from a weights and measures authority as a whole if there were to be a problem with the way it was functioning in a specific case, can he give assurances that there would not be any abuse of power in that respect?
Andrew Gwynne
I thank the shadow Minister for her questions. The Government are investing over £100 million over five years to boost His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and Border Force’s enforcement capability to tackle illicit tobacco. In 2025-26 we will invest £30 million of new funding for enforcement agencies, including trading standards, Border Force and HMRC, to tackle illicit and under-age sales of tobacco and vapes, supporting them to implement the Bill.
Decisions on funding for trading standards in future years will be made as part of the spending review process, but given our clear commitment to enforcement in the Bill and the fact that we have put down the payment of £30 million for enforcement in the next financial year, I hope hon. Members are assured that we take these matters seriously. We are investing £3 million over two years specifically to enhance the work led by National Trading Standards to tackle under-age and illicit vape sales. That work is carried out through enhancing market surveillance and enforcement action on ports, online sales enforcement, and boosting the storage and disposal of illicit vapes. The new funding for 2025-26 will build on this work to tackle under-age and illicit vape sales.
The shadow Minister asked how trading standards will use their additional enforcement funding. The crucial point is that we want to boost trading standards’ capacity, to enable the services to conduct more under-age sales test purchases, remove illicit products from the market and identify non-compliant products and bring them into compliance where possible.
Dr Johnson
My question was not simply how trading standards will use the money allocated, but whether the Minister feels that the money he has allocated is adequately purposed?
Andrew Gwynne
I do, which I have just said. The £30 million in the next financial year to boost the enforcement agencies will meet the needs that the Bill sets out. It is also about boots on the ground and having greater capacity. We will be working with trading standards on this additional enforcement funding to ensure that they increase their capacity and are able to take on the roles and responsibilities that the Bill places on them. We will continue to discuss with trading standards how we can best support them in respect of the measures of the Bill. I commend the measures to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 129 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 130 to 132 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 133
Power to extend Part 6 and Communications Act 2003 to other products
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Dr Johnson
Clause 133 gives the Secretary of State the power to extend part 6, which deals with advertising and sponsorship, and the Communications Act 2003 to other products, specifically products that are devices of a specified description enabling a tobacco product to be consumed, such as a heated tobacco device or pipe, or an item that is intended to form part of such a device. It allows the Secretary of State to consult with the required persons and gain consent where required with the devolved legislatures. However, how will the Secretary of State further define that, and can the Minister give us some examples of the types of products that might be included under the power? Could it allow for the expansion of regulation to a wide range of products not originally envisaged in the Bill?
The inclusion of devices and items potentially covers a wide array of consumer products without any clear boundary. What are the specific criteria or considerations that the Secretary of State must use when deciding whether to extend the provisions? Could that lead to arbitrary or inconsistent decision making, depending on the political or public health priorities of the Government of the day? The wording seems to give considerable latitude, but not much clarity on when or how the Secretary of State should exercise the power.
Andrew Gwynne
I am very happy to answer the question posed by the shadow Minister. It is a simple answer: we need clause 133 to avoid loopholes. Otherwise, newer products such as heated tobacco—and those products that have not even been developed yet—are in scope of the restrictions, but devices used alongside them could still be used to promote tobacco consumption.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 133 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 134 and 135 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 136
Addition of smoke-free places in England
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I beg to move amendmentusb 11, in clause 136, page 77, line 8, after “regulations” insert
“and a local authority may (as respects its area) make byelaws”.
This amendment would extend the power to designate areas as smoke-free to certain local authorities, by making byelaws. Any byelaws so made would need to be confirmed by the Secretary of State by virtue of section 236 of the Local Government Act 1972.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 12, in clause 136, page 77, line 14, after “regulations” insert “or byelaws”.
This amendment is associated with amendment 11.
Amendment 13, in clause 136, page 77, line 16, after “regulations” insert “or byelaws”.
This amendment is associated with amendment 11.
Amendment 14, in clause 136, page 77, at the end of line 24, insert—
“(5) Before making byelaws under this section the local authority must consult any persons the local authority considers it appropriate to consult.
(6) In this section,
‘local authority’ means a county council in England, a district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority, the Council of the Isles of Scilly, a combined authority or a combined country authority.”
This amendment is associated with amendment 11.
Jim Dickson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. Amendments 11 to 14 are intended to extend the power to local authorities in England to designate areas as smoke-free by making byelaws. Any byelaws would need to be confirmed by the Secretary of State, by virtue of section 236 of the Local Government Act 1972.What the amendments seek to do is to bring the power to extend smoke-free places to a local level, as there are already a number of local authorities that have had success with that approach.
As we know, local authorities are responsible for public health and know their communities well. Eleven councils have introduced 100% smoke-free conditions in pavement seating, including in thriving cities such as Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle. There are many more areas where that approach could have benefits: for instance, in my Dartford constituency, we have a high street with an area where an excellent market takes place every Thursday and Saturday. It is an area not covered by smoke-free legislation, but one that in my view could greatly benefit from smoke-free areas.
Gregory Stafford
We may come on to this point when we discuss the substantive part of clause 136, but does the hon. Member not see any potential difficulty where there are different local authorities with different regulations on smoke-free areas? One of the beneficial simplicities in the Bill is that it applies the same rules across all areas in all the different constituent parts of the United Kingdom. What he is suggesting could potentially add a level of complexity.
Jim Dickson
That is indeed a good question. Consistency is clearly desirable: it is easier for the public to understand and it makes enforcement easier. However, there are councils already leading the way in that area, and it is a question of the needs of the community covered by that local authority. We know that smoking is particularly concentrated in deprived communities. Local authorities are able to understand what areas are most at risk, work with those communities and arrive at solutions hand in hand with them. We know that public spaces facilitate quit attempts, so it is a great way to do this in areas where the communities consent to that approach. I still advocate the measure as a good way forward.
Obviously I would have liked to have seen outdoor hospitality settings included in the consultation for smoke-free extensions to this Bill; however, I know that many Members at the Second Reading expressed relief that that is not in scope for England. Other Members have sought to put the areas identified by the Government on the face of the Bill to rule this out in future, but I disagree with that approach, because we need flexibility.
Gregory Stafford
This is a point I will raise with the Minister as well—just to forewarn him—but, whereas I entirely agree with the future-proofing of this Bill in areas such as products and advertising where the market may move on, I do not fully understand why the regulations need to be so open on public places. Public places are not going to change over the next 100 years, so why not define them on the face of the Bill?
Jim Dickson
Certainly, public spaces are not going to change, but smoking prevalence is; it may be that as, a result of declines in smoking prevalence, the public acceptance of smoke-free areas may change. I am sure that the Minister will have a useful contribution to make in response to the hon. Gentleman’s point when he speaks. There is a discussion to be had.
I would be particularly interested to look at the data and modelling and the customer feedback that suggests that hospitality venues are economically dependent on the consumption of tobacco. As we have discussed, currently only 11% of the population smoke—granted, if we are talking about nightlife, that prevalence may be higher, but I certainly believe that families should be able to enjoy eating outside in the summer without being exposed to the risk of second-hand smoke. We have seen that smoke-free pavement licences are popular with businesses and with the public, particularly families with children.
Giving local authorities a say in how smoke-free laws are applied will align with the commitment in the recent English Devolution White Paper to shift any power
“away from Whitehall and into the hands of those who know their communities best”.
It is critical that local authorities consult fully on any measures, and particularly closely with the hospitality industry. As I say, there is a possibility that that industry, in specific parts of local authorities where the consultation takes place, may actually agree and feel that this is a sensible step. It is important that local authorities get this right with the right consultation, but they should have the powers to do it.
The Chair
I remind Members that we are at this point talking about amendments, so any comments should be restricted to those amendments. We can talk about the generalities of the clause later in the debate. It is always helpful to have a reminder of that—for myself as well.
Dr Johnson
I thank the hon. Member for Dartford for clearly laying out what he seeks to do. I understand that his desire to see a healthy population is driving his good intentions behind this amendment, but I have some concerns. We are creating an offence of smoking in specific places: that requires buy-in from the public, because we police with consent, and the public need that knowledge. I visit Newcastle a reasonable amount, and I did not know that there was a rule banning smoking on park benches. I do not smoke, so it did not apply to me in any case, but it is conceivable that others are not aware that Newcastle has local rules.
I am concerned about the consistency of such measures and about people’s awareness of where it is possible to do something; otherwise, we will create criminal offences and fine people large amounts of money for doing something they had no reason to prevent themselves from doing because they had no way of knowing. The Government are also in the midst of reorganising —or trying to reorganise—all the local authorities; if local authorities are going to make such decisions and then be reorganised, that could further add to complexity and confusion for the public.
For people who smoke, we want to limit the harms to their health and ensure they have the opportunity to quit or to minimise those harms. Not everybody has a garden or outside space of their own. If they live in a flat and are a smoker, only being able to smoke in that flat because all the outside spaces are gone will increase the dangers to them, for health and for other reasons. My personal opinion is that these laws, or at least the principle of which spaces may and may not count, should be made nationally—even if there is some local guidance to be followed.
That is why we will come to the principle of which sort of spaces, because at the moment it is any space. It is conceivable therefore that, under the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, a group of local councils could decide to make all outdoor spaces of all kinds smoke-free. While I would find that desirable as a non-smoker, it would not be good for the overall health of the 11% of people who do smoke.
Gregory Stafford
Looking at the amendments, I can see why the hon. Member for Dartford wants to do this. There clearly could be public health benefits and, as a localist myself, I am naturally sympathetic to having local decisions made as close to people as possible. I think the point I made during the intervention stands, however: the potential for confusion among people who are potentially not from the area, or who are from the area but do not understand the local byelaws, probably makes the amendments unworkable.
My hon. Friend the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Dartford mentioned that smoking prevalence is higher in places of social deprivation. The hon. Member seemed to be suggesting it would therefore be better to enforce regulations, or byelaws for regulations, in those areas. I can see the public health impact, but we must not ghettoise people who are from lower socio-economic backgrounds and who are more likely to smoke, as seen in the evidence. The shadow Minister makes a good point that people who do not have outside space, and who may have children and not want to smoke and vape in their properties because they are rightly worrying about their children’s health, will find that difficult if there are local byelaws in place that prevent it. I think that is especially true with women who smoke.
Jim Dickson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is making a number of very good points, but will he respond to the notion that smoke-free areas are all about making smoking less attractive and so giving people incentives to quit? Does he accept that that might give people incentives to quit and therefore be a significant public health benefit, and worth considering as part of the legislation?
Gregory Stafford
I completely agree that we could very easily ban tobacco and vaping for everybody at every age. That would be the biggest incentive for people to quit. The Government—I think rightly—are not doing that, because they are not looking to criminalise people who are currently addicted to tobacco and vapes. If we are allowing people to do something legally, there should be places where they can do so safely and not harm others, such as their own children. I am sympathetic to the public health argument that the hon. Gentleman makes but, in practical terms, there may be areas where this is a problem.
My final point is really a question for the hon. Gentleman: under what regulations would the local authority be enforcing such byelaws? Would it be through the penalties and enforcement activities in this Act itself —if it becomes law—or would there be some sort of fine or penalty system that the local authority could use? While there are potential fines and enforcement activities on the face of this Bill, if there were local regulations, would these be in line with what is in the Bill, or would there be some other fining system that a local authority could dream up itself?
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Taking on board what you said, Mr Pritchard, I just want to build on the point that my hon. Friend made about enforcement—I always talk about enforcement in practice. I want to know how rules will be advertised between different jurisdictions. I think we will end up spending an inordinate amount of money on trying to run a campaign that could have been better spent on helping with smoking cessation or on more practical measures.
Dr Johnson
My hon. Friend is talking about the enforcement and practicalities of such a move. If we have a national campaign and national uniformity about the areas in which one can and cannot smoke, that will be quite straightforward for people to understand and there will be no real excuses for breaking the rules. If the advertising has to be done locally, it will have to be continuous to reach all the visitors and tourists who come to that town or city.
Sarah Bool
I absolutely agree, and my hon. Friend makes a powerful point. I would like us to consider this issue when we look at whether to take these proposals any further. I cannot see how we can ensure in practice that everyone knows what is happening without there being a national campaign.
Jim Dickson
Perhaps I can try to answer a couple of the questions from the hon. Lady and other hon. Members. If a byelaw were enacted, it would need to be well publicised, and there would need to be signage. Clearly, it would be impossible for a local authority to enforce a byelaw against which the defence was, “We had no knowledge of the fact that there was a byelaw.” Therefore, doing those things would be very important, and that would obviously be part of the consultation. The local authority would also have to set out a plan, and it would ultimately have to be approved by the Secretary of State, who I am sure would ensure that it was adequate. In terms of the penalties, the local authority has the power to set out its own penalties, but only within the quite tight legal framework set out in the Local Government Act. It would be for the local authority in this instance to define the level of penalty and what was proportionate.
Sarah Bool
I thank the hon. Member for clarifying that point. Many Members would prefer that local councils were dealing with potholes rather than advertising those different spaces, but I thank him for his amendment and his proposal.
Dr Johnson
Amendment 14 defines a local authority as
“a county council…a district council, a London borough council, the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a local authority, the Council of the Isles of Scilly, a combined authority or a combined country authority.”
By the time we get to next summer, Lincolnshire will probably have district councils, a county council and a mayoral authority—I do not agree with having a mayoral authority, because I think that is too many tiers of government, but that is an aside. What if those authorities do not agree? If we give them all the power to make regulations, they could all make different regulations based on different opinions—as is currently the case in Lincolnshire, the various authorities are not always under the control of the same political party.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford for bringing this issue before the Committee. As we have heard, amendment 11 would introduce a power for local authorities to make byelaws relating to the designation of additional smoke-free places in England, which would sit alongside the Secretary of State’s power to make regulations in the same regard.
As we know, the Bill expands the Secretary of State’s powers to create additional smoke-free places at the national level. In England, the Government have already indicated that we intend to extend the smoke-free designation to outdoor places including children’s playgrounds and outside schools and hospitals, but not to outdoor hospitality settings or wider open spaces such as beaches. The reforms we are setting out in the Bill will be subject to full consultation, and we want to hear the views of people from across the country to ensure that we get them right.
As drafted, the Bill gives no additional powers to local authorities. However, they have existing mechanisms for designating certain spaces as smoke-free. As we have heard, areas such as Manchester, my home city, have already used pavement licensing provisions to ensure that people have smoke-free options when they consume food and drink in certain locations, and that works well. Some local authorities have implemented public space protection orders to prohibit smoking in certain areas. For example, the London borough of Enfield has used a public spaces protection order to restrict smoking within the boundaries of children’s playgrounds. Of course, that will be obsolete should the consultation for the national scheme extend to children’s playgrounds, as we intend it to.
Dr Caroline Johnson
I thank the Minister for making those interesting points. Can he clarify whether powers such as those enacted in Enfield create a criminal offence?
Andrew Gwynne
We want to ensure that people who are smokers are not criminalised. Public space protection orders do potentially go down the criminal route. We want to ensure that that is not the case, which is why the Enfield scheme would of course be obsolete under the later provisions—which we are going to discuss today, hopefully—in relation to extending national outdoor smoke-free places.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is reassuring to hear the Minister talk about consulting before bringing in smoke-free places in specific public outdoor areas. Personally, as a non-smoker and someone who is very concerned about the public health impacts of passive smoking, I think we must also be mindful of the need for evidence-based interventions, and of the trade-offs. A good example is that of some fantastic pubs around Winchester and the Meon valley that have maybe two beer gardens, one to the side and one to the back. There would genuinely be no public health risk if smoking was permitted in one of the beer gardens and not the other.
The Liberal Democrats want reassurance on that. One of the reasons we tabled our amendment to clause 136, which is coming up, is simply to get assurances that the hospitality sector will not be impacted by any of these decisions, especially if the public health benefits are negligible.
The Chair
Order. We will discuss the specifics of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment when he moves it.
Andrew Gwynne
I suspect we are straying off the measures before us, Mr Pritchard, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that consultation is a statutory duty in this Bill. Were the Secretary of State, or indeed Welsh, Northern Irish or Scottish Ministers, to seek to change the scope in the future, they would have a duty at every stage to consult further. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
I was talking about Enfield and its public spaces protection orders. It is of course for the local authority to determine whether a PSPO is appropriate and that the legal test for implementing a PSPO is met, along with completion of the relevant consultation requirements. Nottingham has created a voluntary smoke-free zone at events, especially those where children are present, and it introduced a smoke-free play park policy in 2015. Other local authorities, such as Oxfordshire county council, have introduced voluntary smoke-free school gates policies. Given the options already available to local authorities and the national reforms introduced through this Bill, which we will debate further, neither the Government nor I think it is necessary to grant these byelaw-making powers via the Bill.
In answer to a point that the shadow Minister raised, which I hope to answer for my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford, legislation sets out all the different types of local authority. Enforcement in terms of the requirement to police any changes would appertain to the particular local authority, because it would be on that local authority’s land that the measures would apply. For example, in a two-tier area, if the county council as the highways authority deemed that pavement licensing were to be introduced, it would be for the county council to enforce its own measures; if a district council brought in measures in a park for which it was responsible, it would be for the district council. I think that is quite a simple explanation.
I understand that we have a complex jigsaw of local government, but it is for the particular type of council or authority that introduces a measure to enforce it. For example, the pavement licence in the City of Manchester is for the City of Manchester to enforce—not Andy Burnham as the Mayor of Greater Manchester, or indeed the Greater Manchester combined authority. That is pretty simple.
Dr Johnson
My question was not so much about the enforcement, which is defined in the Bill as the local weights and measures authority. Amendment 11 says that a local authority may make byelaws. The local authority that may make these byelaws includes the whole range of county councils, district councils and combined authorities, implying that, whoever is enforcing it, those that could make a byelaw could overlap and have contrary views.
Andrew Gwynne
Obviously, if a local authority introduces byelaws, as the City of Manchester has done in respect of pavement licensing, it is for that local authority to ensure that those byelaws are adhered to. Of course, in that case, the weights and measures authority is the City of Manchester, so I suppose that makes it easier.
These powers are already being used. Local authorities are already designating areas, whether it is for pavement licences, public space protection orders or just deeming that land within their own responsibility is smoke-free. We do not believe that the amendments are necessary. I kindly ask my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford to withdraw them.
Jim Dickson
The Minister has given a very comprehensive response. I suspect that the suggestion that this might be a way forward might come up in the consultation when that happens in the coming months. For the moment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Chair
No. Okay. That is fantastic. No problem. [Interruption.] I mean it is fantastic and we can hear you on another clause or amendment, just to be clear.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Chambers
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 136, page 77, line 8, leave out from “smoke-free” to the end of line 15 and insert—
“a place in England that is—
(a) an NHS property or hospital building,
(b) a school, college or higher education premises,
(c) a children’s play area or playground,
including outdoor public areas and frontages adjoining or surrounding such premises or designated areas.”.
This amendment would specify which places the Secretary of State has power to designate as additional smoke-free places in England on the face of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 95, in clause 136, page 77, line 12 at end insert—
“The Secretary of State may only make regulations designating external or open spaces as smoke-free in England outside—
(a) an NHS property or hospital building,
(b) a children’s playground, or
(c) a nursery, school, college or higher education premises.”.
This amendment restricts the Secretary of State to only being able to designate open or unenclosed spaces outside a hospital, children’s playground, school or nursery.
Amendment 94, in clause 136, page 77, line 21, at end insert—
“The Secretary of State may designate a place or description of place under this section only if in the Secretary of State's opinion there is a significant risk that, without a designation, persons present there would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke.”.
This amendment would re-instate existing section 4(3) in the Health Act 2006.
Dr Chambers
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. To reiterate what I said before, the Liberal Democrats’ aim is to avoid unintended consequences that really damage the hospitality industry that we totally support. Amendment 4 would limit the places where we ban smoking or designate smoke-free to an NHS property or hospital building, a school, college or higher education premises, and a children’s playground or play area. We are not against public health measures; we are trying to ensure that we do not end up with provisions that are a bit over the top and damage hospitality businesses.
Dr Johnson
I shall speak to amendments 95 and 94, which stand in my name. Amendment 95 is similar to the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Dartford a few minutes ago. Members will remember that earlier in the summer the Labour Government suggested that they would include hospitality venues within the scope of outside spaces, which led to pushback from a number of sources, mostly the hospitality industry. Speaking to Sky News on 5 November, the Secretary of State said that it was
“a leak of a Government discussion”,
but that it had promoted
“a really good debate about whether or not it would be proportionate”.
He then said:
“I think people know that the UK hospitality industry has taken a battering in recent years—”.
I agree with the Secretary of State on that. Covid-19 certainly challenged the hospitality industry. The previous Government supported it through business loans, reduced taxation and furlough schemes. Now, just as the industry is getting back on its feet, this Government have battered hospitality providers by raising national insurance contributions, increasing the minimum wage for young people, increasing business rates, introducing the deposit return scheme, and nearly doubling business rates for small businesses. They are indeed taking a battering; we can agree on that. In that Sky News interview, the Secretary of State also said:
“we do not want to add to their pressures, so we are not proposing to go ahead with an outdoor hospitality ban at this time”.
That was in November, but does he still mean it now? How will we know?
The challenge of this clause is trust. The Prime Minister has talked about trust. Before the general election, the current Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said, at the Country Land and Business Association conference, that Labour had no intention of changing the rules on agricultural property relief—but they have. The Government’s manifesto said that they would not increase national insurance on working people —but they have. On 11 June, Rachel Reeves told the Financial Times that she had no plans to increase capital gains tax—but she did. Labour said that it would not make changes to pensioner benefits, but then removed the winter fuel allowance. So there is no trusting that this Government will do what they say they are going to do and not do what they explicitly say they will not. I hope the Minister understands my reasoning.
It is interesting that the Liberal Democrats have a similar amendment to the Conservative amendment on this topic. As I said before, people need some form of open space and not everyone has a garden. There is some confusion about hospitality venues. For example, some pubs have a kids’ play area; will that be treated as a play area within the scope of the regulations, or will it be a hospitality area? Under the current statement, the Secretary of State will not include play areas, but the powers under the clause, which we will come to as a whole, give wide scope for the Minister and the Secretary of State to designate virtually anywhere as smoke-free, with criminal sanction for those smoking or vaping. The Minister and the Secretary of State have said that their only intention is to use these policies for NHS properties, hospital buildings, children’s play areas and education facilities. This being the case, I cannot see why the Minister would not be happy to have that on the face of the Bill. It is the stated intent. I am sure the Government will understand my point about trust.
There are a few minor differences between the Liberal Democrat amendment 4 and the Conservative amendment, mainly in that the Conservative amendment includes nurseries and the Liberal Democrat amendment defines play areas and playgrounds, as opposed to simply playgrounds. These are relatively small differences other than the addition of nurseries, which is beneficial that is where the smallest children are. Clearly smoking in a nursery school is an antisocial behaviour, so it would make sense for them to be included.
Amendment 94 states that:
“The Secretary of State may designate a place or description of place under this section only if in the Secretary of State's opinion there is a significant risk that, without a designation, persons present there would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke.”
The Health Act 2006 states that the Secretary of State has to be clear, in his own mind, that there is a risk of high levels of smoke if he is going to ban smoking, so it is a measure of proportionality. Smoking in an outdoor space, miles from anywhere with nobody about, exposes no one but the smoker, making it slightly safer to smoke outside than inside for both the smoker and the people around them.
Why did the Minister choose to remove the “significant smoke” measure from the legislation? Does he feel that there is no significant amount of smoke to be inhaled by somebody who is in an outdoor space with somebody else? What is the chief medical officer’s advice on the amount of smoke that is likely to be inhaled by someone in an outdoor space alongside or nearby someone who is smoking? I understand that there will be a duration issue—how long the person is sat there, how long the smoker is smoking for and how many cigarettes they have, how close the person is and how windy it is—but will the Minister explain why he chose to remove that measure?
Gregory Stafford
I agree with my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. It seems strange that the Government want to have such wide-ranging powers in this area. Unlike other parts of the Bill, where technologies and such may move on and where I appreciate the need to future-proof, here it is very clear. I do not think that at some point in the future we will believe that smoking in playgrounds, or smoking in a field with nobody else around, are better or worse than they are now.
I have a lot of sympathy for the Liberal Democrats’ amendment 4 and our amendment 95. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the amendments are relatively similar, if not word for word the same. It almost takes us back to coalition days in 2010—let us hope that does not happen too often—and shows that His Majesty’s Official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats have significant concerns. While the Minister and his colleagues have said that they will not extend a smoking and vapes ban to hospitality venues, there is a lack of trust on our part, because even if it is not in the current Minister or Secretary of State’s mind, a future Secretary of State may be minded to put such a ban in place. That is why the amendments tightly define exactly where the smoke-free areas could be.
It is obvious that we do not want people smoking in children’s playgrounds, nurseries, schools or higher education premises. We have had some debate about this on other clauses, but I personally believe that we should not be smoking in NHS properties either. None the less, to return to a point I made previously, if we are going to permit people to do something within the law—people born before 1 January 2009 if we are talking about smoking and everybody over the age of 18 if we are talking about vaping—they must have somewhere safe to be able to do it.
The point of the clause is to address the impact of smoking and vaping on others. I take the shadow Minister’s point that clearly, if someone is smoking in a playground, it will have a greater impact on other people than if they are standing in the middle of a park or field with nobody else around. There needs to be an element of proportionality. As the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Winchester said, we do not want to do anything that could harm our already stretched hospitality industry, which is under extreme pressure. If the Minister or Secretary of State were minded to start imposing bans in hospitality, that would have a significant impact on the hospitality business. I support the two amendments.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
This is an interesting debate, and I want to add some thoughts from a public health point of view. There is a balance to be struck in Government between supporting the hospitality industry and making sure that we are being fair and proportionate and encouraging businesses. We should also be mindful of public health evidence about passive smoking in an area—for instance, outside a pub where there are multiple people and some are passive smoking. It is clear that the Government, the current Secretary of State and our Minister have taken the proportionate response that the law will not extend to public spaces with hospitality. We should be mindful, however, that history does play out in public health and that people’s attitudes about what is acceptable does change. Therefore, leaving this issue open to allow that debate to continue within our political sphere is absolutely fair and proportionate.
Gregory Stafford
The hon. Lady makes a very good point, but it is almost one that supports mine—although she said she believed that the current statements from the Government are proportionate, I can already hear in her voice that actually, she would like to see this provision extended to those areas.
Dr Cooper
The hon. Gentleman raises a fair point. I am perhaps a public health consultant first and foremost and a politician second, but I do appreciate that in politics, we have to find fairness and balance and support people in their businesses, as well as being mindful of their health. As a public health consultant, I am looking at people’s health first and foremost, but I think this is the right place in Government to have this sort of legislation and this debate, so I am supportive of what is in the Bill. It is for people like me to make the argument that passive smoking outside hospitality, for example, is not the way forward, but as a politician, I absolutely appreciate that I have to be mindful of businesses. I therefore maintain that the proposals are balanced, but I take the hon. Gentleman’s point that I am a public health consultant, and I declare that as an interest.
Gregory Stafford
I thank the hon. Lady for her clarification. I have great respect for her public health abilities and knowledge. I accept the points that she made, but Opposition Members feel that including in the Bill areas that will potentially be consulted on being smoke-free is proportionate to ensure that there is not overreach. I know that if the amendments are accepted and, at a future point, attitudes and science change, she will be a doughty campaigner to have the law changed, and I am sure that she will achieve it, if that is the way she wants to go.
Dr Johnson
In response to what my hon. Friend and the hon. Lady the Member for Worthing West are saying, as a doctor, I have a lot of sympathy with her position. Certainly, if I take my children out for a meal in a restaurant and we sit outside in the summer, having a lovely day in the beer garden, and along comes a family or another group of people who sit and smoke, I dislike that. Whether it should be made illegal is a different matter, but it is something that I do not like.
As my hon. Friend said, there is a balance between enabling someone to do something that we have decided will be legal—that is, someone who is born in the right timeframe to be able to smoke—and giving them somewhere safe to do so. Over time, I suspect the measures that the Bill as a whole grants will lead to a reduction in smoking, which, of course, is its intention. As smoking becomes less prevalent, it is likely that smoking in front of children, particularly in outside hospitality spaces or in other places, will become less socially acceptable. We saw hospitality bring in non-smoking areas in the past.
The hon. Member for Winchester talked about having two different beer gardens in the same pub, one for smoking and one without. It is within the capacity of any given hospitality business to choose, as smoking becomes a minority and antisocial pastime, not to allow it within their facility, and to police that by throwing people out. It is also possible for individuals to choose not to attend a beer garden of a pub where smoking is allowed. To some extent, therefore, the ability of people to choose and vote with their feet, and the desire of the market and hospitality industries to maintain their custom, will surely have some effect on this over time.
Gregory Stafford
The shadow Minister is right. I do not want to stray into the main part of the clause, which we will come to, but one of the key reasons behind the Liberal Democrats’ amendment 4 and our amendment 95 is that we want to protect areas that may be negatively impacted from a business point of view, if the Government were to bring in restrictions on smoking in outdoor areas—and it is not just smoking, but smoking and vaping. I agree with the shadow Minister that if I go out with my children and sit in a pub beer garden or restaurant, I find it absolutely disgusting if there are people smoking around me. I generally vote with my feet, as I am sure other punters do, and do not go back to that pub or restaurant.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I rise to speak to amendments 4, 95 and 94; as they are very similar, my comments will apply in the generality. It is disappointing to hear the shadow Minister’s cynicism about the commitments made by the Minister at the Dispatch Box.
Mr Barros-Curtis
She may well have given a few examples—I can think of a litany of examples from the previous 14 years of Tory Government. However, that would stray from the amendments, and as we do not have the time, I will not indulge the Committee with that. But I would suggest that that cynicism is not merited because, as the Minister and his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care have shown in these sittings—
Gregory Stafford
I entirely agree with the shadow Minister’s point about broken promises from the Labour Government, but I do not think she was saying, and I certainly was not saying, that we currently hold any untoward view of the Minister or the Secretary of State. However, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that we do not know who the Secretary of State or the Minister might be in future Governments, and that they might not wish to be beholden to previous statements? That is why it is so important to make sure that we are clear about which open spaces we are talking about when we restrict people’s right to smoke and vape in them.
Mr Barros-Curtis
I am grateful for that intervention. I point the hon. Member to proposed new subsection (4), which reiterates that the Secretary of State “must consult” before any such regulations can be made. I am sure that will assuage his concerns about whoever the future Secretary of State may be, whether they are from this side of the House or, God forbid, the other side in a few decades’ time.
I will point out a couple of issues about the drafting of the amendments. Although I understand the position of Opposition Members, I think the proposals inadvertently cause issues and risk causing more confusion than may have been intended. For example, does
“an NHS property or hospital building”
include private healthcare providers that are undertaking NHS work either on NHS premises or off-site? What about subcontractors? When the amendment mentions
“a nursery, school, college or higher education premises”,
are we talking about where premises have had to be vacated because of the RAAC—reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—crisis and where children are being taught in portacabins in a council car park, one or two miles away from the original site? These definitions are lacking and may inadvertently cause gaps in the application of the measures, if the amendments were successful. What about premises used for youth prisons? Should that be captured or not, given what was said about protecting children from the dangers of smoking?
Notwithstanding the fact that I understand the intention behind the amendments and what Opposition Members have said, I think the drafting may inadvertently cause issues and undermine what the Minister has said, both here and at the Dispatch Box, about the parameters in which this set of regulations would be brought in. Those would be underscored by consultation and the commitments that have been made at the Dispatch Box. Although I appreciate and understand hon. Members’ comments, I suggest that the amendments are not necessary, for the reasons I have outlined, and I would encourage them, if the amendments are not withdrawn, perhaps to vote against them if they are pushed to a Division.
Sarah Bool
I respect the points made by the hon. Member for Cardiff West, because I understand that we do not want any unintended consequences. However, I would counter that by saying that although we perhaps need better definitions—that may be something we can consider—clause 136, as drafted, is incredibly wide, and any of the assurances that have been given to hospitality are merely words. There is absolutely no carve-out for the hospitality sector as this stands.
As much as I think the Minister is honourable in his intentions, unfortunately, we all know that we can go only on the law in front of us in black and white, and there is currently no security for the hospitality sector in this regard. We need to be incredibly clear about this with the hospitality sector, and we need the exclusion. One of the bigger concerns is that if people are not able to smoke—perhaps in a pub garden—it will force them into their homes, where they are actually more likely to drink and smoke more because they are not within that limited capacity of being out in public. We have to think about what the dangers are. Are we actually forcing people to take up worse habits in their private residence than if we allow them a little bit of flexibility in an open space?
I have a question about NHS properties generally. I appreciate that we want smoke-free places and that one wants to go into hospital and walk past people smoking, but I worry about those who have an addiction. Where do they go if they need to smoke, as they would if they are going through a process of cessation? What ends up happening as a result of all these provisions is that the smokers will just be forced down the road away from the property, but that has not really addressed the issue. We have just pushed the problem a few metres away.
We need to think in the round about how we best achieve our aim, how we deal with addiction, and how we clean up the hospital environment in a balanced and proportionate way. Perhaps the Minister has some other ideas, but I do not like the idea of just pushing some smokers down the road, rather than dealing with the issue at hand.
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful for our debate on amendments 4, 94 and 95. I am even more grateful that a lawyer, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West, is sitting behind me—as a non-lawyer, I note that it is always good for somebody to have one on their side. Indeed, the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire is a lawyer as well; in matters of law, there are always disagreements.
Amendments 4 and 95 would remove the power in the Bill to extend smoke-free places to any area that is a workplace or open to the public, including outdoor spaces in England. That would be replaced with a limited power to extend smoke-free places only to healthcare and education settings and to playgrounds. Amendment 94 would reinstate the test present in the Health Act 2006, which requires, in the Secretary of State’s opinion, a significant risk of exposure to significant quantities of smoke before being able to designate an additional place as smoke-free.
On extending smoke-free places, as we heard from a range of public health experts, evidence for the harm from exposure to second-hand smoke is well established. People exposed to second-hand smoke are at increased risk of cancer, chronic respiratory disease and cardiovascular disease. The World Health Organisation estimates that, every year, second-hand smoke kills up to 1.3 million people worldwide.
The science tells us three things about second-hand smoking. First, it poses a risk to health even outdoors. Secondly, it is particularly dangerous for vulnerable people, including children, pregnant women and those with pre-existing but usually invisible health conditions, such as asthma and diabetes. Thirdly, in some public settings, exposure to second-hand smoke can be high. If you can smell it, you are inhaling it.
It is important that the powers are broad, so that the Bill is appropriately future-proofed, as we have discussed in relation to other measures in the Bill.
Gregory Stafford
The Minister may come to this, and I am sorry to keep banging on about it, but I do not understand the future-proofing element of the clause and, therefore, why he opposes our amendments. Unless we have colonised Mars, surely there will be no new definition of an open space, or new wonderful industry way of claiming there is one. We know what open spaces are, and they are not going to change, so what is the future-proofing element?
Andrew Gwynne
The future-proofing element is if the science changes or, more likely, that over time public attitudes change. Smoking is already a minority pastime, and we expect that, in 25 years’ time, the prevalence of smoking among those aged 30 or below will be near to zero, so we will want to protect people from the scourge of second-hand smoke in other places. But that is a debate for other Ministers in other Sessions of other Parliaments at some stage in the future.
I do not want to tie the hands of my successors, so that they have to find a slot before the House for primary legislation to make simple changes. A far more practical and workable mechanism is for my successors to be able to come to the House to say, “The evidence has changed”, or, “Public opinion has changed”, and, “We now seek to consult the outside world on introducing further areas under the powers in the Bill”, and then to lay secondary legislation following the statutory duty to consult. Other areas can therefore come within the scope of the Bill.
Sarah Bool
I take the Minister’s point, but there is only a requirement to consult, so actually, completely unlimited powers have been given to make this change. We are trying to argue that we want the spaces to be clearly defined. It is important and right that we should come back to Parliament to make a change at a future point, if we want to extend the Bill further. But that will only be consultation, based on the current drafting, and a change could be pushed through regardless. The Labour party says that it is trying to support and back hospitality, so making this absolutely clear on the face of the Bill at this point will give hospitality the reassurance that it needs. I cannot see why there is any objection to more clarity, rather than overarching and wide powers. We are binding the hands of future generations and telling them that they cannot smoke and cannot vape—that right has gone—and then, on the other hand, we are saying, “I cannot bind the hands of my future successors”. We need reassurance and clarity for hospitality, and that is not in the Bill.
Andrew Gwynne
I have at no stage said that Ministers would not come back to Parliament. What I have said is that we should not be seeking to find one of those rare things—a slot in a King’s Speech for primary legislation—for something as simple as consulting on further areas.
I also remind the hon. Lady that the powers in the Bill are UK-wide. They do not give just the Secretary of State, or me as the Public Health Minister, the powers to consult in relation to England; they give the same powers to the Scottish Health Minister, the Welsh Health Minister and the Northern Irish Health Minister to consult and to bring forward secondary legislation on extensions following that.
We have been absolutely clear that the Government intend, in relation to England, to consult on schools, hospitals and children’s playgrounds—nothing else. It is those three things. That is our intention. The level of detail will be subject to the consultation. If in the consultation it is deemed that the measure should be extended to other NHS facilities beyond hospitals or to nurseries as part of an education setting, that will be entirely a matter for the consultation, and secondary legislation will therefore be brought to this House. But it is our intention—I cannot make it any clearer—that the three areas this Government are going to consult on are hospitals, outside schools and children’s play areas. We are not going to consult on hospitality. That is clear.
My counterparts in other parts of the United Kingdom may well come to a different decision on which areas to consult on. They may not consult at all.
Gregory Stafford
I thank the Minister for his clarity about what he and the Secretary of State are going to consult on; I take him at his word, of course. But is he not now demonstrating the concerns that we have? Other parts of the United Kingdom will potentially consult on retail. Therefore, the amendment is absolutely necessary. Although I am an England Member of Parliament and care mostly about the good people of Farnham, Bordon, Haslemere, Liphook and the surrounding villages, I have a wider duty as a Member of Parliament to ensure that the hospitality businesses of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are protected. I am afraid that the Minister has really worried me with what he has just said.
Andrew Gwynne
I can speak only for England, but I am legislating for the United Kingdom with the permission of Health Ministers. It may well be that Health Ministers in other parts of the United Kingdom decide not to consult at all. In Wales, for example, they already have the coverage of all the areas that we are going to consult on in England.
The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon says he is now even more worried. Well, I tell him this: worry not, because his amendment relates to England only. If he is so mithered about the rights of the Welsh to consult Welsh business on Welsh matters, he should have put Wales in his amendment. If he so bothered about the rights of the Scots to consult on Scottish matters with Scottish business, he should have put Scotland in his amendment. If he is so bothered about the rights of the Northern Irish to consult Northern Irish business about Northern Irish matters, he should have put Northern Ireland on the face of his amendment. He doth protest too much, Mr Pritchard!
The hon. Gentleman has actually made my case for why these measures are proportionate: they cover the whole of the United Kingdom and it will be down to Ministers in the respective parts of the United Kingdom to decide who they will consult, why they will consult and what areas they will consult on. But as far as England is concerned, I cannot be any clearer: hospitality is out of the scope of our consultation. We will consult on three things: hospitals, schools and play areas.
Dr Caroline Johnson
I thank the Minister for giving way, although I would point out that it was not my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon’s amendment at all.
Dr Johnson
He is supporting it, but the Minister asked why my hon. Friend did not include things in it. The answer is that he did not write it. The amendments were written by others, one by the Liberal Democrats, and supported by him, which is not the same thing.
The Minister will no doubt have caused concern for the people in hospitality industries in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland who are following proceedings today. Could he tell the Committee a bit about the discussions he has had with his counterparts? Have any of them indicated to him their intent regarding hospitality areas in their designated parts of the United Kingdom?
Andrew Gwynne
I certainly can. I have had umpteen conversations with Health Ministers from across the United Kingdom, and none of them has indicated to me that they intend to extend this to hospitality. But the point is that, as Ministers in their own legal jurisdictions, it for them to decide who they are going to consult and on what basis they are going to consult. In terms of the powers in this Bill, which areas they want to extend—if any—is a matter for them. It is not a matter for me or for this Parliament.
We are merely legislating to give those Health Ministers the tools; if they wish to go beyond the scope that the English Ministers are setting out, it is their right to do so. That is the devolution settlement. But they will, of course, have the statutory duty to consult, and they will, of course—I would imagine—want to work with businesses, in Northern Ireland, in Wales, or in Scotland, to make sure that whatever measures they bring forward are right and workable, just as we would in the Department of Health and Social Care, should we decide, at some stage in the future, to go further again.
Dr Johnson
I doubt whether the Minister has provided a huge amount of reassurance to the hospitality sectors in those jurisdictions.
I want to pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff West in his intervention about prisons. As far as I can tell, closed prisons are smoke-free environments—that is already the case both inside and outside—but I understand that prisoners in closed prisons are allowed to vape, including in their cells, where they may be vaping near other prisoners who may not wish them to have that choice. We are depriving people of their liberty for good reason when sending them to prison, but we should not be exposing them to chemical vapour as part of that if they are not vapers themselves.
Could the Minister talk to us about the discussions he has had with Justice Ministers about how provision is made for the public health of those currently in prison?
Andrew Gwynne
I am grateful to the shadow Minister, who is now making my case perfectly for why we need to have the regulations as we do. It may well be that, at some stage in the future, a Public Health Minister, or indeed the Secretary of State, having had conversations with and guidance from the Ministry of Justice, seeks to quickly and simply extend provisions within the prison estate. Were the hon. Lady’s amendments to pass, the ability to do that would not be in the Bill.
We have had conversations with Ministers across Government. This Bill has been subject to the usual write-around, so it has the collective support of the Ministry of Justice. The details of which areas would be in or out of the scope of different measures within the Bill will be a matter for the regulations and for consultation. With that, the shadow Minister has precisely made the case for why having things prescriptively in the Bill ties the hands of Ministers.
Dr Johnson
The Minister is suggesting that to be able to restrict access to these products in prisons, he needs to have a wide scope within clause 136. Given that prisons are already smoke-free areas, that surely cannot be the case.
Andrew Gwynne
No, but the point the hon. Lady is making is about what conversations Ministers have had with other Ministers to extend the scope, to protect the rights of others and so on. It is precisely for that reason that the Bill is drafted as it is. At some stage in the future, a Government Minister in another Department may well decide that they want to extend the scope, using the powers we are talking about. Under her amendment, we would then have to find a slot in primary legislation to amend a piece of primary legislation. That is precisely why her amendments are unworkable.
The mechanism in place would allow a consultation on an extension; following consultation, secondary legislation would be debated as part of the affirmative process—there would be a debate, a discussion, and a vote in Parliament. That is precisely why the amendments are unworkable, and I call on the Committee to resist them.
I move on to the removal of the test in the Health Act 2006. That is to enable the Secretary of State to more easily make regulations designating outdoor spaces as smoke-free, but only where such a space is a workplace or open to the public. Reinserting the test would conflict with our intention to extend smoke-free status to places I have mentioned—for example, children’s playgrounds probably do not meet the requirement of there being significant risk of significant quantities of smoke. However, making them smoke-free would almost certainly protect some of the most vulnerable.
Since 2006, the evidence base for harms of second-hand smoking has evolved. It is therefore necessary to update the current legislation, as clause 136 does, to provide more flexibility should the Government wish to designate additional smoke-free places in future.
Dr Johnson
The Minister is making a reasonable point. However, the evidence can change on what constitutes a significant amount of smoke—in the past, people may have believed that someone had to be smoking in order to come to harm and then that someone could also come to harm in an enclosed indoor environment with someone smoking. It may be that the evidence now shows that even being in proximity to someone smoking outdoors—the fact that you can smell it means you are breathing it in—means you are coming to harm on some level. But does the amendment not account for that with the word “significant”? Amendment 94 says:
“if in the Secretary of State’s opinion there is a significant risk that, without a designation, persons present there would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke.”
A significant quantity of smoke may in the past have been considered to be quite a high volume, but now might be a much lower volume. The flexibility the Minister is seeking is already provided for in the amendment.
Andrew Gwynne
The shadow Minister would probably have a large degree of sympathy—at least one of her Back Benchers less so—with our updating the Health Act 2006 to allow us to take action to make more places smoke-free. We think that is right. We now have the ambition to make the whole United Kingdom smoke-free, and this is part of that effort.
Dr Johnson
The Minister is being generous with his time. He knows my thoughts on smoking and vaping, particularly in relation to children, and how important I think creating a smoke-free and nicotine-free generation is—although he does not share the second part. He is talking about how the Secretary of State needs to be able to move with the evidence. I completely and utterly agree with that, but the clause says that there is a significant risk that without designation, persons present will be exposed to significant quantities of smoke.
I support the addition of the smoke-free legislation for spaces like playgrounds. If a playground were to be included, the Secretary of State could quite easily justify that by saying that even seeing someone smoking would encourage children to smoke, particularly if it is their parents, and that therefore it is a sensible action to take.
The words—drafted, I believe by the Minister’s predecessors—are “exposure to significant quantities”. “Exposure” does not necessarily mean breathing it in; children could be seeing it across the playground. “Significant quantities” does not necessarily mean a quantity enough to do them harm. If they cannot see it, they are not being exposed to it and it is not doing them harm, why would we want to stop it happening?
Andrew Gwynne
The point is that that is open to interpretation; that now runs counter to our ambition to have a smoke-free United Kingdom. We have put in place a much more flexible and workable measure. The measure from 2006 was right for 2006, but it is not right for 2027, when we hope to introduce the Bill. That is why we are looking to the measures in the Bill rather than the measures as they stood in 2006.
Lastly, I remind the shadow Minister that her amendments apply only to the clause in the Bill that relates to England. If we agreed to them, the powers in England would not be consistent with the powers in the rest of the devolved jurisdictions across the United Kingdom. This is a UK-wide Bill that provides a consistent legislative framework for the whole of the United Kingdom—all four nations—while allowing devolved nations to go further on subsequent regulations if they so wish. For these reasons, I ask hon. Members to withdraw their amendments.
Dr Chambers
I think that the official Opposition’s amendment is better, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 95, in clause 136, page 77, line 12, at end insert—
“The Secretary of State may only make regulations designating external or open spaces as smoke-free in England outside—
(a) an NHS property or hospital building,
(b) a children’s playground, or
(c) a nursery, school, college or higher education premises.”.—(Dr Johnson.)
This amendment restricts the Secretary of State to only being able to designate open or unenclosed spaces outside a hospital, children’s playground, school or nursery.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I will make a couple of housekeeping points before we move on. First, if there is an amendment, it has to be formally moved. Secondly, could hon. Members not say “you”? Remarks have to be through the Chair. I have let it go for a bit, but most people have been here long enough to know the rules of the House.
Amendment proposed: 94, in clause 136, page 77, line 21, at end insert—
“The Secretary of State may designate a place or description of place under this section only if in the Secretary of State’s opinion there is a significant risk that, without a designation, persons present there would be exposed to significant quantities of smoke.”.— (Dr Johnson.)
This amendment would re-instate existing section 4(3) in the Health Act 2006.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Jim Dickson
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 136, page 77, leave out lines 26 to 29 and insert—
“(a) for subsection (1A) substitute—
‘(1A) The Secretary of State must, no later than the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2025 is passed, lay draft regulations to be made under this section which have the effect of providing for all enclosed vehicles to be smoke-free, other than vehicles of the type described in subsection (3).
(1B) Regulations may make provisions about the meaning of “enclosed vehicle”, which may include vehicles which are partially enclosed or enclosed (or capable of being enclosed) for some but not all of the time.’”.
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to make regulations which would extend the existing prohibition on smoking in vehicles to all enclosed vehicles except ships and hovercraft which are regulated under other legislation. The prohibition currently only applies to workplace vehicles and vehicles carrying under 18s.
Amendment 10 requires the Secretary of State to make regulations that would extend the existing prohibition on smoking in vehicles to all enclosed vehicles except ships and hovercraft, which are regulated under other legislation. As hon. Members will know, the prohibition currently applies only to workplace vehicles and vehicles carrying under-18s. The 2015 ban on smoking in cars that contained children was a really important moment in in public health. It raised awareness about the harms of second-hand smoking in enclosed spaces and protected many children from being exposed to those harms.
Gregory Stafford
I agree that the regulations on smoking in private vehicles with under-18s were symbolically the right thing to do. Is there evidence either that the ban was in any way enforceable, or that it had any impact on public health?
Jim Dickson
I thank the hon. Member for those comments; I will do my best to answer them. Compliance with the measure is still not where we would like it to be: the last survey undertaken by an independent company on behalf of Action on Smoking and Health indicates that 9% of 11 to 15-year-olds say that
“they travel in a car with someone smoking some days, most days or every day in 2024.”
The current law also does not protect those with clinical vulnerabilities. The smoke-free powers in this Bill are driven by a desire to protect people with clinical vulnerabilities from second-hand smoke. That includes pregnant women and those with asthma and lung conditions, among others. No smoker wants to harm their family, friends, pets or co-workers, so no smoker should smoke in an enclosed vehicle.
The evidence is clear: concentrations of smoke in vehicles where someone is smoking are greater than in any other small, enclosed space. If we are to be led by the evidence when extending smoke-free places, we have to consider vehicles. That would provide consistency in policy and raise awareness of the harms of second-hand smoke even further than they currently extend. It would be easier to enforce than the current law, where we have to check who else is in the vehicle, and would make the regulations on vehicles simpler and easier to understand—“It’s a straightforward ban; you can’t do it.” Finally, it is worth pointing out that it is supported by the public, with 67% of British adults saying they are in favour of an outright ban on smoking in vehicles.
Dr Johnson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his clear explanation of what he wishes to achieve. I have great sympathy with it, because nobody wants to see people making their health worse by smoking in a car. However, his statistics are quite interesting. He said that 9% of children find themselves on a regular basis in a car where someone is smoking, yet the Minister has said already this morning that 11% of people smoke. Given that not all of the 11% of people who smoke have children with whom they travel in a car, that implies that the measure is pretty badly enforced and badly adhered to at the moment. He might argue that a complete ban in all vehicles would make it more uniform and easier to enforce, but I am not sure that that is the case.
I will be interested to hear from the Minister when he responds to the amendment whether he has any information or statistics on the number of prosecutions that have occurred under the current legislation. I support the legislation that prevents someone from smoking in a car with children, and I would support an extension of that to include vaping and other nicotine products. I would also support a ban on people smoking while driving; if someone is holding a lit cigarette in their hand, that will have an impact on their ability to manoeuvre the car, particularly in an emergency situation.
Essentially the hon. Member is proposing to say to someone in a parked-up vehicle, perhaps in someone’s drive, “Although you are in a private space, you are not able to smoke.” I understand what he said about no smoker wanting to hurt someone—I am sure that is true—but I cannot imagine that there is any adult smoker that does not realise that smoking in a car with children is bad for the children. I find it very difficult to believe that that would be the case. I invite him to consider whether he is trying to prevent what is a legal activity—even under this Bill, if someone is the right age—in a private space that is theirs and theirs alone?
Gregory Stafford
My comments follow on the shadow Minister’s. My understanding of amendment 10 is that, even if the occupant of the vehicle is entirely alone in their private vehicle, the hon. Member for Dartford is seeking to ban them from smoking in that vehicle. We are in danger here of overreaching on what we need to do to achieve a smoke-free generation.
Jim Dickson
The hon. Gentleman is making his point very articulately. The idea that smoking legislation is an overreach is not new. Just about every change over the last 30 years—changes that have helped to cut very significantly the number of people affected by smoking-related diseases—has been described as an overreach. A lot of this is about public acceptability, and nearly all the polling accepts that a great majority of adults would see this not as an overreach, but as a welcome change.
Gregory Stafford
I do not pretend to have deep wisdom and insight into the whole population’s view on this, and I have not seen the studies the hon. Gentleman talks about, but I accept them. My concern is the need to be careful about the balance between the stated ambitions of all of us—or certainly most of us—on the Committee to reduce smoking as much as possible, and the rights confined within the Bill. If someone is legally allowed to smoke—that is, they were born prior to 1 January 2009—or is over 18 in the case of vaping, and they are in the privacy of their own vehicle without harming anybody else in said vehicle, they can do so. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment is a step too far.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
I agree with my hon. Friend that this is a step too far. Does he also agree that this would be an enormous waste of police time? The police often get their priorities wrong as it stands, but the idea that they should spend time prosecuting smoking in a private vehicle is clearly a waste of police time.
Gregory Stafford
I have much sympathy with my hon. Friend’s point of view. I must confess, I am not clear—I am sure the hon. Member for Dartford will be able to tell us—who will enforce this regulation. If it is the police, then I agree with my hon. Friend that it is an unnecessary burden.
Jim Dickson
The police currently have responsibility to enforce a whole range of activities that take place within a car, such as mobile phone use. It would in no way be a new concept for the police to enforce something of this nature. If they saw someone in a car with a cigarette, they would be able to stop the car and apply a penalty as they currently do with other types of behaviour within cars.
Gregory Stafford
I accept that point, but I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor’s point was that the police do not currently have powers to stop people who are driving dangerously. I completely accept that they should stop people using their mobile phones or doing things that constitute dangerous driving. The shadow Minister gave the view that smoking a cigarette could be counted as driving without due care and attention or dangerous driving, so that may be a way of enforcing it. However, I think that having the police stop someone simply smoking in their own vehicle—something that is legal in every other private location—when they are over the legal age required in the Bill and they are not harming anybody else, is an overreach.
Dr Johnson
The key difference between a mobile phone and a cigarette is that with mobile phones, it is the driver using a mobile phone while driving that is the problem. If one is pulled over in a parking space in one’s private car, one can use one’s mobile phone to one’s heart’s content, and likewise when one is parked in one’s drive. If one wants to sit in one’s car on one’s drive and use a mobile phone, provided the car is stationary, that is also a legal thing to do. What the hon. Member for Dartford is suggesting is not that someone is unable to smoke while driving, which would be quite a sensible measure, but that if one’s car is stationary and private and one is essentially alone in an enclosed space like one’s home, one still would not be allowed to smoke, which seems a little odd.
Gregory Stafford
I completely agree with the shadow Minister. I have two final points. Proposed new subsection (1B) makes reference to the meaning of an enclosed vehicle. I just want to clarify what that means. The amendment says:
“which may include vehicles which are partially enclosed or enclosed (or capable of being enclosed) for some but not all of the time.”
Is the amendment trying to capture convertible cars—someone driving with the top down on a sunny day?
Jim Dickson
The amendment is not intended to change the way that the current legislation relates to individual vehicles, merely the activity happening within them, and that currently permits smoking in open-top vehicles with the hood down, i.e. unenclosed. The amendment does not propose any change to that.
Gregory Stafford
That is a helpful clarification. Finally, in the explanatory statement, it says that enclosed vehicles account for everything “except ships and hovercraft” apparently because that is “regulated under other legislation”. Perhaps it is in a later amendment, but why did the hon. Member decide not to amend the regulations for ships and hovercraft? Is that because he is hoping to get a private Member’s Bill at some point to change whatever legislation governs hovercraft and ships—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the shadow Minister whispers to me, “It’s further down,” so that clarifies the point for me.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Third sitting)
Tuesday 28th January 2025
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 View all Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 January 2025 - (28 Jan 2025)
The Chair
Q
Dr Clarke: I am Dr Rachel Clarke. I am a hospital palliative care doctor with a decade practising in a whole range of settings: the community, hospices, small district general hospitals and a large teaching hospital. I am also a former journalist and a current author who has written four best-selling books for the public about medicine in the UK. I campaign very actively for greater awareness amongst the public around the topic of death and dying. I have extensive experience teaching communication skills to medical students, junior doctors, nurses and other members of multidisciplinary teams. My personal view on assisted dying is that I am not opposed in principle, but I have significant concerns around the issues of consent and capacity.
James Sanderson: Good afternoon. My name is James Sanderson. I am the chief executive of Sue Ryder, a leading palliative and end-of-life care organisation, which also supports people living with grief and bereavement. I have recently joined Sue Ryder and have been there for six months. I was previously in NHS England as director of community health services, personalised care and palliative and end-of-life care. I am also the former chief executive of the Independent Living Fund.
Sue Ryder, as an organisation, has adopted a neutral position in regard to the assisted dying Bill. I am here today to provide information regarding the provision of palliative and end-of-life care and some of our concerns in relation to how the system is currently operating across the country.
Dr Cox: I am Sarah Cox. I am a consultant in palliative medicine. I have been in palliative care for over 30 years. I am also the president of the Association for Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and Ireland. It is a member organisation with over 1,400 members. Naturally, there are different views amongst our membership, but in polls over the last 10 years, the results show that about 80% of our members are opposed to the legalisation of assisted dying and about 5% are in favour. The reason for this opposition are many, but include the inadequate current provision of palliative care, which does not offer patients a choice, concerns about how the safeguards would be enacted in this Bill, and concerns about the impact of assisted dying on palliative care resources, funding and the workforce.
Dr Ahmedzai: Thank you very much for inviting me here today. My name is Sam Ahmedzai. I am a retired professor—a professor emeritus—of palliative medicine from the University of Sheffield. I have—not boasting, Sarah—39 years of experience in the speciality. I was one of the people involved in setting up the new speciality of palliative medicine back in the 1980s. My experience is of working in a hospice for nine years, and then 20 years as a consultant and professor at the University of Sheffield.
I am a clinical academic, so I very much take an evidence-based view of healthcare, and palliative care is just another kind of healthcare. For instance, I chaired the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance on the last days of life. I was also clinical adviser to the NICE guidance NG142 on service delivery in the last year of life. I come from that background. I have experience of lecturing and working around the world as a visiting academic. For 10 years, I was the visiting Spinoza professor at the University of Amsterdam, where I lectured people who were delivering euthanasia in Amsterdam about what they could do through palliative medicine as well. That is where I am coming from. I am a supporter of changing the law, and I commend the Bill. It is the safest I have seen in the world.
The Chair
Members should indicate if they wish to ask a question and who they wish to ask.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
Q
James Sanderson: There are clearly gaps in the provision of palliative care. However, to start with a positive, I think that the provision of palliative care in this country is exceptional. We are leaders in many ways across the world in the way in which we support people who are facing those challenges in their lives. However, our findings in relation to palliative care show that, although about 90% of the population could benefit from palliative care, only 50% of people are currently able to access it.
One of our concerns is that the provision of palliative care across the country is quite patchy at the moment. I do not think there has been a thorough assessment of the level of palliative care in place—not just the provision of palliative care specifically, but how other services, such as district nursing services, interact with palliative care. In some areas, the provision of district nursing services for general care and support for people who may be at the end of their life is very strong and in other areas it is not so strong.
At Sue Ryder, there is one thing that we are really concerned about. In our survey, 77% of respondents said that they were concerned that the lack of availability of palliative care might enable more people to consider an assisted death than otherwise would. That concern went up to 84% for those who were in favour of assisted dying. We really need to look at the provision of palliative care and the specifics in the Bill that make reference to the fact that people should be offered what is available to them. We need to have a much clearer definition of what “available” means.
Naz Shah
Q
“I have studied the reports from, and spoken with medical and nursing clinicians from US and Australian jurisdictions and am satisfied that external coercion has never been reported or led to a prosecution.”
The state of Oregon carried out a survey of people who died under its assisted dying scheme in 2023. Its report stated that 43% of those who chose to die said they did so because they felt they were, and I quote directly from the term used in the survey, a
“Burden on family, friends/caregivers”.
Is that something you are prepared to see happen in the UK?
Dr Ahmedzai: It goes absolutely to the core of being British—we are always saying sorry, aren’t we? We apologise for everything. In everything we do, or everything we might do, we think we might be treading on toes and are always worried about being an imposition. All my professional life, I have come across patients and families in which there clearly is that feeling going on, usually with an older person or even a younger person who is drawing a lot on the emotional and physical resources of the family. It is natural that we feel a burden; it is impossible to take that out of human nature.
The issue is, does feeling that one is, or might become, a burden something that could influence a decision as major as looking for assisted dying? In that respect, I look to all those jurisdictions that have been offering assisted dying in different ways, and I have never seen a single case ever taken to the police or prosecuted. Evidence I have heard from other jurisdictions shows that, yes, it is possible—we all go through life feeling that we are a burden on someone—but it does not influence people in this particular decision. If anything, I am told that, in other jurisdictions, families are saying, “No, don’t do it.” They are exerting negative coercion—“don’t do it” coercion—but people are saying, “No. It’s my life. I’ve made my mind up.” They have mental capacity, and we respect that.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
Q
Dr Clarke: Based on my clinical experience, I would push back on that in the strongest terms. I am the kind of doctor who believes there is nothing to be gained from sugar coating reality. We have to be absolutely honest with patients and the public about shortcomings, failings and areas where my profession and the rest of the NHS are getting things wrong.
It is my clinical experience that not only are the majority of doctors not necessarily trained in spotting coercion explicitly, but they are often not trained explicitly in having so-called advance care planning conversations with patients around the topic of death and dying, and how a patient would like the end of their life to proceed. It is almost impossible for me to overstate how much avoidable suffering occurs right now in the NHS not because of a lack of resources for palliative care—although that is an enormous problem—but because of a lack of confidence, skill and expertise among the medical profession writ large with these very difficult conversations.
We are all familiar with the idea of death and dying being a taboo in society. People are scared of it, and they hesitate to bring it up with their friends and family. In my experience, many medical students and doctors also suffer from that anxiety. They are scared, and they find it a taboo subject. What that means is that sometimes coercion occurs because the doctor—the consultant responsible for this person’s care—will not even bring up the fact that they think the patient is dying, because it is an uncomfortable conversation. Conversely, I have worked with senior hospital consultants in the NHS who have deliberately prevented our team from accessing their patients, because they believe that the hospital palliative care team wants to kill the patients, and that if I go and see the patient, I will give them a lethal dose of drugs.
These are the kinds of extraordinary misunderstandings and failures to prioritise patient autonomy that are happening now. That is even before we get started on conversations around whether someone would like to consider assisted dying, so it is a huge problem.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Q
Dr Ahmedzai: I have visited many of the jurisdictions around the world—such as Oregon, where I met the original judge who brought in the law, as well as the doctors, nurses and patients involved—and it was clear to me that if patients had not accessed palliative care, they were pointed towards it. Obviously, you cannot force anybody to go and have palliative care, but they were certainly informed about it.
In the Netherlands, I commend a system for doctors called SCEN—support and consultation on euthanasia in the Netherlands. These are trained doctors working for the equivalent of the BMA, I believe, who, as Dr Clarke has referred to, are going and supporting doctors who are not familiar with things. They often come from a background of palliative care and pain medicine, so they are making options available that other doctors in the process, for instance, have not brought up. In Australia, there is clear evidence that palliative care is becoming more available.
The European Association for Palliative Care produced a report more than 10 years ago in which it examined all the countries in Europe at the time, and it found there was evidence that palliative care was improving in scope and availability alongside the forms of assisted dying that were happening there. I am reassured that bringing in some form of assisted dying, particularly the form proposed here, would be a boost to palliative care.
One of the things I would like to see is that anybody who is involved in the process is constantly asking the patient, “What about palliative care? Have you actually accessed it?” Right now, if they have not raised their hand and asked for assisted dying, no one has that conversation with them. They are in a vacuum and a bubble, and not receiving palliative care, whereas this provision would possibly make it more available.
The Chair
Order. I do not want to squash any discussion, but I ask Members and the panel to bear in mind that we have until 3.15 pm for this session. I will be as lenient as I can with questions.
Dr Tidball
Q
Dr Ahmedzai: In the interests of brevity, yes.
Dr Tidball
Q
“entirely consistent with current medical practice and with compassionate care”
to raise assisted dying. You also said that raising the topic did not have adverse effects. How could clause 4 be strengthened to ensure that patients are presented with a range of treatment options at the end of life and relay any concerns that others have raised about suggestibility where this is mentioned in isolation?
Dr Ahmedzai: That is a complicated question. The first point is that right now, as Dr Clarke pointed out, it is scary to patients to be told that they may actually be receiving palliative care. When it has been mentioned—by an oncologist, for example—many patients say, “I do not want that. Don’t let them come anywhere near me or anywhere near my relatives.” It is not unusual that people may have an adverse reaction to just hearing about the service, but here the difference is that the person has actually asked for it.
I personally believe that it would be advantageous if there was formal training, as Dr Clarke has mentioned, specifically to have the kinds of conversations that we now talk about, such as about psychological issues and suicidal tendencies. It used to be thought that if you mentioned suicide to somebody, it would give them the idea, but of course it does not; it saves them, because they say, “Thank you. Yes, I was having those thoughts.” Bringing up assisted dying is never going to be harmful to the person, even if they had not thought of it. They will just say, “Well, it is not for me.”
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
Q
Dr Cox: Professor Ahmedzai has talked about the evidence, which was written up to 10 years ago. There is actually more recent evidence, looking at the last 10 years, where European countries and American states have been assessed in terms of the development of palliative care services. That more recent evidence shows that although palliative care services have improved in those countries where assisted dying has been implemented, they have improved three times more in countries where assisted dying has not been implemented. The evidence from that study shows that the implementation of assisted dying is impeding the development of palliative care services.
The other thing we are really concerned about is the impact on funding. It is unclear how this is going to be funded. It looks as if it is going to be within healthcare, and if so, there will inevitably be competition with other aspects of healthcare, including palliative care, for those limited resources. There are finite numbers of doctors, nurses and side rooms in hospitals. If palliative care and assisted dying were funded from the same pot, I think there would be a massive detrimental effect on palliative care because we would be in competition for a limited resource.
I am also concerned about our palliative care workforce, which we know is already in crisis. Eighty-three per cent. of our members told the Royal College of Physicians in 2023 that they had staffing gaps, and more than 50% were unable to take leave because of those staffing gaps. Forty-three per cent. said that if assisted dying were implemented within their organisation, they would have to leave. This has a massive impact on palliative care, in terms of its potential to develop both our funding and our workforce, who are really concerned about this.
Rebecca Paul
Q
Dr Cox: The first thing to say is that palliative care is currently inadequate. Not only do we need to ensure that it does not decline, but we need to massively improve it so that this Bill offers patients a real choice. We know that effective palliative care can change a terminally ill person’s point of view from wanting to die to wanting to live.
We also know that 25% of people who die in this country do not have the palliative care they need. That is more than 100,000 people a year. Providing palliative care, which might make their lives better, reduce their suffering and even change their perspective on whether they would want assisted dying, should be our priority in reducing suffering in this group.
I do not know how we prevent this from happening. Making sure that palliative care has separate funding is important, because assisted dying and palliative care need to be separate in how they are delivered and in how they are funded.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
Q
Dr Clarke: The fundamental principle is always that, by default, the patient has capacity unless there is clear evidence that they do not. We presume that patients have capacity. As doctors, we are obliged to ensure that patients have informed consent when deciding between different treatments. That means we need to lay out the whole array of treatment options, and the risks and benefits of each, to empower individual patients to make decisions for themselves.
Regarding the issue that has been alluded to of whether doctors should be prohibited from raising the issue of assisted dying, it is my belief that that would fundamentally alter the doctor-patient relationship. If consent is not informed—and it is not informed if we are not laying out all the different options to a patient—we are denying patients the opportunity to make decisions for themselves. A patient is always able to refuse every treatment, and in particular every life-prolonging treatment, that they choose to, provided they have capacity. We, as doctors, may think that a decision is unwise, but that is irrelevant, because those days of bad old paternalistic medicine are gone. The patient makes the choice. If a patient says, “I do not want chemotherapy. I do not want to eat. I do not want anything at all—no treatment”, we respect that, unless they lack capacity.
The elephant in the room with all of this is the capacity assessments. I would suggest that anybody who pretends that those assessments are easy and routinely done well in the NHS has not got enough experience of observing that happening. I teach capacity assessments to doctors and medical students, and it is often the case that they are very poorly conducted. The doctor often does not understand the criteria for assessing capacity. That is if it happens at all. Sometimes, a paternalistic doctor will decide that a patient is dying, and we should stop their antibiotics because they are clearly now at the end of their life. They have a chat with the family, who say, “Yes, we agree,” and nobody talks to 82-year-old Mrs. Smith and asks her what she feels about it, because they assume that she does not have capacity because she is old. I see that regularly. Sometimes, a palliative care team will intervene in those situations, because the professional and legal framework that is meant to guide this practice is just not happening. It is a very fraught and tricky area.
If there is one thing that I would say to the Committee regarding making the Bill as robust, strong and safe as possible, it is: please consider seriously the matter of education and training from day one of medical school onwards. Death is at the periphery of a medical school curriculum. Death and dying are not taught. You might get a week of palliative care in five years, and that has knock-on effects all the way through, at every level of seniority in the medical workforce.
Sarah Green
Q
Dr Clarke: Yes, I think that in the spirit of transparency and making this as safe as possible, it needs to be significantly strengthened. I would suggest that there need to be more safeguards in place. For example, if anyone in a hospital—whether staff, patient or family member—has concerns around a particular case, there should be mechanisms for those to be raised in a proactive way. Just as we have guardians of safe working and freedom to speak up guardians in hospitals, those opportunities to assess and appraise the safety in real time once a Bill is in place—I just do not think they are robust enough at all. The more we can have of that, the more that will allay people’s fears.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Q
Dr Ahmedzai: You have caught me on the hop, because I cannot quote the level of training that doctors have received elsewhere, except for examples in the Netherlands, where there are additional doctors who are, through their medical association, trained specifically in assisted dying. I cannot tell you the number of years’ experience that doctors have in other countries. I felt that it was self-evident that you would want doctors who are experienced—three years, five years or whatever post qualification—and who have seen real life. It is up to the medical associations to stipulate how much experience, but I would not like the idea of a doctor immediately, having got their certificate of training, going off and making these kinds of decisions. That is why I suggested that ballpark figure.
Daniel Francis
Q
Dr Ahmedzai: Probably not, but this is a very, very special situation, and it may be, once it has become embedded in the health service, that that stipulation could move back.
I am so glad that Dr Clarke keeps coming back to training. One thing that is absolutely needed if this Bill goes forward is to take the topic of assisted dying out of being an optional training—where people might sign up for a course—to become mandatory. In the NHS, we do mandatory training for all sorts of things, including washing hands, lifting and basic life support. There should be basic dying support mandatory training as well. Why do we not have that? That kind of provision would become part of training doctors up to become good at those conversations that Dr Clarke is obviously involved in teaching, and in ensuring that they keep up to date with how the law is changing too. I would look to the royal colleges and the GMC to lead on those aspects.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
Q
Dr Clarke: I absolutely agree that in a small number of cases, palliative care at the highest level cannot eradicate all suffering, and cannot prevent a person from wishing to end their life and have assistance in ending their life. That is absolutely the case; I would say that it happens surprisingly uncommonly, in my experience, but it does happen.
Autonomy is the crux of the issue for me, because autonomy is predicated on having meaningful choices. Can you actually choose option a or option b? Let us say that option a is high-quality not just palliative care, but medical care in general—district nursing care or social care, for example. If that is not available to you, you are potentially being pushed towards “choosing” option b—the route of assisted dying—not freely and not autonomously, but because option a has been denied to you by real-world failures. We all know about those real-world conditions—we are all familiar with the latest winter crisis, where patients have been dying on trolleys in corridors, etc—that are preventing the actual option of a death in which dignity, comfort and even moments of joy can be maintained right up until the end of life, when that patient is getting the high-quality palliative NHS and social care that they need.
That is the crux of the issue. If you do not have that as a real option for patients, we can say that they are choosing autonomously assisted dying, but actually society is coercing them into that so-called choice because it is not funding the care that makes them feel as though life is worth living. That is why I think many of my colleagues are so concerned about legal change now. It is not because of an opposition to assisted dying in principle. It is because the real-world conditions of the NHS today are such that people’s suffering means that occasionally they will beg me to end their life, and I know that that begging comes not from the cancer, for example, per se, but because they have been at home not getting any adequate pain relief. Once you start to provide proper palliative care, very often that changes.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
Q
Dr Cox: I and my colleagues have concerns about the safeguards in the Bill. It is not just the capacity assessment; we also acknowledge that prognosis is incredibly difficult to assess accurately. I would say that you cannot always identify coercion. You can identify it when it is very obvious and extreme, but when it is very subtle, we cannot always identify it. After the event, there is nobody to tell us about coercion, so it is very difficult to monitor.
The other thing that concerns me is that we are putting all these assessments on the shoulders of two doctors individually, followed up by a High Court judge. In any other clinical practice, when we are making very serious decisions, we know that shared decisions are much better quality, much more robust and much safer. In clinical practice, we make all these decisions in multi-professional teams. I would never make these decisions independently of my team, because the perspective they bring can help me to understand things that I am not seeing.
The thing that I am really concerned about is how it is possible for these doctors, even with training, to have a good understanding of all illnesses in order that they can identify prognosis—neurological, cancer and every other. How is it possible for them to really understand capacity when capacity is not an absolute; it does change and it is very complex to assess? How is it possible for them to see all cases of coercion, which can be invisible?
In addition to that, are those doctors going to be looking out for opportunities to refer to palliative care when they see somebody who has suffering that could be addressed and may change their mind? Are they looking out for untreated depression? We know that treatment of depression can result in people changing their minds about wanting to die. It is a lot to ask these individual doctors to do, and that really concerns me.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Q
Dr Cox: There are two differences that I would identify. The examples you give are of somebody who may be naturally dying and is being kept alive, so the difference is that you are withdrawing a treatment; you are not intentionally killing them. This is the first difference with assisted dying.
The second difference, I would say, is that you are absolutely right that we do make those decisions with patients—with their families, if they wish—but in a multi-professional team. I would almost never make those decisions as an individual doctor without the support of my colleagues, for several reasons. First, as I have said already, that makes for much better decisions—they are safer and more robust. Secondly, the moral distress associated with these decisions is much less if you share them. That is also a worry for me—what happens to the moral distress of the co-ordinating doctor and the other assessing doctor? They are carrying a lot of moral distress. My understanding is that a very small percentage of doctors will want to engage with this—maybe 1% or 2% of all doctors will want to be in those assessing positions. They are carrying a lot of that distress because they will be doing a lot of assessing.
Kit Malthouse
Q
Dr Clarke: I think that is not quite right, and certainly not what I intended to convey. There are rules. There are very clear legal and professional rules and guidance and protocols around how to have these conversations. However, in practice, the quality of the conversations is contingent on the confidence, expertise, training and background of the individual clinicians having the conversations. There can be a great deal of inter-doctor variability in how conversations are conducted. In terms of addressing that, I would suggest that in an assisted dying scenario the crucial thing is to make the guidance and training as robust as it possibly can be to reduce the inter-practitioner variability.
Kit Malthouse
Q
Dr Clarke: No, of course not.
The Chair
Order. We have half an hour left. Nine people have asked questions and there are eight people left who want to. If we want to get through the questions by 3.15 pm, people will have to be self-disciplined when they ask their questions.
To the panel, forgive me, but we need answers in as reasonable a time as possible given the circumstances. Dr Clarke, if you wish to answer the last point, feel free.
Dr Clarke: Of course we want as much autonomy for as many patients as possible. The issue is around safeguards. If, for instance, you say to a vulnerable patient who has just been told they have a diagnosis of terminal cancer, “Have you thought about assisted dying?”, I would suggest that stating it broadly like that is a form of pressure and that you are potentially unintentionally coercing that patient. The very act of raising assisted dying in that way will make that vulnerable patient think, “God, is this doctor telling me that my life is not worth living any more?” Autonomy is much more subtle and complicated than we assume from outside.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
Q
“Sadly, only half the people who need palliative care receive it.”
In your opinion, who are the people who receive palliative, and who does do not?
My question to Dr Clarke is similar. You have talked about the population being
“carved up into two groups…those who deserve to live and those are expendable”.
Could you expand on that quote and the two groups you referred to, as well as the impact that has on their treatment and care?
James Sanderson: You draw a really important point about not just the provision and totality of palliative care across the country but the inequity of access. Unfortunately, we find that the diversity of people who are accessing care in hospices across the country is less than those who are dying in hospital—43% of people currently die in hospital.
One of the things we really need to do is move to a new ecosystem of palliative care that looks at supporting people in different settings. We need specialist provision in hospices to support people with significant needs, but increasingly hospices are reaching out beyond their walls into the community, and 80% of Sue Ryder’s work is in people’s own homes. People tell us that they want to die at home, so supporting people in their own homes enables us to access more diverse communities and get to people in their own setting.
Increasingly, one of the things we feel is necessary is the provision of support inside hospital. Alongside wards, we would bring support to that 43% of people who are currently dying in hospital, to ensure there is equality of access in all places, both in in-patient settings and in the community. You draw a really important point that we have to look at the totality of provision and ensure that, when someone is offered palliative care—the Bill talks about that provision being available—there is universal access, in terms of the type of palliative care available and the access for everybody in society.
Dr Clarke: My comment refers to the fact that there is an immense gulf between the theory of the NHS being a cradle-to-grave service—or a service that cares for us at the end of life as it does at the start—and the reality. The reality that I see every day at work in my hospital is patients coming into the emergency department from the community sometimes in utter, abject misery, in agony, with a lack of dignity. They have been forgotten completely. They are not getting healthcare or social care, and no one cares about them.
Even in the hospital, patients who have a terminal diagnosis are sometimes cast out into the corners of the hospital. There are hospitals, and mine is one currently, where we do not even have a 24/7 palliative care service face to face. Every night in my hospital, and every weekend from Friday to Monday, you cannot see a palliative care nurse or doctor, despite the fact that for a number of years that has been an NHS standard. That is an absolute disgrace and it shows how little people who are dying are truly cared for in a civilised society.
It does not necessarily have anything to do with assisted dying, except that if we do not address that simultaneously, some of those people will “choose” to end their life, because we as a society do not care about them enough to give them the care that might make life worth living. Surely that is a travesty for Britain.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Q
Dr Cox: My understanding of the plan is that in the Bill—forgive me, but I am sketchy on this—the aim is for the registration to be as a natural death. It would not be referred to the coroner, and “assisted dying” would appear on the death certificate.
I am also a medical examiner. My concern is that, as a medical examiner, I am obliged by law to scrutinise all deaths to ensure that a referral to the coroner is not required and to identify any learnings. What concerns me in that role is whether enough recording is happening around decision making and the process to do my job properly. With my medical examiner hat on, do I know what happened? I do not see anything written down in the Bill about the records that are to be kept. What happened when the patient took the substance? What happened afterwards? Were any actions taken in the meantime? That is not so much something I have thought about a lot with my palliative care consultant hat on, but as a medical examiner it concerns me.
Dr Clarke: For the sake of time, I do not have anything to add. I completely agree with that.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Dr Cox: In European countries and American states.
Jack Abbott
Q
Dr Cox: I suppose it depends who you are. If you live in one of the postcodes where you cannot get palliative care, if you are socially deprived, if you are a member of an ethnic minority or if you have a lung cancer diagnosis, you will not get very good palliative care in this country. I think that is awful.
Jack Abbott
Q
Dr Cox: The position we would ask you to consider is whether this is the right time to bring in a law to give people a choice of assisted dying, when they do not have the choice to have good palliative care.
Jack Abbott
Q
Dr Cox: The NHS is very different from any other jurisdiction—
Jack Abbott
Yes, so the direct comparison is not necessarily relevant. Is that correct?
The Chair
I understand that, but address it through the Chair.
Dr Cox: Palliative care may well have improved in this country over those years when it also improved in other countries where assisted dying was not available. What we are saying is that there has been chronic underfunding of palliative care, so where we are now is inadequate.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Q
Dr Cox: I accept that there will be people even with a very good palliative care system who would still choose assisted dying. We do not currently have the very good palliative care system that we need. That is the thing that concerns me.
Tom Gordon
Q
Dr Cox: I will give you some examples. We need to make sure that the 75% to 90% of people who are dying and need palliative care are getting it. We need to make sure that there is not inequity in palliative care, so that you do not have to be white and rich and have cancer to get good palliative care. We need to make sure that hospitals have seven-day services. Seven-day-a-week cover is unavailable at 40% of hospitals. We need to make sure that communities have telephone advice services at night. One in three do not have any advice overnight for patients and their families to access. There are some concrete things that we could change to demonstrate that we are delivering a good service. But currently we are not.
Tom Gordon
Q
Dr Cox: I would love to see it continue. I am part of the commission on palliative and end of life care. There is no guarantee that the recommendations of that commission will be funded, and that is what concerns me. I would love to see that happen. Would it not be great if the two could happen simultaneously? But there is no guarantee that that will happen.
James Sanderson: I want to come in on your point and agree with Sarah’s points. Obviously, we welcomed the Government’s announcement of the additional funding for the hospice sector, but the Committee will be aware that the hospice sector currently receives only about 30% of its funding from statutory sources. We are therefore reliant on the good will of the population to raise money and support us in various ways, and through retail and other ventures that we have.
On the point about universality of service, we have in the Health and Care Act 2022 a requirement for integrated care boards to commission palliative care services that meet the needs of their population, but although there is guidance as to what that should look like, there is not universal take-up of that guidance and delivery of all of the stated services. Although that is outside the scope of this Bill, it comes back to the context of how much the overall position can be strengthened across the country. The context for anybody looking to make a decision is within the same space. As Dr Clarke said in respect of informed choice, if the context is the same for everybody, we can have more confidence that that informed choice is made at the right level.
Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)
Q
To go back to your point, Mr Sanderson, it is important to acknowledge the fantastic work that palliative care professionals do. Indeed, it is extremely important that we are having these conversations, which is why we gave extra time to this panel of witnesses.
Dr Cox, on your point about the pressure on the individual doctors involved in the process, the Bill is very clear that if they do not have the relevant specialism, they must refer to a specialist in that condition, and they “can” refer to a psychiatrist. There is probably consensus that we maybe need to strengthen the Bill in that regard. When there are doubts around capacity, doctors probably “must” refer to a psychiatrist. That is something I am taking away from these sessions.
I was interested in the comments about the multidisciplinary approach. We heard about that this morning from colleagues in social work and in nursing. I would love to know your thoughts, Dr Ahmedzai, about the idea of a multidisciplinary approach. I think there is a lot of value in that.
Dr Clarke, on this concept around training, it worries me that we have seen this afternoon a very different picture painted by you and others compared with what we heard this morning, when we had doctors and nurses telling us that they regularly assess for capacity and coercion. They said it is part of their day-to-day work and they were very confident in their ability to do that. Training is fundamental, and this is an opportunity to look at gold-standard training. I would be interested to know your thoughts on that.
Dr Ahmedzai: You asked me about the multidisciplinary nature of this. I am really glad you raised that, because we seem to be focusing on palliative care as being very professional, and I would remind people that there are levels of palliative care. A lot of palliative care is given not by specialists like the three of us here but by generalists—either GPs, as we have heard, or by oncologists or geriatricians. When we talk about increasing palliative care and improving palliative care, it is not just about more doctors like us working at a specialist level.
The other thing is that it is not just doctors. We have to acknowledge that nurses are on the frontline; they do so much more than doctors. When doctors clock off at 5 o’clock in those sad institutions that still do not provide 24/7 cover, there are nurses at the bedside all around the clock. Then, there are social workers, physiotherapists and others. If we are talking about meeting the needs of people who may not necessarily have pain but have other forms of suffering or worries, which are not even physical—the loss of dignity and the loss of independence—nurses are so good at supporting people in that. A doctor will just get in the way.
What we need to do is make sure that we are addressing the reasons why many people choose this. I know, from speaking to people abroad, that it is loss of dignity and loss of independence. Is that not a legitimate reason for wishing that you were not a burden on somebody, or on the state even? It is really important that we consider that.
The other thing to bring in as well, if we are thinking about the big picture, is another elephant in the room: palliative care is not strictly speaking actually in the NHS—not all of it. A lot of it is outside of the NHS, for historical reasons from 50 or 60 years ago when decisions were made. Although there are excellent charities providing discrete areas of it, we rely so much on non-NHS services. You would never think of going to a charity to get your heart transplant or your kidney dialysis. We need to confront the fact that palliative care is fractured because of that history and the genesis of how palliative care came to be. It is not just NHS. We must think about the multidisciplinarity.
Dr Clarke: Regarding training and how much it is required, I would not be the first person to make the observation that sometimes doctors can be very pleased with their own abilities at a particular practice, and that practice might be having a conversation where you are assessing someone’s capacity.
What is interesting as a palliative care specialist is that I and my team will be asked to get involved with patients in every possible bit of the hospital—surgical wards, medical wards, intensive care, emergency departments—so you actually see a huge number of patients being treated by many different teams and many different doctors, junior and senior, all of whom are having these difficult, nuanced conversations around the end of life with varying degrees of skill. Of course some doctors and nurses are superbly skilled at having them, and I would say that there are many who are not.
The reason training is so important is that it is a little bit like Donald Rumsfeld’s unknown unknowns. You might not even be aware of the fact that you have caused a patient or their family distress. In a conversation where fear is a dominant part—the patient is fearful of suffering misery and loss of dignity at the end of life, but they may not voice that—you as the doctor can be completely oblivious of the fact that you have sort of stamped over those unvoiced fears with your hobnail boots. You are not aware of it.
This idea that a vulnerable patient needs to be absolutely at the centre of any conversation you are having is quite radical in some parts of the NHS. It needs to be taught much more assertively from day one of medical school, so that vulnerable patients are always at the centre of the room. That is why I think the single most important thing for the Bill and its safety comes down to training and actually recognising that these conversations are difficult and nuanced. If we assume that, we are going to make sure that the Bill is as safe as it can be.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Q
James Sanderson: I welcome the provision in the report. What is necessary is a benchmarking of the current position. Rather than waiting a significant period of time to do a review, we need to benchmark the current state of palliative care and then base subsequent reviews on any changes. As I mentioned before, we also need to look at the wider context. If we look narrowly at the provision of palliative care, we will not properly see what goes on across the whole environment of the health service and social care.
We have mentioned the fact that district nurses and general practitioners are providing a huge amount of palliative end-of-life care, so it may not just be what goes on inside hospices and in palliative care teams in hospitals. I agree that that needs to look at the demographic information so that we are collecting details on who is accessing palliative care and where, and the certain types. All that is necessary as part of the review.
Dr Cox: I agree completely that we need to be doing reviews now and in the future regularly on palliative care aspects. I also think there is an opportunity to write into the Bill other monitoring that would be really helpful in ensuring safety on an ongoing basis. That includes monitoring in terms of decision making—how often assessing doctors refer to others, how often they disagree and what happens after the declaration.
In the Bill there is, as far as I could see, no limit to the delay between the declaration and the request for the substance. That would be an interesting thing to look at in the future, because somebody could delay for six or eight months. Do we do another capacity assessment then? That is a tricky question. What about the taking of a substance? We have not talked about that. There are a lot of things we could look at in future that would be really helpful to monitor.
Lewis Atkinson
Q
Dr Cox: It is really difficult to know how many people who die by suicide because of their terminal illness would instead access assisted dying, and it is really difficult to understand the impact of assisted dying legislation on that. If we look at the evidence of suicide, we know that it is increased in people with serious illnesses, but it is actually increased in the first six months after diagnosis, not in the last six months of their lives, so it is about the trauma of the diagnosis. What we need for that is better mental health services, better support around diagnosis and earlier palliative care.
The other piece of evidence that I would offer to you is that the global picture of what happens to suicide rates after assisted dying legislation is introduced is confusing and mixed. But there are jurisdictions, for instance Germany, where after the introduction of assisted dying legislation the incidence of suicide has gone up year on year. I do not think we can say that introducing assisted dying legislation will stop those suicides.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
Q
I was struck by the way the RCN talked—and you, Dr Clarke, used the word as well—about not being paternalistic, about having the patient at the centre of that conversation, and about ensuring that we listen to the patient and ask them, “What is it that you want?” That, for me, is all about autonomy. Do you agree? The emphasis must be on patient autonomy and their choice at the end of life.
Dr Clarke: One hundred per cent. Sometimes, those of us who work in palliative care almost see the extent to which we try to place the patient at the centre of everything as quite radical, when contrasted with a lot of the other medical specialities. My opinion about what is best for a patient does not matter; their opinion is what counts.
The power of the multidisciplinary team, and the reason for thinking that it may be worth considering amending the Bill so that there is a greater role for a multidisciplinary team, is this: the fact that everybody in that team brings their unique perspective. In my hospital, whenever there is a tricky issue regarding a palliative patient, we will have an MDT. There may be 10 people in the room, all discussing the issues. It might be that someone has decided that they want to withdraw their life-prolonging treatments, or they want to have life-prolonging treatment and, for whatever reason, it is really complicated. We will have the patient, their family, doctors, nurses, social workers and dieticians—a big group of people—in the room because that is the way to make the decision most safely and most effectively, in terms of enabling the patient to have the treatment that they wish to have. It is incredibly important to have that.
Rachel Hopkins
Can I ask Mr Sanderson to reflect on that, for the different context, Mr Dowd?
The Chair
No. Order. We have two and a half minutes to go. One other hon. Member wants to ask a question. I want them to come in.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Q
Dr Cox: I think it is a choice for the patient. It is always a choice for the patient who they want to involve from their social circle, whether that is family or friends. However, I think that if the patient wants the family involved, then they absolutely should be, and they should be part of those conversations and discussions.
Kim Leadbeater
Q
Dr Ahmedzai: Clearly, British people have had that option for many years, since Switzerland first offered that. It is clear that two things happen. One is that it selects people who are better off and more functionally capable—they can do it—so it discriminates against disabled people. Also, people tend to do it long before they need to, when they are still fit. That is because mostly, they want to go on their own, without dragging relatives along. It is doubly damaging to families who are going through an illness with somebody who is dying. They have to say goodbye to them long before they need to. However, that is because we do not offer that option here.
Kim Leadbeater
Does anybody else want to comment? Dr Cox?
Dr Cox: I am happy to. Of course we do not want people to have to make that choice. I will refer to everything I have said before: are they are making a real choice, and have they had access to really excellent palliative care?
I also make a brief point about the impact of the discussion around what dying looks like that the Bill has raised, and the fact that the stories that have been told have suggested to many members of the public that death is inevitably ugly, horrific and dramatic. Actually, that has made many people fearful, and they have been emailing me and saying, “I am now afraid of dying, and I wasn’t before.” They may then choose assisted dying before they need to because they have had a fear instilled in them that death is inevitably horrible and dramatic.
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of the time allotted to the Committee to ask questions. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Sir Max Hill KC, Alex Ruck Keene KC and Sir Nicholas Mostyn gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Sir Max Hill: Good afternoon. I am not sure how much by way of introduction you want, so please stop me. I was the UK independent reviewer of terrorism legislation 2017-18, and the director of public prosecutions 2018 to 2023—so I stopped 15 months ago. I am not a campaigner; I am here to bring any experience of criminal casework that I may have picked up along the way, as that was part of my diet as DPP. I have been quite close to the construction of the Bill, and I am happy to deal with any questions that I can.
Sir Nicholas Mostyn: I am Nicholas Mostyn, and I was a judge of the High Court family division, of the Court of Protection and of the administrative court until 2023, when I retired with the onset of Parkinson’s disease—which is a genuine slippery slope, unfortunately. I am now a podcaster and devoting myself to alleviating the hardships of people living with Parkinson’s.
Alex Ruck Keene: I am Alex Ruck Keene. I am a barrister in independent practice, and I need to emphasise that I am giving my evidence as a self-employed barrister, not on behalf of any organisation I am associated with. You will have seen from my written evidence that I am associated with quite a few different organisations, because my practice and career straddles both advising and appearing in court cases involving mental capacity. I teach law on the end of life as a professor of practice at King’s College London. I am also heavily involved in law reform in different ways; for instance, I was the legal adviser to the Independent Review of the Mental Health Act 1983. I also do an awful lot of training in the context of mental capacity of both healthcare and social care professionals.
Naz Shah
Q
Sir Max Hill: If the problem is anybody in future going on their own or accompanied by their loved ones to Dignitas, the answer is no—this Bill does not satisfy that. What we have learned from other jurisdictions around the world, where we see broader or multiple groups beyond the terminally ill who are entitled to use new legislation, has not been the model for this legislation, unless you and Parliament were to dramatically change it. The nuanced answer to your question is that this Bill does provide an opportunity for those in the category of being terminally ill, as defined in the Bill, to no longer have to resort, on their own or supported by loved ones, to going to Dignitas. So, yes, it can and will make a positive difference.
I should add, in answering this question, that my often-quoted personal experience is that 27 cases investigated as assisted suicide came across my own desk as the DPP —five to six cases a year. A substantial proportion of those cases did involve Dignitas, because an accompanying relative who had returned alone was then investigated, but a proportion did not involve Dignitas at all, because there had been deaths at home. Of all those 27 cases, I made the decision to prosecute in only one, which was the case of an individual who was 19 years of age encouraging another teenager to end their life. That was a correct and successful prosecution.
I will also add—because until 15 months ago I was a prosecutor, and prosecutors look to bring criminal cases whenever the law is broken—that there was an additional handful of cases in which, although I was not making the personal decision, I supported authorisation of charges for murder or manslaughter where it was clear that an individual’s life had been brought to an end not at the time of their choosing. It is perhaps important to remember that this Bill, as and when passed—that is a matter for Parliament—would not truncate the homicide jurisdiction in this country. It will still be possible to prosecute for murder in those cases when one would expect to be prosecuted for murder. I think it is important to say that, as a very recent former prosecutor.
Naz Shah
Q
Sir Max Hill: That small handful of cases involved an elderly couple where either he—it was usually a he—or she had chosen to bring to an end the life of their lifelong partner and, once that act had been carried out, claimed that it was an assisted suicide in circumstances where the surviving partner was merely carrying out the wish of the person now dead. There are a handful of cases in which that is clearly wrong and should not be accepted and where murder should be the offence brought before the court.
The point, though, is that throughout the time that I served as DPP—and, indeed, the time served by all my predecessors—we did not have the coercion offences created by the Bill, which I suggest would be a significant advance, and nor did we have a legal system in which the investigation was taking place before the death. It was the other way around. In each of the 27 cases I considered, the deceased individual was already dead, and that is when the scrutiny started. The major advantage of the Bill, if I can put it that way, is that that will be reversed, and scrutiny will be before death. In the case of coercion, where it fits the new potential clauses, prosecutions can—and, I am sure, will—be brought.
Dr Tidball
Q
Sir Max Hill: I think that coercion and the coercion clauses in the Bill should be read alongside the capacity clauses. What we are looking for, as required by clause 1(1) and clause 1(2), is a clear, settled and informed wish, voluntarily made without coercion or pressure. Those aspects were taken, at least in part, from the Crown Prosecution Service guidance on 1961 Act cases. Capacity involves understanding information, retaining it, using it and communicating it. If those hallmarks are not there, you may be in a situation where you should be considering coercion. I think you read the two together.
To answer your question directly, the criminal liability clauses—clause 24, and the new offences in clauses 26 and 27—are robust. As a matter for your scrutiny, they are aspects that we do not have in the law at present. There is, of course, the addition of clause 36, under which you cannot be a witness or a proxy to the procedure that is enshrined in the Bill if you are too close to the terminally ill person. That is another hallmark of the Bill that will hedge against coercion.
Dr Tidball
Q
Sir Max Hill: My inclination is that clause 26, which is part of the full body of the Bill, is the right place for this. As with the interpretation clause, clause 40, and as with the way we interpret statute as a matter of course, there are aspects of other statutory offences or Acts of Parliament that help us when we are seeking to determine what coercion is. The creation of the offence of coercion and control, now very commonly used in domestic abuse investigations and prosecutions, has brought us into this territory. It is not beyond the wit of anybody who seeks to use and interpret this Bill to also look for other parts of statute that deal with coercion.
I make the same point about capacity. What is in the Bill is very slender, one might say, because clause 3 simply invites the reader to look across to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. But that Act is very clear on what mental capacity is and how it is defined. I think what I am saying is that it is a drafting point, and I am not a parliamentary draftsman, but I do not have a problem with the definitions of dishonesty, coercion and pressure being in clause 26, where they are. It is not the only place one would look, though; there are other sources.
Dr Tidball
Q
Sir Max Hill: “Dishonesty” is a term of art in common use, but it is also a term of statute. Anyone investigating or, still more, prosecuting would understand what dishonesty means. I accept that there is a wider point—not so much for interpretation but for understanding—that this Committee may want to consider, of how much of that existing definition needs to be imported into the Bill. As with mental capacity, I would suggest that, beyond perhaps the odd footnote, it is not necessary for you as a Committee to define again what dishonesty means, because we have it elsewhere.
Alex Ruck Keene: On pressure, I think the Committee would be really assisted by having a look at the learning of the High Court judges exercising their jurisdiction under the inherent jurisdiction in relation to people who are said to be vulnerable. They have developed an awful lot of tools, where they are trying to look at people in complicated situations—potentially, but not necessarily, with impairments—who are caught up in what one person brilliantly described as being caught in a spider’s web. Those are the sorts of sets of tools used when judges are trying to work out what is going on, and whether it is the side of the line we consider to be acceptable or the side of the line we consider unacceptable—because “pressure” is doing a lot of work there.
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
Q
Sir Nicholas Mostyn: One per cent would be 6,000 deaths a year. If each took two hours to process in the High Court—you have to read it and hear the evidence; one of them has to be oral and you have to write a judgment—that is 12,000 hours. Each High Court judge does 1,000 hours in court—outside court, they do lots—so you are talking about nearly three quarters of the entire family division doing nothing but this. It is impossible, in my opinion, for this to be done by the High Court. It should be done in the Spanish way by a panel that is set up. In Spain, the chairperson of the regulator sets up a panel for each case—a doctor and a lawyer. They have to agree and they check that everything has been done lawfully. They do not make any value judgment about whether it is in the person’s best interest. They check that it has all been lawfully.
Interestingly, in 2023, 10% extra denials were done by the panel. I do not know whether that was because they were concerned about voluntariness or whether they were concerned about suffering—because the criterion is suffering there—but an extra 10% was done by the panel, so the panel was not just rubber-stamping. They denied an extra 10%. I believe that an ad hoc system like that, with a doctor and a lawyer doing a check, would be the best way of doing it. The High Court—trust me, I’ve just come from there—has not got the capacity to deal with 6,000 cases of this nature.
Jake Richards
Q
Sir Nicholas Mostyn: Can I just answer before he does?
Jake Richards
Yes—it’s just that otherwise I will be cut off. I was trying to get two questions in.
The Chair
Order. I said earlier that this is not a dialogue. Address your comments to the Chair, and I will decide who speaks and when. I do not wish to be rude, but everybody’s got to have their fair share.
Sir Nicholas Mostyn: I do not know if you have seen Sir Stephen Sedley’s memo, which came today. He has suggested that the Official Solicitor should be the checker of these facts, which seems a sensible idea. The Official Solicitor would be able to recruit more staff to do this. It would not be nearly as expensive as High Court judges, and it would be an efficient way of dealing with the problem. The advantage of the Spanish system is that you have a qualified doctor as well as a lawyer doing the checking. Remember—a High Court judge is not going to be a qualified doctor. That is a significant advantage in my opinion.
Danny Kruger
Q
Sir Max Hill: I am not sure about that. I would always default to the code for Crown prosecutors and the two tests that the prosecution must go through, regardless of the crime that is being investigated. The evidential stage test sets out what it is necessary to be able to prove—some people say to a reasonable level—to afford a reasonable prospect of conviction. One can well imagine that, in Dignitas cases, that hurdle or test is often satisfied. It was often satisfied in the cases that I considered, and could often be satisfied in the future, but the evidential stage test being satisfied does not always mean that a prosecution results. That is because prosecutors must then go to the public interest stage and consider the non-exhaustive list of factors that are set out in the public interest stage test together with other policy, which, in this area of law, has developed since the legal case of Purdy in 2009.
In common with many other forms of crime, there are some legal policy considerations that a prosecutor is entitled to consider. They start at the very obvious—for example, what is the age of the suspect? Here, one is not thinking about the deceased who has gone to Dignitas. What is the age of the suspect? What are their characteristics? Have they ever committed a criminal offence before? What is their proximity to the case? What motivation did they have, emotional or otherwise, to lend assistance that technically means they have committed the offence?
I am going through that because, as I said, a proportion of the cases I considered were Dignitas cases, and it was often at the public interest stage that I determined that a public prosecution was not necessary. That is because, after full investigation, it transpired that the surviving relative had acted wholly out of compassion and, may I say, love for the deceased and was not seeking any gain for themselves—far from there being any dishonesty before or after the fact. That would still remain the case. It does not follow that, were this Bill to pass and were people then to take elderly relatives to Dignitas, they would necessarily face prosecution, but the premise of your question is “Could they?” and the answer to that is yes.
Danny Kruger
Q
Sir Nicholas Mostyn: I do not agree.
Danny Kruger
Q
Sir Nicholas Mostyn: I think it is unlikely. I am sorry for interrupting you. I always used to say, “Don’t interrupt”, so I am sorry about that.
I fear that I will be one of the people, referred to by the lady who asked the first question, who has to go to Dignitas—frankly, I could afford to do that—because the Bill is not ever going to provide an assisted death for me. I will not be graphic about what the advanced stages of Parkinson’s are like, but the medical Members among you will be able to describe what is likely—not definitely; I do not want to say definitely—to await me. I am choosing my words carefully. It is either going to be a poor death here or to go somewhere like Dignitas. If my children took me as far as Calais, and then helped me after Calais—assistance only applies to within the jurisdiction—and drove me on to Zurich, I would be extremely surprised if any prosecution ensued.
Danny Kruger
Q
Alex Ruck Keene: I think there are two different questions. First, is any idea of capacity sufficient at all? I think that is an existential question that I am just going to park. Turning to the Mental Capacity Act itself, it is important to understand that there are three different bits of that Act in play. We have a set of principles: the presumption of capacity; the presumption that you have to provide all practicable support before you find someone to lack capacity; and the idea that you cannot, just because a decision seems unwise, say that someone lacks capacity. Then we have a functional aspect—in other words, can you understand, can you retain, can you use and weigh the relevant information, and can you communicate that decision? We also have what some people call the diagnostic element—in other words, is there an impairment or disturbance in the functioning of the mind or brain?
These are the three separate things, all of which we make work—more or less—in everyday practice. I say “more or less”, because yesterday I was on the advisory group for a project funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research, which was funded in 2022 to try and increase the quality of mental capacity assessments in healthcare settings. We need to be under no illusions about how well we are doing it at the moment, but we make it work, more or less.
The Mental Capacity Act works more or less in the healthcare context, because every time we reach the view that someone cannot make a decision, we have an alternative—we can think about best interests. What we are asking the idea of mental capacity to do here is different, because there is no suggestion that, if you cannot support someone to make a decision, you will ever make a best interest decision in their name to assist death. It is also not obvious that the idea of a presumption of capacity should apply. If I doubt that you have capacity to make the decision to take your own life, or end your life, but I cannot prove it, is it logical or are we required to proceed on the basis that you do? Also, it is not immediately obvious that it is right that the diagnostic test applies in this context. In other words, I think you cannot understand the information, but I cannot prove the reason that you cannot understand it is that you have an impairment or disturbance. That is where my concern came in when I was explaining it in my written evidence.
I want to be absolutely and totally crystal clear: as far as I am concerned, at this stage, this is policy development. I am so glad that evidence is being taken and the public is thinking about this, but a Bill of this nature needs to be drafted by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. I am really trying to get across the policy line, which to me is about what doctors need to be interrogating—or anyone else, as I would love it if other people were involved—is, can the person understand the information? Can they retain it? Can they use and weigh it? Can they communicate their decision? If they cannot, we do not need to start mucking around with, “Why not?” It is just that they cannot, and that is the central idea of capacity. It is the functional idea, but it is tooled for use in the Bill rather than, as it stands at the moment, just being cross-referred out to the Mental Capacity Act, raising a whole series of additional complexities.
My only other observation is that I spend an awful lot of my life trying to improve Mental Capacity Act practice more broadly. I would be massively concerned were a knock-on effect of the Bill’s seeking to deal with a very specific group of people to be that it starts inadvertently—it would be inadvertent—interfering with how we think about healthcare decision making more broadly in the context of those people with impaired decision-making capacity. It is an insulation point, a making sure you have the right tools for the job point, and a not having a knock-on effect on thinking about things more broadly point. Sorry for the long answer.
The Chair
I will move on to Sojan Joseph, but perhaps you can pick this up. We have eight people wanting to ask questions and half an hour, tops.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
Q
Alex Ruck Keene: I think for many reasons it can. On the pure capacity side, this is, at one level, an existential question. This is not a healthcare decision but an existential decision. The more people we have who are able to bring their different perspectives—the social work perspective on the person’s social circumstances or the medical perspective on their medical condition—the better, so that we have as many eyes on the person and insights into the person as possible.
It is about trying to make sure that the decision goes back to whether we are really satisfied that the criteria set out at the beginning of the Bill are met. I personally think we should have MDTs, for instance, as you would have in a Mental Health Act detention, so that we have more than one pair of eyes on it from more than one discipline.
Jack Abbott
Q
Sir Nicholas Mostyn: I was sort of taken by surprise when she asked the me the question in the pub, and I would not have phrased it like that in court 50.
Jack Abbott
Q
Sir Nicholas Mostyn: Parkinson’s is such a complex condition. The medically qualified amongst you will know this—there are so many symptoms, and with the rate of development and the direction of travel, it is an enormously complex condition to know. That is why it is commonly accepted that you do not die from Parkinson’s, you die with Parkinson’s, and it is almost impossible to give a mortality rate as to when that is likely to happen—almost impossible.
When I was doing my research, I was slightly surprised to see that last year 6,000 death certificates had Parkinson’s written on them. They do say that the experts in Parkinson’s are the people with it, but the people you talk to are quite clear that it is impossible to predict and it is a really complex thing. That is why this arbitrary—I use the word technically—six-month period is a problem. If a doctor opines conscientiously and honestly, unless the Parkinson’s patient has already developed pneumonia, sepsis or something of that nature, or complications from falls—the common reasons for death—you will never get that six-month ticket. That is the thing; that is the problem.
Jack Abbott
Q
Sir Nicholas Mostyn: Neurodegenerative.
Jack Abbott
Yes, those with such conditions. Are they left out of this debate?
Sir Nicholas Mostyn: They are.
Jack Abbott
Q
Sir Nicholas Mostyn: It has been suggested that I want to expand the definition of terminal illness. I do not want to expand it. I want to redefine it so that it is more appropriately focused, in my opinion, on what this Bill should be about, which is the relief of suffering. That is what I believe the Bill should be about. You should get the permission to have an assisted death if you are suffering intolerably within five months of death or seven months of death—there should not be this arbitrary line.
Moreover, it should not be open to people who are not suffering, but who happen to have a six-month life expectancy. There are probably quite a few of them, for one reason or another, whose life expectancy is short, but their pain is well-managed. I do not believe that assisted dying should necessarily be available for them. I do believe very strongly—this is not an expansion, but in my view, a more appropriate focused redefinition of terminal illness—that it should be, as in Spain and in Holland, focused on suffering.
Rebecca Paul
Q
My second question, which is completely different—just to mix it up—is on a really interesting point in your written statement about how we need to give consideration to the national suicide prevention strategy. I found that really interesting, because the Bill potentially turns on its head the way we view suicide, and obviously we have been sending a certain message out there, particularly to our young people. Could you elaborate on the point you were making in your written evidence to the Committee?
Alex Ruck Keene: Gosh—yes. There is absolutely no way that you can stop people trying to challenge whatever Act is passed; there is no way you can stop people seeking to challenge that under the ECHR. We then get into this enormous argument about whether it is inevitably discriminatory. Courts to date have been very clear: “We are not going to get into this; it is for Parliament to decide whether to make assisted dying legal.” Once it is made legal for some people, but not for others, there is a difference in treatment. Whether it is discriminatory, and therefore contrary to articles 8 and 14 of the EHCR, depends on whether that difference is justified.
I am trying to be very careful in my language, because I try to do that. The Bill Committee and Parliament need to be very clear how, if you are going to limit this to a cohort of people—I feel acutely conscious that I am sitting next to somebody who would be excluded—it could be explained to somebody that they are not eligible and that there is a difference in treatment but it is perfectly justified. If you cannot do that, it will be discrimination.
The courts have been very clear that you do not have to have a system, but if you are going to have one—for example for social security benefits—then you need to have one that is non-discriminatory. That is the answer I can give to that. The one thing I can say is that you cannot stop lawyers trying to challenge. That is what they will do.
Sir Nicholas Mostyn: All laws discriminate; 69 mph is not an offence but 71 mph is. All laws discriminate. The question is whether it is justifiable.
Sir Max Hill: It is also a question of providing legal certainty, which is why the definitions in the Bill are so important. Provided that it is articulated clearly and within what the European Court so often calls the margin of appreciation, which it gives to sovereign states, then although I agree with Alex that a challenge may be possible, I cannot see a successful challenge to the Bill if it is drawn with the sorts of provisions we have here. Indeed, we have not seen local nation state examples of this sort being struck down by the European Court elsewhere in Europe, so I think it is very unlikely that we would see such a strike-down here.
Alex Ruck Keene: I really hate to get into it with such eminent lawyers, but there has not been a case in Strasbourg seeking to say that a limited class of case is discriminatory, so we just do not know.
Sir Nicholas Mostyn: I agree with that. I have changed my mind twice about this subject.
Alex Ruck Keene: Do you mind if I quickly touch on something else?
Daniel Francis
Q
Alex Ruck Keene: I should make it absolutely clear that all I am trying to do is make sure that whatever law is passed is a good law and has as few inadvertent consequences as possible. My concern here arises out of the fact that understandably the proponents of the Bill want to make it very, very clear that this is about people carrying out a final act, and no doctor is allowed to do something that involves going beyond that. At the same time we have a situation where doctors—I am using the word “doctor” slightly loosely, but for present purposes that is what we are talking about—have to be present and have to remain with the person. We know that there will be some people for whom there are complications.
My concern is to make sure that there has been sufficient consideration given to what exactly a doctor is meant to do at that point, because it seems to me that it ends up putting the person who is undergoing those complications in a horrible position. It is also—I am perfectly happy to use this phrase—putting the doctor in a position of extraordinary moral distress. Are they at that point supposed to try and rely on the doctrine of double effect and say, “All I am trying to do is treat the complication, not bring about your death,” but the Bill is saying, “No, you are not allowed to do that”? I understand entirely why the intention is to say that the doctor must always be hands off, as it were, but you need to super clear that you are going to put some people in some very, very difficult positions, and Parliament needs to be clear-eyed about that.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
Q
Sir Max Hill: I would not look at it on grounds of discrimination. What I would do is put that clause alongside what are generally referred to as the slippery slope arguments in other jurisdictions. In other jurisdictions—Canada might be one and some of the US states might be another—the provision of life-ending medication is expressed in a form of treatment by a doctor. This is not that. We are clear when reading clause 18 that it is not a permission to administer; in fact, it is a prohibition on administration. It is making available in certain tightly defined circumstances and then standing by—not necessarily in the same room, as stated in subsection (10)—while the self-administered medication takes effect.
Having said that, I am absolutely clear that there is only so far a Bill or Act of Parliament can go as primary legislation. There is then further distance that must be covered by the provision of practical and professional rules, under the auspices of the national health service here, to indicate precisely the circumstances in which this will physically happen. I do not see that as discriminatory; we are dealing with a tight category of defined individuals to whom this applies and it does not apply to anybody outside that, as we have just discussed. But it is not prone to the slippery slope arguments of something that is generally to be made available in the course of treatment. In fact, the Bill has been couched in a very different way.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
Q
Sir Nicholas Mostyn: I did. What particular aspect do you want me to address? The range is quite wide. In relation to the administration of the substance, it is interesting that in Spain, which is now in its second full year of doing this, take-up has been extremely low. There have been only 700 requests, with a quarter denied, and a quarter of the people died prematurely. Three hundred were granted, but of those 300, in 95% of cases the substance was administered by the doctor and auto-administered in only 5%. I am trying to work out why that is, culturally, in Spain. Maybe people go when they are extremely infirm, and that is the reason for it. I am not able to see the moral distinction between having the substance administered and auto-administration. On your question, there are devices that enable somebody who is locked in to end their lives by a blink of the eyelash, aren’t there?
Sir Max Hill: Yes.
Lewis Atkinson
Q
Sir Max Hill: I would say two things. First, it bears weight that, looking at all the provisions in the Bill, the additional level of scrutiny currently being called judicial scrutiny or approval is absent in all the comparative examples around the world. That already makes this a tighter pre-legislative model than we see in other countries that have gone down this route. That is worth remembering.
Secondly, while I am not a family lawyer—I was, but a very long time ago—I think that the family division of the High Court would be very well-placed to perform the sort of exercise enshrined in current drafting, which is not a rubber-stamping exercise, but a substantive consideration of heavily objective medical opinion arrived at by not one, but two doctors, one of whom is not the treating doctor.
I listen to and accept the question of pressure on the justice system generally. That is something the Committee will be concerned about because, if the Bill passes, we want something workable. I heed what Sir James Munby said. The sitting judiciary, for good constitutional reasons, is highly unlikely to say anything. But there is therefore merit in looking at clause 12, under the heading, “Court approval”, and performing quite a simple exercise, which for me would be going through subsections (1) to (6) inclusive and, where it says “High Court”, replace that with something else. Personally, I have an aversion to the word “tribunal”, which indicates a right and wrong or some kind of fault-based system—that is not what we are talking about here. But a panel, as Nick said, is the way to go—
Sir Nicholas Mostyn: A panel appointed by the Official Solicitor.
Sir Max Hill: Whether appointed by the Official Solicitor or not. Dare I say it—because I am sitting next to a very distinguished one—I do wonder about the recently retired members of the judiciary and the role that they could play under a replacement panel system.
Sir Nicholas Mostyn: That is what I had in mind—the Official Solicitor looking at the retired judges.
Sir Max Hill: Yes, so there is legal professional capacity among the retired judges—not that they would sit alone on a panel. It would bring with it the extra benefit of having suitably qualified medical professionals, like the Spanish model. So yes, I think that could be done. That is not the same thing as saying that the High Court approval model is fatally flawed and could not be introduced, but I do think there is a viable alternative, which is worth looking at.
Alex Ruck Keene: I have only one observation, and I said this in my written evidence but I also want to say it out loud. You have to think very carefully about what purpose any form of this oversight is actually serving societally, if the oversight panel, whether that be a judge or a panel, cannot decline to approve an application if it considers that the reason the individual is seeking assistance in dying is because of service provision failures by the statutory bodies responsible for meeting their health and social care needs. That is a question of principle, and I want to make sure that that is squarely before you.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Q
Alex Ruck Keene: We have capacity, but we also have to make sure that it is settled, informed and voluntary, and that we do not have things like pressure or influence going on. It is important to make it clear that we are not just saying that this is about all the weight going on capacity. For instance, if you have social workers involved—if you have, say, palliative care social workers involved, assuming it is a palliative care situation—they are going to be far better informed about what options might be out there than a doctor, potentially, depending on the doctor. Social workers more generally might well have more expertise in picking up signs of coercion or influence than a doctor, but I do not necessarily want to get into, “Some disciplines are good at X” and “Some disciplines are good at Y”—I have come across brilliant examples and bad examples in both zones.
It is partly about multidisciplinariness and also about the fact that you have more than one person trying to talk it through. When I train, I always try to tell people that 85% of capacity assessments are not all that difficult —they are just made difficult because you do not have time or you are not listening—but 15% are more difficult. I think a lot of these will be in the 15% zone, and in that zone, the more people you can have thinking about it, so long as they have an agreed framework within which to think, the more reliable, transparent and accountable the outcome is going to be.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Sarah Sackman)
Q
Sir Nicholas Mostyn: The former.
Sarah Sackman
Q
Sir Nicholas Mostyn: It will have the statements in schedules 1 to 4, signed by both doctors twice. This is where it gets slightly tricky. Is the panel expected to be a ferret and say, “This does not quite chime for me”? The Committee will have to consider how investigative the panel will be, or whether it will purely sit back, be passive and work on the material it has. Of course, under clause 12, it has to hear orally. That might get the alarm bells going, but I believe that the panel should be entitled to call for further evidence if it has concerns. As I say, I have been trying to find out why 10% of cases were rejected by the panel in Spain. There must have been some kind of procurement of further evidence by the panel in order to do that.
Sarah Sackman
Q
Sir Nicholas Mostyn: Article 10 of the Spanish law gives an appeal on a point of law to their high court, so I would have the same, with an appeal on a point of law to the High Court, but only on a point of law.
Alex Ruck Keene: Either way—it would have to be either way. It could not just be against a decision not to approve, logically, because the current model is very odd in saying that you can only appeal one way to the High Court.
Sir Nicholas Mostyn: Yes. Spain gives either side the right to appeal, so I agree with that, but it is confined to a point of law.
Sir Max Hill: I would only add that I wonder whether that is the only route through, namely leaving open a judicial review appellate process, or whether, for example, as we imagine with a number of commissioner-led processes already in this jurisdiction, the panel—or frankly, I suspect, panels, which might sit regionally, chaired perhaps by the retired judiciary—would have an appellate route to a national body, which you could call a national commission, instead of a judicial-review route to the Court.
There are a large number of commissioners, some sitting under the Home Office and some sitting under the Ministry of Justice—in a sense, I was a commissioner when I was the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation—with closely defined powers. There are many others who sit in an enhanced regulatory position—highly qualified individuals. You could describe them as national commissioners, if that is an appropriate term, and they would have superintendence over regional panels, and the power to appoint retired judiciary, perhaps with the assistance of the Official Solicitor, to sit on those regional panels, and then to have an internal appellate mechanism.
Sir Nicholas Mostyn: You have to have an appeals process of some type, because otherwise there will be judicial review. If there is no appeal, there is judicial review—so you have to have an appeal of some type or there will be judicial review.
Sir Max Hill: Yes, I agree.
The Chair
We have some Members who want to ask more questions; we have about six minutes or so. Jake Richards, you did have a possible question earlier on.
Jake Richards
Q
Sir Nicholas Mostyn: Relations who say, for example, “My father has been pressured by his new wife to do this”. If a father has given permission and the child has asked to intervene, there would be some process where the child would be allowed to become a party to the proceedings, because that will have to be specified in rules, and that person would then be the appellant.
Jake Richards
Q
Sir Nicholas Mostyn: Well, it does.
Jake Richards
It is an autonomous decision, so—
Sir Nicholas Mostyn: No, but it says, procedurally, they can determine their own procedure.
The Chair
Order. I am giving you an opportunity to ask a question, so ask the question, we will get the answer back and then we can move on. I do not want this dialogue, I am afraid.
Jake Richards
Forgive me, Mr Dowd. I meant that, in terms of the assisted dying process in the Bill, there is no automated mechanism for family members, or indeed any third parties, apart from the doctors, to have notice of this intention. Is there a concern, regarding this appeal point, that perhaps interested parties would not know?
Sir Max Hill: I would suggest that the key to this is in clause 12(5), and that is why I have recommended just striking out the words “High Court” and putting in the word “panel”, and then reading the whole of clause 12 as amended, with those situations in which there are steps that “must” be taken—and there are many—and those in which there are steps that “may” be taken.
In clause 12(5), following that logic, we would imagine that a panel, just as the High Court,
“may hear from and question, in person, the person who made the application”
but
“must hear from…the coordinating doctor”.
The appellate mechanism, which I agree there needs to be, will be looking sharply at the operation of that subsection. In other words, when the panel made its decision to refuse, on what basis did it make that decision and from whom had it heard? We can well imagine situations in which a co-ordinating doctor, having taken his or her own steps to ascertain the views of the nearest and dearest, would satisfy the panel as to what the views of the family are. The reverse of that is that there is no indication here that, having gone all the way through the panel, the family would have been made aware or considered at all. I think that that will be a rare scenario, but I am not a medical professional. I think you can cover that, perhaps with some changes here or there on what you impose on the panel as a mandatory duty and what you leave by way of discretion, subject to the rules of procedure that the panel would then adopt.
Dr Tidball
Q
Alex Ruck Keene: This is, for the moment, predicated on the fact that we are still in the High Court, as opposed to slightly making up policy on the fly about a panel. Assuming it is the High Court, it seems to me the Court has to be discharging a properly inquisitorial jurisdiction, which means it has to be armed with the tools to do that, which includes arming it with the tools to call for its own evidence. It also seems to me that the High Court would have to be armed with its own ability to not just receive evidence from one side and have someone testing it. That then brings you to the only player in town who could possibly do that, which would be the Official Solicitor as advocate to the Court.
I do not want to emphasise too much the question of resources, because if Parliament thinks this is sufficiently important, the resources will be voted through. But it is vitally important to note that the Official Solicitor is completely overloaded, and we would be asking the Official Solicitor to act as advocate to the Court in every single one of these cases. You could not have it be optional; you cannot say that it is some and not others. If it is going to be inquisitorial, the High Court has to have the ability to say, “This is one-sided; someone needs to tease it out,” so the Official Solicitor would have to be funded to be advocate to the Court and, if necessary, instruct lawyers in every single case.
Sir Max Hill: The model that I was espousing would not necessarily involve the Official Solicitor at all. It would make no draw on the administration of the Court or any officer of the Court, still less full-time judges. It would allow the appointment of recently retired judges, as we have in a number of scenarios—surveillance commissioners, for example—and a fresh administration. With that, as with the High Court model at the moment, there is the primary set of provisions, which Parliament must impose, and it is important that that is sufficient for what Alex called an inquisitorial function. Those are in part mandatory—those things that the panel must be satisfied about, which are set out in clause 12(3). Then there are those that are discretionary, which are set out in clause 12(5).
What sits between the two is very important. That is currently expressed as “Rules of Court”, but it would be the rules of the panel, or the commission that appoints the panels. In a court scenario, we are all familiar with criminal procedure rules and civil procedure rules; that is the secondary stage that is reached once the primary legislation has been fixed. That, too, would apply to the commission or panel process, but I do not necessarily think that it would involve using existing, paid judicial resources at all.
The Chair
We have one and a half minutes, so it will be a 10-second question and a 20-second answer; unless you can do that, I am going to call it to a close.
Dr Opher
Q
Sir Nicholas Mostyn: I would frame the law to define terminal illness in the way that it is defined here in clause 2(1)(a), but where the “person’s death in consequence” is referred to, I would delete clause 2(1)(b) and substitute “suffering intolerably”.
The Chair
Thank you. That brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee; thank you for your forbearance.
Sarah Olney
On a point of order, Mr Dowd. I had my hand up at the beginning. I was really keen to ask a question in this session because it is pertinent to an amendment that I have tabled. Could you advise how best I can have the opportunity to ask my question?
The Chair
I am more than happy to speak to you afterwards. We have had lots of questions today and I tried to get people in as much as possible, but there has to be an element of self-discipline from the people asking the questions and interrupting. I am happy to facilitate if I possibly can, but I am afraid that there is also a responsibility on Members to look to other Members’ needs.
Examination of Witnesses
Dr Ryan Spielvogel and Dr Jessica Kaan gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Dr Ryan Spielvogel, who is senior medical director for aid in dying services at Sutter Health, California, and Dr Jessica Kaan, who is medical director for End of Life Washington. Both witnesses will appear via Zoom. I call on Members to ask questions, but in view of the last point of order, I must be absolutely clear that I will interrupt if questions to the witnesses are too long. We do not have much time and people want to get their questions in—there has to be an element of self-discipline in that regard.
Kim Leadbeater
Q
Dr Spielvogel: Thank you all for having me today. I am Ryan Spielvogel and I am senior medical director for assisted dying services for Sutter Health in California. I have been an assisted dying physician for the past eight and a half years, since the law went into effect here, so I have seen many terminally ill people going through the process.
You asked specifically about coercion and capacity. Determining mental capacity is something that we use physicians to do every day. There are codified steps and processes for us to be able to assess a person’s capacity. Capacity for anything, for any procedure or medical intervention, is presumed—that the patient has capacity—until they are deemed to not have capacity. We do that through asking questions, determining their understanding of their disease process, asking them to repeat what their understanding of their options is, and making a decision and then telling us their judgment as to why they came to that decision.
That is something that we do every day. It is oftentimes informal. For instance, if I am prescribing someone blood pressure medication, I might not go through the entire process of assessing capacity, but in longer or higher-stakes conversations like end-of-life discussions, I usually do ask somebody to repeat back to me what they understand of their disease process, their options, what their decisions are and why they are making those decisions. That is basically exactly what I do in these conversations.
In terms of coercion, I understand the concern. It is a very valid concern that people have. I have seen this in many jurisdictions in the US, where different states are considering legalising assisted dying, but I will tell you that in practice it just does not happen. I have seen assisted dying laws go into practice across numerous states and have helped many, many people through this process, and I have never seen a case where I even suspected coercion. People are just not that good as actors.
So we get the family out of the room. We dig deep into their concerns, their justifications and the reasoning behind their choices. It is often crystal clear, when you are speaking to someone who is suffering from a terminal illness. They are very focused on their symptoms, very focused on their quality of life, very focused on their suffering. I do not ever get the sense from them that their family, their doctors or anybody is coercing them into the decision. In fact, if anything, I have seen it many times the other way around. I tend to see it where the patient is really ready to let go, but the family is really not ready to let go, and the family puts up varying degrees of roadblock to the patient accessing assisted dying. I have seen many cases of people being coerced out of it; I have never seen someone being coerced into it.
Kim Leadbeater
Q
Dr Kaan: I echo exactly what Dr Spielvogel has said. As part of our medical training, we are trained to assess capacity in both small and big ways, depending on the size of the decision at hand, as he said. Throughout our medical training, we are trained to do that and to assess with a patient progressively over time, as we are seeing them in subsequent visits as well. This is really no different from that, although obviously the stakes are a bit higher than a blood pressure medication discussion.
We look at whether, for instance, the patient is able to voice a reason for making their decision. Do they have a logic behind it? Do they have a set of values that they can express? Is their decision consistent over time? We are looking at a longitudinal assessment, rather than just one fixed moment in time. Over the course of our assessments, it really does become clear in almost all cases that somebody either does or does not have the capacity to make this decision or any decision. This is really not outside the realm of what physicians are trained to do in any other case of medical decisions, especially large ones.
In the case of coercion, I agree that virtually all the time it is the opposite way: family members and loved ones are well-intentionedly trying to coerce or convince someone not to make this choice or not to proceed with this option, which they may have available, rather than pushing them to do it. I think the way to properly assess that is to ask open-ended questions: as Dr Spielvogel has said, to have them in the room alone, at least for a portion of the assessment, so you can have a one-on-one conversation; to ask the questions in various ways, so you are seeing the consistency of answers over time; and to look for non-verbal cues that may indicate that something else is going on. I have also never come across a case where I felt that a patient was being coerced into this decision by a family member, but rather the opposite.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
Q
Dr Spielvogel: The original version was called the End of Life Option Act. It legalised assisted dying in California when it went into effect in 2016. It was then amended in 2021, I believe; the effect of the main amendment was to shorten the waiting period. There was a 14-day mandatory waiting period between two verbal requests that a patient would give directly to their physician. What we found when we were studying it was that approximately 30% of people died during the waiting period.
There were many conversations with patients. The thought process behind the waiting period is that somebody is making a persistent, well-thought-out and non-capricious decision when they are asking for this, but there is a false premise there—[Interruption.]
The Chair
We were in the middle of your reply, Dr Spielvogel. Could you pick up where you left off?
Dr Spielvogel: I will make it brief. I was saying that it is an erroneous assumption that people start thinking about assisted dying the first day that they give their first verbal request. In reality, people have usually been thinking about it for weeks before that visit. Because of that, we did not see anyone’s decisions really ever change between the first verbal request and the second, 14 days later. That and the fact that 30% of people were dying during the waiting period led us to shorten the waiting period to 48 hours. That is the main change that we have had in our law since it was implemented.
Bambos Charalambous
May I put the same question to Dr Kaan?
Dr Kaan: You will know that throughout the United States there are a variety of aid in dying laws, all of them slightly different across jurisdictions. I practise in both the state of Oregon and the state of Washington, so I have to keep track of two slightly different laws.
In the state of Washington, where I am the medical director for End of Life Washington, we updated our law in 2023, mostly because we were trying to increase access to it for people who lived in rural communities or for people in underserved communities. Any healthcare system in the world right now has experienced a shortage of physicians, so the requirement for two physicians to do the certification was a barrier for people in those communities that did not have access to two physicians. One of the things we did to increase access in 2023 was to make it so that one of the two providers could be a non-physician: a physician assistant or a nurse practitioner with advanced training. One of the providers still needs to be a qualified physician, but that has increased access for those in rural communities and underserved communities. We are very proud of the fact that we have done that. Additionally, we shortened our waiting period for similar reasons, from 15 days down to seven days.
In Oregon, they shortened their waiting period. Well, they still have a 15-day waiting period, which has been stable since the start in 1997, but they also now have a provision whereby, if a patient is expected to die within those 15 days—if they are at the very end of their life and are not expected to be able to survive those 15 days—they can bypass the waiting period. I really like that provision, because there are patients who come very late in their process to this decision. It may not seem like much to us, who are healthy and relatively well, but 15 days for a dying person who is suffering and really wants this option is an incredibly long time.
Tom Gordon
Q
Dr Spielvogel: People often feel that at the end of life, just in general. I think that conscientious people will often think about their family and how their situation is affecting their family and loved ones. That is something that many people go through, so that is something that comes up relatively frequently. It is usually embedded within a laundry list of reasons that people are looking for assisted dying. When people bring it up with me, it is more of a commentary on what they do not like about their dying processes—that they are also feeling like a burden on their family. That is a red flag for me, though: when I ask someone, “Why are you reaching for this?”, and they say, “Well, I am a burden to my family,” it is a red flag for me as a physician.
This goes back to the argument about capacity and coercion, because we are trained professionals who listen for these things. This is not a rubber-stamp evaluation. When we ask people why they are looking for this, we really want to assess their judgment and see what their reasoning is. If they are saying, “I’m suffering intolerably. I’ve tried all the things that palliative care and my regular physician are offered me, but I’m still suffering irrevocably. Also, there is this other piece: I see what this is doing to my family,” that is totally valid. That is something that any of my dying patients might say, whether or not they are seeking an assisted death.
If that is the only reason, that is going to lead me to ask a lot of probing questions. It would be a red flag for me, but it is incredibly rare that something like that would be the only reason. Dying is a very complex process, and people’s thought processes during their own dying are equally complex. There are a lot of things that people think about during that time.
Dr Kaan: I echo Dr Spielvogel. It is common that among the lists of things that people mention as reasons, they may mention not wanting to be a burden on their families or not wanting to put their families through an onerous and prolonged dying process. Obviously, if that is the only thing that they are mentioning, it will definitely get them further discussion and exploration into what is going on and what other resources we can point them to, such as connecting them with social workers and available community resources for helping with caregiving.
However, I hear most commonly that people’s desire to save their families from a prolonged dying process comes from lived experience, where they themselves went through the process with a loved one such as a mother or father: they were caregivers, sometimes for years, and felt that it was a burden on them, although they were happy to do so and it was loving. They have that lived experience and they are looking to save their family from what their experience was. I think it is common that people feel some element of that when they are in a situation where they require heavy caregiving.
I think it also goes back to autonomy. People who are in their right mind and have the capacity to make this decision should have the autonomy to have their reasons and their value systems respected, whether or not we share them or see it in the exact same way.
Jack Abbott
Q
Dr Kaan: The thing I have been reading about that is concerning to me is the court approval that you seem to have written into your law. I heard your discussion this morning about how that might be done and whether it is a committee or the High Court and so on. I think that that is really going to limit access to this, and that makes the process a much lengthier one.
Again, these are people at the end of their life. People are not looking, by and large, to cut off a huge amount of their life; they are looking to shorten their death, not shorten their life. By making people go through a court appeal in addition to two qualified physicians, as well as the waiting period, I think that you are going to limit access for people who desperately want this option. It seems like that might be baked into your law, but I would say that that is a concerning feature to me. I think that you are going to limit access that way.
Dr Spielvogel: Something that it turned out was not in our law, but everyone thought that it was for a few years, and it really limited our practice, was that many people were under the impression that the physician could not bring up assisted dying with the patients, and that the patients had to bring it up themselves. That turned out not to be in our law, but that idea really hampered our ability to take care of patients, so I would strongly recommend that there not be anything like that in your Bill. People cannot make informed decisions for themselves if they do not know what their options are. While this is top of mind for all of you and for the doctors—we all know that this exists—even if this Bill becomes law, the general population is still not going to realise that it is an option.
I eat, sleep and breathe this. I am a primary care physician, and when I am going through the options with patients who are newly diagnosed with a serious life-threatening illness, I say, “Okay, here’s what disease-directed treatment would look like. We can continue with your chemo. Here are some side effects and complications that you might have, and here are the benefits of that. Here’s what palliative care or hospice care would look like.” Then I say, “I don’t know if you know this, but in our state we have this other option for people nearing the end of their lives when they have intolerable suffering. You can ask me to fill a lethal prescription for you to help end your suffering sooner.”
The number of times that people look at me and say, “You can do that? That’s an option here?” is astounding. I would say that nine out of 10 of patients I have conversations with have no idea that that is even legal. If they do not know it is an option, they are never going to ask for it. For physicians to do their jobs properly and deliver care to people, and for people to actually have a choice, physicians need to be able to discuss it with their patients.
Dr Kaan: I will just piggyback on that. I cannot count the number of times I have given a presentation or a talk to communities, and people—usually family members of someone who have died, not using this law—have come up to me afterwards and said, “Thank you for what you said. My loved one was interested in having this information, or wanted to talk to their doctor about it, but their doctor never brought it up, so we weren’t sure if we should be bringing it up.” It is a huge burden to put on patients and their loved ones if they have to bring it up themselves. I would highly caution against any sort of language that requires that, because it is just not fair to them. They are already going through so much and, as Dr Spielvogel said, you cannot have an informed decision-making discussion with a patient if they do not have all the options available for discussion.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
Q
Dr Kaan: That is a really important question, because this is a really important topic in the United States. Our laws are very clear that participation is voluntary, so there is no such mandatory training across medical training in general. It is always voluntary. If a physician or provider wishes to have training, they can seek it out. What is available and the standard of care differ from state to state. Certainly, in the state of Washington, where I am the medical director of the organisation that is most largely involved with this, the bulk of my job is doing training, mentoring and shadowing. There is no exam at the end of that process, but there is certainly shadowing and a feedback process.
I am also heavily involved with the Academy of Aid-in-Dying Medicine, which has been very active in creating professional training. We have a Journal of Aid-in-Dying Medicine, which is a peer-reviewed journal that puts out articles that are relevant to the topic. The Academy of Aid-in-Dying Medicine is now undertaking certification pathways, so each level of provider—social workers, chaplains, physicians and anyone else who might be involved in the aid-in-dying process—will be able to take these certifications. A more uniform education system will be available. We are just at the beginning of creating those, but it is very exciting, and we are very happy to have those out. A lot of resources are out there in the world already, in general, to train providers in how to do this well, and it would be really smart to have something in your Bill that outlines what the training should be, whether you will make it mandatory or voluntary and perhaps some sort of certification pathway.
Stephen Kinnock
Dr Spielvogel, I do not know whether you have anything new to add to that. If not, that is fine.
Dr Spielvogel: Without repeating anything that Dr Kaan said, I was just going to say that in addition to my assisted dying hat, I am also the programme director for the family medicine residency programme, so my main job is actually training young physicians who are becoming what you would call GPs.
We have instituted curricula as part of our residency programme here to train interested physicians in learning how to do assisted dying. We go through a whole process for that, including lectures, them shadowing me and me shadowing them, listening in on their conversations, giving them pointers and walking them through the steps of the process. They then do this with multiple patients through the course of their residency, so when they graduate, they feel confident in being able to offer this care. As with most medical training, this should be included in that part of the training process. All the other things, such as pathways in continuing medical education, are very important for physicians out there in practice who want to start doing this, but really getting this into medical training at its roots is vital for normalising the practice.
Speaking of which, something else I have heard a lot is that this might be distressing to physicians, or that physicians would not want to offer this care. I would like to say that 80% of our residents on our programme opt to receive this training. When we did a study on this of graduates from our programme who were continuing to offer assisted dying, 70% of the surveyed residents said that their assisted dying work was more rewarding to them than the rest of their primary care work—70% said that it was more rewarding.
I want to come back to the notion that physicians would feel burdened or that this would be some sort of psychological negative to physicians practising it, because it is actually quite rewarding work. It has led me to be a better physician to all my patients because it has helped me with having these difficult end-of-life conversations with them. That was a bit of a twofer, sorry—I added that on there.
Danny Kruger
Q
Dr Spielvogel: A lot. I have actually been quite surprised. Everybody is different. This is the whole point: different people have different goals, objectives and values. I have mentioned it to people who say, “No, I would never do that,” and I never bring it up to them again.
The Chair
Order. Do not interrupt the witness, please. Let him finish. You can then come back in with a question.
Danny Kruger
I apologise.
Dr Spielvogel: No problem. To answer your question more directly, I have had several people over the past couple of years who had no idea that it was an option and said, “That’s what I want to do.” They then went through the process with me.
Danny Kruger
Q
Dr Spielvogel: Yes. I think it could be made into a misdemeanour, a felony or whatever the equivalent is over there—sorry, I do not have the terminology. You could make it illegal to interfere with a patient’s right to make this choice. We stopped short of that in our most recent addendum to our law here, but I think that was a lost opportunity.
Danny Kruger
Q
Dr Kaan: You characterised it correctly in that I think that for people who have capacity, and who are making the decision to have this as an option, a part of their reasoning is that they want to save their family from an onerous caregiving experience. I think that is their right and it is part of their value system.
Of course, if that is the only reason, we are going to be exploring that. As Dr Spielvogel has said, that is a red flag. We are going to be exploring that, and exploring whether acceptable alternatives exist and what are the resources that the person may not be aware of. That is always part of the discussion. These discussions are always broad and multifactorial. But I think it is appropriate and okay for somebody to say, “I do not want my family to experience what I myself had to experience when I was caregiving for my elderly parents with dementia.” I have heard that many, many times. I do think people who have capacity should have their autonomy respected, in terms of the values that are driving them to make this decision.
We always want to work towards improving the social support for caregiving that exists in our society. There is certainly a lack of it here in the US, and probably there in the UK as well. Hand in hand with allowing people to make an informed decision about the option of having an assisted death, you should also be a strong advocate for social support and caregiving services at the end of life, because those really are important and needed.
Naz Shah
Q
Dr Spielvogel: That is a good question. I do not know the specific status of the Bill, but I would assume that it has itself undergone an assisted death at this point. That Bill is not really being supported by any of our advocacy groups or, by and large, the physicians who perform assisted dying, because it is, as you mentioned, very broad and not aligned with how we feel standard practice is going and where we would want it to go. That Bill did not receive support from many of us.
Naz Shah
Q
Dr Spielvogel: Can you clarify what you mean about kidney disease and the six-month prognosis, and the interplay with insurance there?
Naz Shah
Q
Dr Spielvogel: That is not factually accurate. When people go on dialysis, they automatically get Medicare, which is our version of the NHS, more or less. That is a national health insurance for people who are 65 and older or who have certain kinds of diseases. When you have end-stage kidney disease and you need dialysis, you automatically get Medicare and you get dialysis for the rest of your life, however long that is. People are often on dialysis for years. It is not that you are on it for six months and then you are off.
Naz Shah
Q
Dr Spielvogel: If you have a six-month prognosis to live, regardless of the condition, that would fall under this. That would make you eligible. That has nothing to do with insurance coverage for your condition. Insurance coverage is completely separate. It is not tied to this. All that prognosis does is to allow the individual to seek this care.
Naz Shah
Q
Dr Spielvogel: No. Insurance does not run out. There is maybe a misunderstanding of how medical insurance works in the US. Medical insurance does not run out. I think we are talking about two different things.
Naz Shah
Q
Dr Spielvogel: No, I actually do not think that you are right. When we are talking about lifesaving interventions such as chemotherapy or dialysis, that is not correct. They are bound by law to cover all things that are medically necessary. They do not say, “You have gotten six months of chemo. We are not paying for any more.” That is not how it works.
Sean Woodcock
Q
We heard from experts earlier about the paucity and lack of provision of care across the country. Certain people can get access to very good care, but too many people struggle to, particularly people of certain ethnic backgrounds, people on low income, and so on. Please correct me if I have misinterpreted your views, but from what you have said so far, it sounds as if you think that exercising the right to assisted dying because there is a paucity of appropriate care in your locality, or because you cannot afford it, is a perfectly legitimate exercise of autonomy, based on the society around you. Would that be a fair assumption of your views?
Dr Kaan: I think that is not an entirely fair representation of what I am saying. Yes, we do need respect for people’s autonomy and the reasons they may come to this choice, but I also think that from what I have heard this morning, it sounds like there is a conception that people choose assisted dying and then they do it. What I see, by and large, is that people want to have this as an option. It is an option among the other options of hospice palliative care or palliative treatments. The availability of this as an option often brings people tremendous relief from their suffering—just from the anxiety over how they might die, or what suffering might be in store.
I had a case of a woman with ALS, or amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. She was very afraid of how she might die with that condition, and she felt like she might suffocate to death. She was so focused on having the option of aid in dying because she was terrified of what might be in store for her. We were able to incorporate her into a hospice that offered comprehensive end-of-life care, including the option of aid in dying. We got her through the process, we had the medications available and she told me how much relief she felt from having it as an option, but ultimately she decided not to use it. She decided that she was getting really good care from her palliative care and hospice teams, and that her symptoms were well controlled. Although she was extremely grateful that she knew the medications were available should she decide to use them, she did not end up needing to use them or wanting to use them.
That is the reality of what is happening in a lot of cases where this is an option among other options. The availability of this option is, in and of itself, a palliative care treatment for many people. On whether or not wanting to avoid being “a burden” to a family member or to a caregiving team is a valid reason to pursue this, yes, I think that is a valid reason among many for people who have a value system that highly orders that.
Dr Spielvogel: I just wanted to add something, if I may. I have heard this argument—or rather, this concern—a few different times, and it strikes me as what is called a false dilemma logical fallacy: that there is either/or, when in reality there are many alternatives that people can choose from. Saying “If we don’t have all of these types of care, we shouldn’t offer this option” is like a hospital that does not have sufficient amounts of IV pain medications saying to a labouring woman, “Well, we don’t have enough IV pain medications, so we are not going to offer you a labour epidural, because that is a false choice.” That does not actually make sense.
Look at it from a patient’s perspective. Think about a patient who is dying from terminal cancer, is in lots and lots of pain and does not have any good options for their pain control. Imagine saying to that person, “We don’t have all of this care or this option over here available to you, so we are not going to allow you to have an assisted death”, even if they are telling you, “This is what I want. Why won’t you give this to me?”. It does not make sense to remove this as an option just because all of the options might not be available to everyone all of the time. It is a bit cruel when you think about it from a patient’s perspective.
The Chair
We have two minutes left before the evidence session finishes. Dr Simon Opher, please ask a very quick question and perhaps we could have a short response. I do not want to interrupt our witnesses at the end.
Dr Opher
Q
Dr Spielvogel: I literally had not formed any kind of opinion on this. When I was in medical school, it was not talked about. We did not talk about it; we did not discuss it; it just literally was not a thing, and then when it became law in California, I still had not really thought of it until my medical institution asked me whether I wanted to participate. I said, “Sure, I will give it a try,” and then with my first patient, I saw how amazingly transformative it was for him and his family. I had seen lots of death before then; I saw how tragic and traumatic it often was and how this was a dramatically different experience, and I became a convert.
Since then, I have seen many other physicians undergo the same journey with their patients. They have been very ambivalent to it until they have a patient who is asking for it. They go through it with that patient who they have known for a long time, and then they come out on the other end realising just how amazing this option is to the people who want it. Again, I am emphasising that this is a choice. For people who do not want this, they do not need to have it. For doctors who do not want to do it, they do not have to do it. But for the patients who want this, it is an incredibly powerful piece of agency.
Dr Kaan: The jurisdictions I work in have quite a bit more experience. In Oregon, of course, it has been legal since 1997, and it has been legal in Washington state since 2008. Both of those laws were actually started by voter referendum, so the general populace at large wanted this, and that is how these laws got started in both of those states. The general population has, by and large,, been supportive, and is growing more and more supportive of this as an option each year as it becomes normalised and clear that this is a practice which is careful, safe and has appropriate safeguards in place.
The medical community has also come along with that. In Washington state, we have now 15 years of practice with assisted dying. When this law was first passed, there was hesitancy in the medical community: this was an unknown, in many regards. We were the second state in the entire United States to pass this law and so the medical community was a bit hesitant. I will say that, in those last 15 years, we have seen a tremendous growth in the support of physicians and the medical community at large in wanting to make sure that this is an option for people and that they have access. Just in my own experience in Washington state—
The Chair
Order. I am sorry; I hope this does not sound rude, Dr Kaan —regrettably, there are procedures in Parliament that require me to do this—but we have come to the end of the allotted time for the Committee to ask questions. I thank the witnesses Dr Spielvogel and Dr Kaan for your contributions and time. This was very valuable.
Thank you to our witnesses and for all the contributions, and for your forbearance on this very sensitive subject.
Danny Kruger
On a point of order, Mr Dowd. I wonder, given the fact that we have had so many really helpful conversations and questions but not enough time for everybody to ask everything they wanted, whether it would be appropriate for Members who want to write to witnesses to ask for follow-up information or further questions could do so through the Committee, rather than us all deluging the witnesses with our own messages, some of which will duplicate each other. I appreciate that there is a capacity question for the Clerks, but it might be appropriate to ask the Speaker for a bit more resource to enable that to happen. I think that the hon. Member for Spen Valley broadly supports the idea; I do not know if others do, as well.
The Chair
Let us be clear. Witnesses can submit written evidence until the Committee reports to the House. It is open to Members to individually write to witnesses and invite them to give written evidence, if they so wish. My advice to the hon. Member is that if he wishes to look at this in a more formal way or through a more formal mechanism, he is to speak to the Committee Clerks, because it is beyond my remit.
We now come to motions (a) to (d) amending the sittings motion tabled by the Member in charge. I have selected the amendment tabled to motion (a) and will group all four motions and the amendment for debate. I will first call Kim Leadbeater to move motion (a), then Naz Shah to move the amendment. The scope of the debate is all four motions and the amendment.
Kim Leadbeater
I beg to move amendment (a), in the list of witnesses set out in the table in the Sittings Motion agreed by the Committee on 21 January 2025, after Mencap (Thursday 30 January, until no later than 5.00 pm), leave out “Representative of Senedd Cymru” and insert—
“Professor Emyr Lewis (Emeritus Professor, Department of Law and Criminology, University of Aberystwyth), Royal College of General Practitioners, Royal College of Psychiatrists.”
These amendments allow additional witnesses to be called to give oral evidence, including representatives from Disability Rights UK, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and an expert in Welsh devolution and constitutional matters.
As the sessions today have shown, hearing from expert witnesses is an extremely important part of this process, so I hope I have the support of the Committee in making these additions. On the motion to call additional witnesses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West, I respect the suggestion but I am confident that we have an eminently qualified witness to cover issues of coercion and domestic abuse in Professor Jane Monckton-Smith, who was suggested by my hon. Friend.
We have also heard today—and will hear from many witnesses over the next few days—from medical doctors, social workers, nurses, palliative care experts and geriatricians. That is around 50 witnesses in total. While I fully appreciate that a wide range of additional charities and organisations has valuable contributions to make, I would encourage them to submit written evidence so that the Committee has the benefit of their thoughts.
Regarding the start of the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, given the huge volume of evidence—both oral and written—that we have received and are still receiving, I have consulted with colleagues across the Committee and there is a consensus that having next week to absorb and evaluate the evidence, and to prepare any amendments in light of it, is extremely important. Consequently, we would begin line-by-line scrutiny on Tuesday 11 February, as per the amendment.
I hope that these amendments demonstrate the robust approach that the Committee and I are taking to our work, and I encourage colleagues to support them.
Naz Shah
I beg to move an amendment to amendment (a), at end insert—
“Richard Robinson, CEO of Hourglass, Cherry Henry-Leach of STADA, Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse ”.
I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley and I am grateful to her for adding Professor Jane Monckton-Smith to the witness list. I also absolutely agree that the evidence we receive is really valuable.
This is an amendment tabled yesterday by the Mother of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) yesterday, to which I have added my name.
The reason for the amendment is that Hourglass focuses on domestic abuse of older people and it has particularly noted that the majority of such victims are female. Hourglass estimates that one in six elderly people are victims of coercion in the UK. This raises serious concerns that such people could be pushed into ending their lives if the Bill is enacted. Hourglass has not published a public opinion on the Bill.
Standing Together Against Domestic Abuse has said that
“We must echo concerns raised by the VAWG sector”—
the violence against women and girls sector—
“and disability activists about the bill’s current safeguards. There is insufficient clarity on what constitutes coercion and limited reflection on carer capacity to support someone terminally ill. Without robust measures, there is a real risk that assisted dying could be exploited as a tool for coercion or even femicide.
Statistics show that over 88% of unlawful ‘mercy killings’ are perpetrated by men towards women, often involving violent means. These troubling realities demand urgent consideration in shaping this legislation.
We also highlight the health sector’s role in identifying domestic abuse. With 80% of victim-survivors having their first or only point of contact in healthcare, it is critical that health professionals are equipped to identify and respond to abuse.
We call on the Government to ensure the proposed bill includes stringent safeguards and that healthcare systems are equipped to recognise and prevent the potential misuse of assisted dying. Femicide is already a crisis in the UK, and no law should inadvertently contribute to its escalation.”
All my adult life, I have had experience of dealing with domestic abuse and coercion, and I draw on that experience to speak to these amendments. Although Professor Jane Monckton-Smith is an expert, she is an academic. These two organisations work with people who have been victims of abuse.
In addition, we had an official meeting with the Clerk to discuss the proposals for Committee sittings. It was said at that meeting that we would only have witnesses who would give evidence, particularly in person, that would contribute to the deliverability and the workability of the Bill. Since then, we have had families added to the list of witnesses. That adds weight to the argument that we should have witnesses who are providing a service to victims directly.
Dr Tidball
I, too, support my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley and in particular I want to highlight the helpful addition of Kamran Mallick of Disability Rights UK. That augments an already comprehensive list of expert disabled people, which includes: Professor Tom Shakespeare, an internationally renowned disability rights academic; Dr Miro Griffiths, a Disability Studies scholar at the University of Leeds; and Chelsea Roff, the founder of Eat Breathe Thrive. On the panel, we will also have a representative of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, who will be able to give a good overview on the intersection between protected characteristics. Finally, there will be Jon Sparkes, the representative of Mencap.
I am really pleased that my hon. Friend has worked so hard to ensure that the voices of disabled people are integrated across a number of the panels that we will see over the next two days, and the addition in her amendment is really helpful. I commend her for it.
Kit Malthouse
I, too, support the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Spen Valley, and in particular the addition of Jane Monckton-Smith. I have read her book; it is definitely worth a read and is pretty alarming. I will address why I do not think the Committee should support the amendment to the amendment tabled to add other witnesses.
Jane Monckton-Smith has done a huge amount of research in the area, and as well as being an academic who specialises in coercion and femicide—and the impact that coercion has on femicide—she is a former police officer, so has significant frontline experience. As part of her research she will have spoken with and interacted with many of the groups that the hon. Member for Bradford West is proposing to include—although maybe not specifically. I would prefer it if we stuck with the list that the hon. Member for Spen Valley has put forward, and not add the additional witnesses proposed.
Lewis Atkinson
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. Having agreed to extend the time on Thursday to hear devolution issues and from the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Psychiatrists, by adding two further witnesses, the amendment to the amendment would reduce the time available on those options. In an ideal world we would like to hear from all sorts of people. The option of written evidence is available. We have got other evidence, and I want to ensure that Thursday’s session is focused on the proposals that my hon. Friend has made.
Naz Shah
There is nothing in my amendment that suggests Professor Monckton-Smith is not capable in her expertise. I am asking for other expertise to be brought to the table. Yes, there is the argument that people can submit written evidence—but so could every witness we have heard from today, and that we will hear from tomorrow and the day after. If that is the yardstick, is this just a tokenistic exercise? I would argue that for women in particular, who are the victims of domestic abuse—
Dr Tidball
I note that Laura Hoyano, who is giving evidence on Thursday, is a domestic abuse barrister. She has also been involved in inquiries on child sexual abuse, and has a great range of experience in that area. She will bring that to the table as a practising barrister working closely on such cases.
Naz Shah
I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention and I recognise Laura Hoyano’s expertise. I would respectfully push back that, as a victim of domestic violence—as a person who has experienced it and campaigned on it for all my adult life—there is a difference between an academic who has studied it and people who have worked with victims, in particular elderly women. The expert is a barrister with experience of young people and children and domestic abuse, and Professor Monckton-Smith is also an academic—yes, she has been a police officer—but I would value a witness who has worked with victims of domestic abuse. That is all I have to say on it.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Amendments made: (b), in the list of witnesses set out in the table in the Sittings Motion agreed by the Committee on 21 January 2025, after
“Professor Aneez Esmail (University of Manchester)”
insert “Disability Rights UK”.
Amendment (c), in the list of witnesses set out in the table in the Sittings Motion agreed by the Committee on 21 January 2025, after
“Dr Lewis Graham (University of Cambridge),”
leave out “John Kirkpatrick” and insert “Baroness Falkner”.
Amendment (d), in paragraph (2) of the sittings motion agreed by the Committee on 21 January 2025, after “Wednesdays” insert
“starting on 11 February 2025”.—(Kim Leadbeater.)
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Kit Malthouse.)
5.30 pm
Adjourned till Wednesday 29 January at twenty-five minutes past Nine o’clock.
Written evidence reported to the House
TIAB 01 Ben Scott
TIAB 02 Michael Vidal
TIAB 03 Compassion in Care
TIAB 03(a) Compassion in Care (further evidence)
TIAB 04 Dr George Gillett, an NHS doctor and psychiatrist
TIAB 05 Dr Stephen Hutchison MD
TIAB 06 Dr Andrew Boorne
TIAB 07 Jess Carrington, Registered Social Worker and Best Interests Assessor
TIAB 08 Greg Lawton MPharm MRPharmS FFRPS MBCS LLM, Barrister and Pharmacist
TIAB 09 Australian Care Alliance
TIAB 10 Dr Peter Knight
TIAB 11 Dr Isky Gordon FRCR, FRCP, Emeritus Professor Paediatric Imaging, UCL, London
TIAB 12 Dr Peter O’Halloran, RN, PhD, Registered Nurse, Senior Lecturer, Queen’s University Belfast, Researcher in chronic illness, palliative and end-of-life care
TIAB 13 Rose
TIAB 14 Dr Rachel Fisher
TIAB 15 Nigel Andrew Gordon Jones, a retired Consultant General Surgeon
TIAB 16 St Gemma’s Hospice
TIAB 17 Sir Nicholas Mostyn
TIAB 18 Leah Locke
TIAB 19 Alison Taylor
TIAB 20 Dr Katharine Crossland
TIAB 21 John Forrester
TIAB 22 Don Stickland
TIAB 23 Christina Blandford-Beards
TIAB 24 Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC)
TIAB 25 Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales
TIAB 26 British Association of Social Workers
TIAB 27 Plunkett Centre for Ethics: A centre of Australian Catholic University located at St Vincent’s Hospital Sydney
TIAB 28 Dame Sarah Mullally, Bishop of London, Lead Bishop on Health and Social Care for the Church of England and former Chief Nursing Officer for England on behalf of the Bishops of the Church of England and the Archbishops’ Council
TIAB 29 Cicely Saunders International
TIAB 30 Lejeune Clinic for Children with Down Syndrome
TIAB 31 Voice for Justice UK
TIAB 32 Get on Downs - a Down Syndrome Support Group
TIAB 33 British Medical Association (BMA)
TIAB 34 Portsmouth Down Syndrome Association
TIAB 35 Better Way campaign
TIAB 36 Hospice UK
TIAB 37 Association of Catholic Nurses for England and Wales
TIAB 38 East Midlands Palliative Medicine Consultants and Specialty Doctors
TIAB 39 Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, University College London (UCL)
TIAB 40 Humanists UK
TIAB 41 Nuffield Council on Bioethics’ (NCOB)
TIAB 42 Marie Curie
TIAB 43 LOROS, the Leicestershire and Rutland Hospice
TIAB 44 Professor Emeritus Sam H Ahmedzai
TIAB 45 Professor Nancy Preston, Professor of the International Observatory on End of Life Care, Lancaster University; and Professor Suzanne Ost, Law School, Lancaster University
TIAB 46 Professor Alex Ruck Keene KC (Hon)
TIAB 47 Anureg Deb and Dr Lewis Graham
TIAB 48 Australian Centre for Health Law Research, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
TIAB 49 The Bios Centre
TIAB 50 The Orders of St John Care Trust
TIAB 51 Living and Dying Well
TIAB 52 Professor Katherine Sleeman, King’s College London
TIAB 53 British Islamic Medical Association (BIMA)
TIAB 54 Joint written evidence submitted by Chelsea Roff (Eat Breathe Thrive, UK), Dr Angela Guarda (Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, US), Dr Philip Mehler (University of Colorado School of Medicine, US), Dr Patricia Westmoreland (University of Colorado, US), Dr Scott Crow (University of Minnesota, US), Dr Catherine Cook-Cottone (University at Buffalo, SUNY, US), Dr Anita Federici (York University, Canada), and Dr Agnes Ayton (Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, UK)
TIAB 55 Professor Allan House
TIAB 56 National Care Forum (NCF)
TIAB 57 AtaLoss
TIAB 58 Compton Care
TIAB 59 Dr Odette Spruijt, Medical Director, Launceston Specialist Palliative Care Service
TIAB 60 Rachel Pegrum, Independent Social Worker
TIAB 61 Abdul Rahman Badran
TIAB 62 Alan Thomas, Professor of Old Age Psychiatry, Director of Brains for Dementia Research, Translational and Clinical Research Institute, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University
TIAB 63 Dr Julian Neal
TIAB 64 Dr Raymond Towey
TIAB 65 Multiple System Atrophy Trust
TIAB 66 Dr Adrian Tookman
TIAB 67 Royal College of Psychiatrists
TIAB 68 UK Medical Freedom Alliance
TIAB 69 Association of Anaesthetists
TIAB 70 Catholic Union of Great Britain
TIAB 71 My Death, My Decision
TIAB 72 Health Advisory and Recovery Team (HART)
TIAB 73 Kyam Maher MLC, the Attorney-General of South Australia, in his capacity as a member of the Legislative Council of South Australia
TIAB 74 Dr Calum MacKellar, Director of Research, Scottish Council on Human Bioethics
TIAB 75 Christian Medical Fellowship
TIAB 76 Christian Medical and Dental Association of Canada
TIAB 77 Christian Legal Centre
TIAB 78 Written evidence submitted on behalf of a group of anorexia nervosa sufferers and carers
TIAB 79 Dr Angelika Reichstein, Associate Professor in Law, University of East Anglia
TIAB 80 Dr David Randall
TIAB 81 Cruse Bereavement Support
TIAB 82 Compassion in Dying
TIAB 83 General Medical Council (GMC)
TIAB 84 Pathfinders Neuromuscular Alliance
TIAB 85 Royal Pharmaceutical Society
TIAB 86 Motor Neurone Disease Association
TIAB 87 Dr Simon Eyre
TIAB 88 Macdonald Amaran
TIAB 89 Patrick Pullicino
TIAB 90 Luis Espericueta, Researcher and lecturer in bioethics at the University of Granada, Spain
TIAB 91 Healthcare Professionals for Assisted Dying
TIAB 92 PSP Association (PSPA)
TIAB 93 Association for Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and Ireland (APM)
TIAB 94 Academy of Medical Royal College's
TIAB 95 Care Not Killing
TIAB 96 Dr Alexandra Mullock, Senior Lecturer in Law
TIAB 97 Rt Hon. Sir Stephen Sedley
TIAB 98 Carole O’Reilly
TIAB 99 Dr Hannah Denno
TIAB 100 Prof B Anthony Bell MD, Neurosurgeon, University of London
TIAB 101 Matthew Hoyle, Barrister
TIAB 102 Royal College of Nursing
Westminster Hall
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Road Safety: Young Drivers
(2 days, 10 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
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
Before I call Julia Buckley, I wish to make a short statement. I have been advised that she wishes to raise relevant cases that are not currently sub judice but have been subject to a completed police investigation and a coroner inquest. Caution must be exercised by any Member wishing to raise the specifics of relevant cases.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered road safety for young drivers.
Thank you for chairing this Westminster Hall debate on road safety for young drivers, Sir Desmond, and for allowing me to present the opening statement to our Minister for the Future of Roads, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). I thank her for giving up her time today to engage in this discussion.
Road traffic collisions are the biggest killer of young people aged 15 to 29 worldwide. In 2023, 290 young people were killed in the UK as a result of a road collision, and nearly one quarter of all road collisions involved young people. Although drivers under 24 make up only 6% of total licence holders, they represent 18% of all car drivers killed and seriously injured. That is because one in five newly qualified drivers will have an accident in their first year. For any other leading cause of death of our young people, we would declare a public health emergency and prioritise resources to tackle the crisis.
Unfortunately, young people are also more likely to be involved in crashes causing multiple injuries and those that involve a greater number of people. There is much evidence to suggest that younger and less experienced drivers carry a heavier risk. The road safety campaign Brake points to some development-related risks, including the level of brain development, overconfidence and poor assessment of hazards, that make young drivers more prone to serious accidents.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for the way she is laying out her case. Does she agree that preventing young people from speeding is one way to prevent accidents? Like me, she knows that it is very difficult to get fixed speed cameras in place. The current Government guidance says that three serious accidents or deaths must occur before a fixed speed camera can be installed. Does she agree that a preventive approach would be much more successful than a punitive approach?
Julia Buckley
I agree that all measures that can prevent collisions, injuries and deaths should be explored. Prevention is often not only better but cheaper than dealing with the consequences of doing nothing.
Research from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has shown that young drivers have poorer visual awareness. They display a smaller range of horizontal scanning of the road, they check their mirrors less, and they focus more on stationary objects than moving objects.
In rural areas such as my constituency of Shrewsbury, the statistics are compounded by the disproportionate danger on countryside roads. According to National Farmers Union Mutual’s 2024 “Rural Road Safety” report, there were nearly 1,000 deaths on rural roads that year. Tragically, collisions on rural roads are four times more likely to end in a fatality. That report showed that rural hazards are often entirely different from those on urban roads, and require a specific set of skills and awareness—including the need to look out for livestock or agricultural vehicles, the lack of lighting or road markings, narrow passing points, the lack of visibility, blind corners and poor road quality. It highlighted the need for improved road maintenance and infrastructure.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. Will she join me in congratulating charity groups such as Life After, in my area, which deals with people who have suffered trauma and the loss of partners or close relatives in road traffic accidents? It does so much to help people after the traffic accidents that she is so eloquently talking about. That type of education would help young people.
Julia Buckley
I agree, and it is absolutely excellent to hear of any support for families who have been bereaved as a result of a collision. That can be used to educate others, so that we can try to prevent accidents in the future. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
However, a majority of drivers wrongly assume that urban roads are more dangerous. That leads to an underestimation of the risks involved in driving on rural roads. NFU Mutual produced a code for countryside roads to support education and awareness-raising of the specific driving skills that would help. That could be incorporated into the driving test or a follow-up course of additional learning as part of the driver’s probationary period.
Many young people who live in rural areas feel isolated and, as a consequence, feel compelled to start driving as early as possible because of the lack of public transport, which leaves them unable to access college work, social or sporting activities. In Shropshire, we have lost more than 5,000 bus routes since 2010 and 17-year-olds are increasingly driving their first car out of necessity—something that would be anathema to a teenager growing up in London or Manchester, where public transport is so easy and cheap to use.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I congratulate my constituency neighbour on securing this critical debate. She is making an excellent case for improving road safety for young people. Does she agree that putting public transport infrastructure in place is critical to giving people options, and to enabling them to have a social life and feel less isolated in rural areas without having to get in the car at a very young and very risky age?
Julia Buckley
I could not agree more, and I think that particularly affects young people living in rural areas. It is not surprising that between 2019 and 2023, nearly half of casualties in young car driver collisions occurred on rural roads. Each of those numbers is a person—a young person with their whole life ahead of them, a son or daughter whose family love and cherish them.
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
My constituent, Sharron Huddleston, has been campaigning after tragically losing her daughter Caitlin in 2017. She was one of those children on rural roads who tragically lost her life as a passenger in a young novice’s car. Sharon founded the Forget-me-not Families Uniting group. They campaign for restrictions on the number of passengers that young drivers can carry in the car, and on night-time driving. What haunts me is the fact that had we listened to people campaigning on this issue more than 40 years ago, Caitlin would still be here today. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time we looked at this issue seriously and put in place restrictions to protect young drivers and other people on the road?
Julia Buckley
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I think we are going to be hearing lots of suggestions today about all the measures that could help prevent such tragedies, because each death is an avoidable tragedy that freezes these young people in time, forever prevented from growing up to fulfil their full potential.
Harvey Owen, the son of my constituent, was killed in a fatal car crash while travelling from Shrewsbury with three other young men, all of whom were killed in the accident. Four young lives were taken too soon, leaving their families behind with an unbearable void where their child should be.
Crystal Owen, Harvey’s mother, has taken that raw pain and channelled her energy into a focused campaign. She is dedicated and selfless in her advocacy of young drivers and their families. It is on behalf of Crystal Owen that I requested today’s debate. She is sitting with us here today, surrounded by other families of young people killed in serious car crashes. I thank them all for coming today for what cannot be an easy day. We really appreciate their presence. They have formed the Forget-me-not group to campaign together so that nobody else has to suffer as they have. With Crystal’s permission, I will read out the story of Harvey Owen written in her words, because nothing I could say could do justice to her personal tragedy. This is Crystal’s story:
“My kind-hearted son Harvey had just turned 17 in November 2023. A couple of weeks later, he asked me if he could go to Wales with two friends he had known since school. It was to be his first weekend away with friends, and as a parent, I felt it was time to give him a little freedom. He and his friends planned to stay at one of their granddads’ houses, and when I heard this, I thought, ‘What harm can come to him?’ It was a trusted friend’s family, in a safe place. It felt like the right thing to do, to let him experience a bit more independence. At this age, you need to give them a little freedom, right? So, I agreed.
After seeing a video of one of the parents confirming where they were staying, I had no reason to doubt Harvey’s story about who was driving. We had always known Harvey’s friends. Our home was often where the boys would gather to play music for many years. As far as we knew he had no friends who had even passed their driving tests, so we felt comfortable with the situation. Harvey seemed so grown-up now...mature and responsible.
I thought to myself, he was ready for this.
Before he left, Harvey sat in his bedroom playing ‘Ring of Fire’ on his guitar, knowing I loved this song. I told him how proud I was of him, how talented he was, and I gave him a hug, telling him I loved him. He jokingly told me to stop being weird, but he said he loved me too, and not long after, he left. It was the last time I would ever see my beautiful son.
The following morning, Harvey sent me a picture message of the view from the cottage, and everything seemed fine. However, what I didn’t know at the time was that the boys had decided to go on a camping trip. It later transpired that another 18-year-old boy Harvey had recently met at college, a newly qualified driver, had also gone and was actually the one driving. Just over an hour later, after sending me the text, my son and his three friends were dead.
After some of my texts didn’t go through, I started to get concerned. The next thing I knew, we were frantically driving around Snowdonia, having discovered they were missing. Our worry soon turned to panic, and we made our way to Bangor police station. The feeling of being told they had found four bodies, and one they believed to be my son, is indescribable. The pain of that moment felt as much physical as it did mental. It was as if my world had stopped right there in that instant.
A suffocating numbness washed over me, and I felt I was being ripped apart from the inside. Time felt like it froze, like everything around me became a blur. It was as though the world was no longer a place I wanted to be. The life I had known, filled with my son’s laughter, his music, his dreams, was ripped away in an instant. It is an unbearable shock and pain. I wanted to die myself, just to escape the nightmare I was now living. The thought of facing a world without my son, without his presence, was too much to bear. I don’t remember much after that moment; my partner said I was howling, saying on repeat that it couldn’t be Harvey. I knew in that instant I would only ‘exist’ for the rest of my days.
It later emerged that the young driver had lost control of the car on the bend of a rural road. The vehicle ended up in a water-filled ditch, and despite their attempts to escape, all four boys tragically drowned. The news of their deaths was overwhelming. To know that Harvey and his friends had suffered such a tragic end, unable to survive and escape the car, is a pain I cannot put into words. The grief I feel in the wake of this loss is all-consuming, and the loss of my son has left a permanent aching void in my life. It is something that, unless you are unfortunate enough to ever experience yourself, you will never even come close to understanding the pain.
In the months following Harvey’s passing, I could barely function, only leaving my bed to attend the funeral. The circumstances surrounding his trip have weighed heavily on me. I would never have allowed him to go if I had known the full details. A friend informed me that in some countries newly qualified drivers are not allowed to take peer-age passengers for a set period, and are required to gain experience on rural roads first. It seemed like common sense to me, and I thought it was a no-brainer.
After weeks of research, I began my campaign to make driving safer for young drivers, advocating for change in the light of the shocking statistic that 76% of fatalities in crashes involving young drivers are not the driver themselves. Anyone could be affected. I’ve had to publicly share my grief, putting it on display for the media, in order to leverage their coverage and raise awareness about the horrifying statistics around young driver crashes. All of this, while I still haven’t had the time or space to process my own pain.
In October 2024 at the inquest, we learned that the boys had all been practically unharmed by the crash. They were conscious and tried to escape the car. Thanks to the manual back windows, Harvey was able to wind his window down. However, due to the lack of a simple safety hammer, something that could have shattered the glass in seconds and cut through seat belts, precious time was lost. The thought of Harvey’s and the boys’ final moments will haunt me for the rest of my life. I strongly believe that such a safety tool should be made mandatory in all cars. While it is difficult to determine how many lives such devices could save in the long run, in cases like Harvey’s it would have made the difference between life and death.
Although ultimately I feel it is a reactive solution to a more deep-rooted problem. If my son wasn’t able to get in the car, due to safety measures in place to protect newly qualified drivers and their passengers, then he would not have needed the hammer, as the crash would not have taken place. My campaign is not about punishing young people but about protecting them. Implementing these safety measures would help safeguard their lives by addressing the risks associated with inexperience and impulsivity, allowing them to enjoy their freedom without facing unnecessary danger.
During the course of the inquest, the evidence revealed matters giving rise to concern, which the coroner published, stating that he felt there is a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken where younger people are carried in motor vehicles driven by newly qualified and/or young drivers, and that preventative action should be taken.
After nearly a year of campaigning, I should have felt relief when the coroner issued this ‘Preventing Future Deaths’ report. But sadly, as part of the Forget Me Not Families Uniting group, I know that similar recommendations have been made in the past, with no real change.
Unfortunately, there will never be a victory for families like ours, because our children are gone forever. If people truly understood the depth of our pain, along with the level of commitment we parents put into researching the overwhelming evidence, we might be taken more seriously in our fight for change.
I hope this debate forces everyone to confront the scale of the problem. Every day without action means more families torn apart, more lives lost.
Protecting young drivers, their passengers, and other road users should never be a matter of political division. It’s a moral issue. The evidence is clear: young people’s brains are still developing, making them more prone to risky decisions behind the wheel.
Protecting young drivers is not just about statistics; it’s about lives lost.”
Thank you, Crystal, for your story—we really appreciate it.
To conclude, how can we keep young people safe on our roads? There are many calls for additional training or support for newly qualified drivers. The Association of British Insurers concludes that over two thirds of insurers now employ some form of telematics, or black box, to monitor driving behaviours by new drivers to reduce risk factors. We have heard proposals to increase training and awareness of the risk on rural roads, and about the need to invest in and maintain those roads to reduce hazards. We could invest more in public transport in our rural areas to offer our young people a viable alternative mode of transport so that they can access services. Finally, there are proposals for specific safety measures, such as mandating the carrying of an emergency glass hammer in every vehicle as a new standard.
Julia Buckley
I will not. Such a device can smash the window or cut the seatbelt in case of emergency. We could call it Harvey’s hammer, in memory of one young man from Shrewsbury whose legacy has brought us all here today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
There will be a three-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) for calling this important debate. That is an incredibly difficult speech to follow, and I am feeling very emotional. I also thank all the families here today.
I have two teenage children, one of whom is now 18, and he is about to learn to drive. It is really helpful if young people in my constituency can drive themselves around, because—especially in villages such as the one he lives in—they are often at the mercy of unreliable and infrequent bus services. As his mum, I am of course encouraging him to learn: he will be able to be more independent, and it is an important life skill. But I have some really serious concerns about his safety when he starts to drive.
My constituency has a lot of A roads that are windy and fast, and they often have junctions off to the side, from which drivers are trying to pull out on to the main road. We have a history of accidents in the local area, including a horrendous one in 2023, when two young sisters were killed by an oncoming vehicle driven by someone who was high on drugs. That accident took place on a very dangerous junction outside Frome, and I am campaigning for traffic lights to be installed there, but I am coming up against a lack of council or Government funding to get the new infrastructure installed. We cannot put in the preventive measures my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) mentioned if we cannot fund them.
We know from figures provided by Brake that one in five drivers crash within a year of their test, and more than 1,500 young drivers are killed or injured on the roads each year. We know that carrying passengers or driving at night are major risk factors for younger drivers. I certainly remember careering around the roads where I grew up as a teenager, in cars packed with friends, listening to music too loudly. The thought makes me shudder when I look back on it.
Sadly, we also know that younger drivers are more likely to be involved in a crash caused by speed. Serious consideration needs to be given to graduated driving licences.
Robin Swann
I thank the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) for securing the debate. In Northern Ireland, we still have restricted driving, where a newly qualified driver must display an R plate and is restricted to 45 mph for one year after passing their test. Not everything has to be new; there are places where restrictions are working along the lines of the graduated scheme suggested by the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine).
Anna Sabine
That is exactly right. I am keen that when we discuss this issue, we look at good practice from other places.
Graduated driving licences can be set up in a number of ways, but typically might involve minimum periods for learning to drive, and reducing the number of passengers a young person can have in the car. In the UK, we already have a version of this system for motorbikes. We recognise that young motorcyclists probably should not ride the most powerful bikes straightaway, and we restrict them accordingly. Even motoring groups such as the RAC have supported moves towards a graduated driving licence scheme in recent times, and I intend to explore the idea in my own political party.
I totally understand why young people might resist or resent the idea of graduated driving licences. I can also see why, in rural areas such as mine or that of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury, really stringent restrictions on driving—such as preventing young people from driving at night—might make it hard for them to get to their jobs or educational settings if buses are not frequent enough. But I think the idea warrants a conversation, because young people have the most to lose if we cannot get this right.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) for bringing this really important debate to the House and for sharing so movingly the case involving the tragic death of her constituent Harvey.
Road safety is a serious concern for my constituents. In 2023, there were 183 reported injuries and one fatality on our roads. In early 2024, prior to being elected, I campaigned with local councillor Marcus Dearden and the Mayor of West Yorkshire, Tracy Brabin, to address speeding issues in Bingley. We successfully secured average speed cameras on a 50 mph stretch of dual carriageway that was often used as a racetrack by young drivers, but it is challenging to get those sorts of road safety measures in place.
We have already heard from others about the higher risk that young drivers face. One in four deaths from collisions involves a young car driver, and we know that this is more prevalent among young men. We have also heard people speak movingly about the huge impact on families. When I was growing up, a school friend’s younger brother died tragically in a motorbike accident on the A65 between Ilkley and Burley in Wharfedale, in my constituency. His parents and brother have suffered a lifetime of grief as a result of that accident.
I strongly support the West Yorkshire Vision Zero strategy, which takes a partnership approach to eliminate all traffic fatalities and serious injuries by 2040. It brings together the combined authority, the local authority, the emergency services and National Highways, as well as victim support services and road safety campaigners. I really hope that such approaches are implemented and supported nationally by my hon. Friend the Minister.
We need to make it easier for local people to identify speeding hotspots where speed cameras are needed and to push for them. In addition, I urge the Minister to give some consideration to post-test licence restrictions, possibly through an amendment to the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995, which has already introduced a new driver probation period of two years.
In closing, I emphasise that we must also recognise that older drivers pose a risk to themselves and others, with those over 86 posing a similar risk to young men. Perhaps I will bring that forward as a topic for future debate.
Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I commend the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) for securing this important debate.
Just three weeks after the 2024 general election, four young men were killed in Ullenwood, just outside my constituency, when their car collided with a tree. They were three 20-year-olds and one 18-year-old. “This is Andrei, my child full of dreams,” his mother said in a tribute to her son.
Of course, it is not always young people who suffer such accidents, but many suffer vicariously through the loss of their loved ones. I recall the deaths of two motorcyclists, which happened separately but within 90 minutes, on the same stretch of road on 30 August 2023. One lost his life near Ashchurch, and the other near Evesham. One was a friend of a friend. Let the record recall Philip Beer, described by his lifelong friend Richard Price as an ex-Conservative councillor in Longlevens ward, but the good type of Tory—very moderate and centrist—and someone who had voted for Labour and the Liberal Democrats in recent years. He was a Spurs supporter. He left behind his wife, Louise, and his children, Izzy, Charlie and Henry.
I have previously spoken of my admiration for members of the emergency services, who selflessly put themselves in harm’s way to protect and treat others. I hope everyone in this room will spare a thought for our police officers, paramedics and firefighters who arrive at the scenes of road traffic collisions.
In July, I learned a truly shocking statistic: one in five young people will be involved in a reportable road traffic collision in the year following their driving test. In 2023 alone, there were 281 road collisions in the Tewkesbury constituency, and just under 20% involved people aged between 17 and 24—that is one young person per week, just in Tewkesbury.
Driving is popular among all demographics in my constituency. Many young people use cars to travel to school, to see their friends and to play for local sports teams. Like Shrewsbury, Tewkesbury, with its broadly dispersed towns and villages, suffers from irregular and unreliable public transport, so driving is heavily relied on. According to the Department for Transport, there has been a 24% decline in passenger journeys on local bus services in the Gloucestershire region since 2015.
We should acknowledge that, for many young people, learning to drive is a significant milestone and a source of immense pride. But it is one that exposes them to significant risk. Men aged 17 to 25 have higher rates of fatal road collisions than almost any other age group—they are second only to over-85s.
One initiative that I proudly endorse is the under-17 Pathfinder Initiative, which is active in Gloucestershire, West Mercia, Yorkshire and Humberside. It is a low-cost and socially mobile initiative, with various bursaries available so that young people of all socioeconomic backgrounds can benefit. Volunteers guide aspiring drivers through theoretical and practical training in a controlled environment, away from public roads. In August 2024, I visited the initiative in South Cerney and was driven around safely by a young lady under tuition, alongside her father.
The reduction of speed limits is controversial among drivers, and I myself sometimes find the practice frustrating. However, this cannot be about our own frustrations; rather, it must be about our children. A reduction in the speed limit on high-risk routes in Lincolnshire resulted in a 75% reduction in collisions in which someone was killed or seriously injured. For that reason, I would endorse the practice in Gloucestershire. I hope the Minister will take those statistics back to her Department, alongside my endorsements.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond—I miss our Tuesday morning meetings. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) for securing the debate. I am speaking because road safety for young drivers is a crucial issue in my constituency.
My constituency is semi-rural, and learning to drive is a huge part of becoming independent from one’s parents; indeed, my parents forced me to learn to drive at the age of 17 because they did not want to drive me around any more. Local transport links are not good enough: buses do not run regularly enough or late enough for young people to rely on them in order to play sport, go to college, see friends or visit local town centres at weekends. By the age of 17, many of my constituents want to be able to drive to school without having to rely on their parents. Unfortunately, that also means that my constituency has far too many tragic accidents involving young drivers.
In 2000, four teenagers died after Adam, a 17-year-old newly qualified driver, crashed his car. Adam, Jonathon, Craig and James were planning to celebrate the birthday of one of their friends just a few hours after Adam crashed. An inquest found that defects in the vehicle’s condition, tyre pressure imbalance and a comparative lack of driving experience were contributing factors to Adam’s crash. In 2017, Trudi-Mae Kennell, Ryan Barber and Will Louch died on a journey back from Snowdonia to Atherstone and an unnamed 18-year-old was arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving. Most recently, in 2024, a teenage boy suffered serious head injuries after his car hit a tree and caught fire in Polesworth. It was reported as miraculous that he survived the crash. All those young people had so much ahead of them, and it is sad to see that their crashes belong to a pattern.
There is so much discussion about what policies to propose to tackle this issue, but the first must be to push for our young people to wear seatbelts. Between 2019 and 2023, 16% of younger car drivers involved in serious collisions did not wear seatbelts. We need to make sure that our young people know that if they do not feel confident driving with passengers, they should not do so. We need to make sure that before passing a driving test, young people have experience of driving in the dark and with passengers. And we need to make sure we, as adults, challenge risky driving behaviour whenever we see it.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) for securing this important debate. Just a few weeks after my election, I received a letter from my constituent, Jane. She is a mother who has had to endure the unthinkable pain of burying her 17-year-old son. Will died in a collision in June. He was a smart and popular young man, with a passion for judo, maths and computers. My heart goes out to Jane and her family.
Jane’s son had passed his test just one month prior to his death. She told me:
“As a mother, I did everything I could to protect him. I persuaded my son not to drive with his friends in his car for the first month...I felt I could not request this for longer when his friends didn’t have such rules and it wasn’t law.”
I remember myself, when I passed my test and first went out with a group of teenage friends, how intimidating that was.
Why has the UK not taken action already? Under the coalition Government, the potential adoption of graduated driving licences was discussed, but various issues arose. One problem was the impact on less affluent young people, who may be more adversely affected by restricted driving hours—for example, working 17-year-olds who need access to a car to work at night or for early-hours shift work. How can young people who rely on carpooling to cut transport costs do so if there are passenger limitations? There are obstacles, particularly in rural areas such as the villages in my constituency of Horsham.
I support the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and my constituent Jane by joining their call for the Government to take action. We should see an impact assessment of the various graduated driving schemes, many of which are already in operation around the world, so we can make the right choice for the 60% of the public who, as polls suggest, already support them.
Finally, I thank Jane for bringing her heartbreaking story to me. It cannot be easy to campaign with a wound so recent. I would like Jane to know that it is only because of individuals such as her that we are able to have this debate, and perhaps because of them, change will come.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I wholeheartedly commiserate with the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) about the distressing tale that she has had to tell and that the parents have had to bear.
In constituencies such as mine, Tiverton and Minehead, getting a car can often be the only way young people get to meet their friends without relying on the taxi service of mum and dad. It is integral to growing their sense of independence and self-sufficiency. Rural areas such as mine are not blessed with good public transport systems, so cars are the predominant means of transport, whether for business or leisure.
In Tiverton and Minehead, where we have almost no sixth form provision, young people often need a car to get to their place of learning. When the buses are overcrowded and sometimes late, and journeys are always long, those cars can be a powerful vehicle, literally, of academic and vocational aspiration.
Nationally, Government figures estimate that one in five young drivers will crash within a year of passing their test, and that more than 1,500 young drivers are killed or seriously injured on this country’s roads each year. In Tiverton and Minehead, over the past five years, there was a total of 244 casualties in accidents where at least one participant, not including pedestrians, was under the age of 26. Of those, 35 were serious and three were fatal.
The Government must support measures to reduce the number of tragedies caused by road traffic accidents, including investment in road safety, infrastructure and maintenance, better enforcement on speeding and law breaking, education programmes, and better safety technology in the modern industry.
To conclude, I admit that I do not have the solutions, but I have faith that we, as a Parliament, and more widely through a national conversation, can move the dial on the issue. We can find a way to protect our young people without blocking them from cars, which can provide a route to community for them. We owe it to our young people to do that, and to all those affected by road collisions. I know we can rise to the challenge that it poses.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. Before I start, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) for her incredibly moving story, particularly her story about Harvey. The hearts of everyone in this Chamber today will go out to Harvey’s family for what must have been an absolutely terrible ordeal. Sadly, one does not have to go far in my constituency of Harlow to see signs of a road traffic incident—a damaged traffic island, a crushed crash barrier, a single bunch of flowers or a football scarf tied to a lamppost.
I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury about the issues on rural roads. Like previous speakers, my constituency is made up of urban areas, Harlow, and rural areas, such as Roydon. I have met the Roydon community speed watch team to talk about the issues they face; I will go into some of my suggestions as to how we can solve those if I have time.
In 2022, there were a total of 228 casualties in Harlow, two of which were fatalities and 51 were life-changing serious injuries. There have been over 1,000 incidents since 2018. I recognise that I do not have a lot of time, but I will briefly mention the two young gentleman who I had the pleasure to teach and who I mentioned in the Chamber a few weeks ago. The impact of losing someone so young is huge for those families and for everyone who knows and cares about them. Later in the week, there will be a debate about road safety around schools, which I look forward to taking part in, but I agree with what hon. Members have said about education.
I will finish by mentioning my pet peeve—I am sure many campaigners in the room will agree—that when an issue of road safety is raised with the relevant authority, it takes so long to get the necessary road safety interventions in place. I ask the Minister to give that some consideration.
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
I am afraid I must reduce the time limit to a formal two-minute limit.
Mrs Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) for securing this debate.
In the words of my constituents Mark and Mandy Ogden, whose daughter Georgia died on 26 June 2020:
“The last thing we want is to parade our grief, but we need people to understand the devastation these road deaths cause.”
Georgia, known as Gee to her family, was 17. She had been out for the evening and was in a car with another teenage passenger, driven by a third teenage girl. They were all wearing their seatbelts. Mandy talks about the pain of four years now without hearing Gee’s voice, her cute laugh, her silliness and random outbursts of singing, her tantrums over something and nothing, her sassiness, her incredible dancing and performing. She speaks of a gaping hole at the loss of her daughter and of the loneliness and emptiness that she has left. It is indescribable. Mandy told me of the knock at the door and the immediate realisation of what had happened, and that the day that Gee was killed will haunt her for the rest of her days.
Sadly, there are several tributes on A roads around my constituency to other young people who have been killed in surprisingly similar circumstances. Roads in our area are dark, fast and dangerous. We cannot change the entire rural road network, certainly not in the short term, but we can change the law. Mark and Mandy are now part of Forget-me-not Families Uniting, the campaign group alluded to by previous speakers, which is calling on us to save young lives through the introduction of graduated driving licensing and through the creation of an expert panel to advise the Government on how graduated driving licensing in the UK should look.
The Department for Transport’s 2019 road safety statement noted there is evidence that graduated driving licensing schemes, where they have been introduced elsewhere, have proved very effective at improving the safety of young drivers. For example in California, where drivers aged under 18 cannot take passengers under 20 unless supervised, and in New Zealand where young and newly qualified drivers go on to a restricted licence, which means—
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) for setting the scene, and I convey my sympathies to the families in the Gallery on the loss of their young ones. I am very sorry to hear of the horrific accident that occurred in north Wales where four young boys died.
I am concerned to put forward the issues relating to Northern Ireland. Due to the lack of experience, young people are more at risk of being in accidents. Addressing those challenges requires a combination of legislative action and educational awareness. Those are the two things I want to speak about.
In 2019, young people aged between 16 and 24 accounted for almost 21% of those killed or seriously injured in road traffic collisions in Northern Ireland. Young drivers are taught to expect the unexpected and to remain cautious on the road. There have been conversations in Northern Ireland regarding enhanced driver education and whether it would benefit young people to take further driving training after they have passed their tests. That is one of the things that we are looking at.
What are the challenges on the road for young people? There is peer pressure, drug and alcohol use, and mobile phone use, but sometimes road accidents are pure misfortune. The use of mobile phones while driving can cause excessive speeding, lack of concentration and ultimately distraction, leading to an increased likelihood of a crash or collision. There is the issue of young motorists travelling late at night, which the previous Government were prepared to look at, as well as excessive speed.
There is much more that can be done, especially in our schools. My key ask of the Minister is for young people to be taught the importance of road safety. Once people hit 17 and can start driving, the freedom is immense, but we must remind them of the importance of being cautious on the roads, because they can be faced with complex and dangerous situations every day. I look forward to hearing the Minister and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), speak about their commitment to young people and to ensuring that our road safety legislation is as tight as possible.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) for securing this important debate and sharing the tragic loss of young Harvey. Ahead of this debate, I met Gillian and John McGrath, constituents of mine in Southend East and Rochford, whose daughter was tragically killed in March 2009 by a newly qualified driver. Eleanor Grace McGrath was hit by a 17-year-old driver who was showing off to his friends when he struck a crowd of children, 14 of whom experienced severe injuries. Sadly, the story and the loss of Eleanor Grace are not unique.
Following Eleanor’s death, two of her closest friends and Gillian and John set up the campaign Driving with Grace, which produced a documentary to educate our young people on the devastating impact of road collisions. The documentary has been shown to young people across Essex and has had a significant impact. I welcome the announcement of the new national road safety strategy. Will the Minister consider a P plate system, which is a key recommendation of the Driving with Grace campaign, in the next steps of the strategy? It would mean that new drivers must display a P plate for the first year after passing their test, encouraging other drivers to give them space and potentially making new drivers less likely to show off.
As a parent, I understand the constant conflict between granting young people the freedom they deserve and worrying about keeping them safe. Tragedies such as the loss of Eleanor Grace are far too common. Moving forward, we have to make changes. I am sure all Members present will join me in commending my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury on securing this debate.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) for securing this important debate.
I want to put on record the story of Sonny Crane, whose family live in my constituency, Hertford and Stortford, and whose mother, Naomi, is here in Westminster Hall today. Just over three years ago, Sonny was tragically killed in a road traffic accident, and the impact on Sonny’s family since his loss has been simply devastating. I was struck by his mother’s words when we first met:
“he went out that day, a young 19 year old boy going to enjoy Topgolf with his friends, never to return.”
Across the country, there are far too many cases like Sonny’s. We know that crashes are more likely to happen when young drivers are carrying friends in the car at night-time, and when driving conditions are difficult, but it does not need to be that way. Any death on the road is one too many. I am therefore confident that the Minister appreciates the seriousness of this issue and the need for action.
I would be grateful if the Minister could look into the best practices on young driver safety used in other countries and seek to incorporate them into her road safety strategy. I would also be grateful if she could detail in her response how the Government are supporting local leaders and communities to make our roads safer, particularly in semi-rural constituencies such as mine. Naomi told me that Sonny’s favourite phrase was, “I’m here for a good time, not a long time.” Tragically, Sonny was not with us for a long time, but I know that he is lovingly remembered by his mother, who describes him as, “Sonny by name, sunny by nature.” We can honour his memory by working to ensure that no young person is taken too soon because of a road traffic accident.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair today, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) on securing the time for this debate today and also for reading Crystal’s testimony, which was incredibly moving.
This is a timely debate, because the road safety strategy is currently under development. Like this debate, I hope that strategy takes the approach that we should never see deaths or serious accidents on our roads as an acceptable consequence of the perceived freedoms that car ownership can bring. For young drivers in particular—although this applies to all drivers when learning—there is a focus on passing the test rather than learning how to drive. That is why the graduated approach to learning to drive is so important, because it slows things down and forces those who want to drive to focus on learning.
Globally, the graduated driving licences work. In New Zealand, they have reduced accidents for people between the ages of 15 and 19 by 23% and for those between 20 and 24 by 20%. That is quite incredible and is within the context, as has been repeated here today, that one in five new drivers will crash in their first year—an absolutely incredible statistic, if we are honest with ourselves. There will be arguments against this approach, but it should never be the case that the implementation of a graduated driver's license is framed within that argument about restricting young people’s liberty, because poor public transport should never be an excuse for exposing our young people to danger. I know action in this area will be difficult, but I really hope that the road safety strategy presents us with an opportunity to do something.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I start by warmly congratulating my good and hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) on securing this important debate, and saying thank you for the stories that have been shared this morning. In Suffolk Coastal we are proudly rural, with A and B roads stretching the full 40 miles of the constituency. I could use my speech today to describe in great detail the danger of rural roads, but everyone has done that well and, with just two minutes, I will resist the urge. Instead, I will throw my weight behind the call that we have heard this morning for a graduated licence scheme. In places such as Suffolk, the problem is incredibly severe and our many rural roads give impetus to the need for such a scheme. Some 38% of collisions in Suffolk were a result of a young driver behind the wheel. This problem is real.
A graduated driving licence scheme would put a set of restrictions on new drivers who have recently passed their practical test for an initial period. Some of these restrictions are important for us to properly debate and give real consideration to. As we have just heard, not everyone will be in agreement, but we must accept that we need to do more to challenge these horrific statistics and to make sure that lives are saved going forward.
I will not take up any more time, but may I just personally thank everybody who has come in today and who has shared their personal stories? They have been hugely touching: as my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury said at the beginning, you have put your grief on the line to share these stories and we are deeply moved by it. Thank you so much.
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) for securing this important debate. Road safety is not just a policy issue but a matter of life or death, and one that affects all our communities, including Birmingham Erdington.
Last October, a young driver in Erdington lost control and collided with a tree on Tyburn Road. The accident resulted in one fatality and life-changing injuries for the other person involved. Only weeks ago, near Castle Vale, a driver and a passenger fled the scene after a serious accident, leaving another young man hospitalised. Just last night, a railway bridge, which I have talked about before, was hit again, leaving trains cancelled in the area. Those incidents highlight the urgent need for action.
Every single day, five lives are lost on UK roads. That means that five families are affected and five entire communities are forever changed due to road safety failures. For young drivers, road crashes are the leading cause of death. That shocking reality demands immediate action. There are many reasons for that. The pitfalls in early adulthood include overconfidence, inexperience and the wish to take risks.
The West Midlands has appointed two commissioners to advise on road safety, so I hope we will finally start to treat these issues with the urgency they demand. We cannot wait for another tragedy to drive action. Let us honour the memories of those we have lost by making our roads safer now.
Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Once a person has passed their driving test in this country, they are simply released on to the roads. This new Parliament must act to change that.
On Boxing day 2017, a 17-year-old from Suffolk crashed his Ford Fiesta, his first car. His friends William Smedley and Jake Paxton, just 18 years old, both from Bury St Edmunds, died.
Men who have recently learned to drive are at high risk of accidents. Graduated drivers licences have been adopted in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, Sweden and Australia. They work so well at reducing accidents that they are being expanded all over the place and states are progressively adopting stricter rules. From December 2024, Western Australia, which previously had the most lenient system of licensing in the country, placed limits on the number of passengers that someone could carry. The legislation is known as Tom’s law, in reference to Tom Saffioti, a 15-year-old boy who died in a crash while a passenger in a car driven by a new driver.
In the UK, drivers can display a P plate after passing the test, but those come with no additional rules. Let us graduate the licence for drivers in the UK. That is not the nanny state; it is simply good government. Everyone in room seems to agree, so let us make it happen.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) for her eloquent and emotional speech.
The issue being discussed today is not new. Many years ago, when I attended a school reunion, I was told that two of my schoolmates had died in road traffic accidents very young. One was on the way to see his son. Those young lives were lost, and the families were devastated.
Young male car drivers are four times more likely to be killed or seriously injured than other car drivers aged 25 or over. We have already discussed the prospect of having a graduated driving licence, and there is precedent for that in countries that have already been mentioned. We could have a two-year probation period with N plates, lower drink-drive limits and monitoring to ensure that young drivers do not drive late at night. Other measures we could take include having limits on engine sizes to reduce the driving of powerful vehicles and making the use of P plates mandatory for a set period after passing the test.
Young drivers represent just over 5% of those who have a full UK driving licence, but 20% of drivers involved in fatal or serious collisions. Although the Department for Transport rejected a graduated driving licence in 2020, it is time to reconsider that proposal. Young drivers have their whole lives in front of them in which they can drive as many cars as they want, so let us help them to do that without being killed and without killing others in the process.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I do not want to rehearse the points that have already been made so eloquently by my colleagues from across Westminster Hall. I merely want to say that education has been mentioned briefly, but given that almost all road collisions, and therefore deaths and serious injuries, are preventable, I hope the Minister will do everything she can, as she considers the road safety strategy, to ensure that all available resources are given to local authorities, to police and crime commissioners and to police forces so that they can into schools and reach our young people.
I will also just mention that Warwickshire county council has a safe and active schools programme that looks at primary school age groups and “The Journey” for secondary schools. The police and crime commissioner has a focus on young people in his road safety strategy. Every effort must be made to make an impression upon impressionable young minds from as early as possible, so that we can reduce the risk of these tragic deaths.
Claire Hughes (Bangor Aberconwy) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) for securing this important debate, and specifically for mentioning road safety on rural roads.
Sadly, nowhere is the devastating impact of crashes on rural roads better demonstrated than by telling Olivia’s story. Olivia Alkir, a much-loved 17-year-old, was denied her bright future when she was killed in the passenger seat of a friend’s car. The driver had been racing on another rural road when he lost control and crashed head-on into an approaching vehicle at 80 mph. He had only passed his driving test the day before. Olivia’s tragic death in 2019 devastated her family, of course, but also the wider community of Efenechtyd, near Ruthin.
Olivia’s mother, Jo, is determined that her daughter’s story will save other people’s lives. I am sure that it already has saved lives, because Olivia’s family decided to work with North Wales Police to create a hard-hitting film designed to warn other young people about the dangers of reckless driving. Olivia’s story has been shown to learner drivers in schools all across Wales and indeed in this House, thanks to the work of my predecessor, Simon Baynes, who represented what was then the constituency of Clwyd South.
Olivia’s story brings into sharp focus the need for action. I welcome the new Government’s road safety review and I implore the Minister to leave no stone unturned in her mission to improve road safety for young people, including learning from other countries, listening to campaigners such as Crystal Owen and considering the use of emerging technologies, such as AI and telematics, which are developing all the time.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the debate and to seeing further action in the coming months.
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
I call Alison Bennett, spokesperson for the Lib Dems.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Sir Desmond, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) on securing this really important debate. I also thank Crystal for sharing her heartbreaking testimony.
I am now old enough to have been driving for 30 years and during the debate I have been reflecting on the joy I felt when I passed my driving test, aged 17. I grew up in Gloucestershire, so to pass my test and be able to travel around the county, meeting friends in Gloucester, Stroud and Tewkesbury, truly was a liberation. How lucky I was. However, two of my classmates, Paul Torrington and Lee Mortimer, were far less lucky than me. A few years after leaving school both were killed, in separate road traffic accidents, and I also reflect today on the opportunities I have had in the past 30 years that they have missed out on.
Between 2004 and 2023, fatalities involving younger drivers decreased by 60%—a true testament to the effectiveness of education, awareness-raising and the tireless efforts of campaigners. Despite that improvement, however, last year road traffic accidents still claimed the lives of 1,624 people across the UK, so there is clearly still work to do. As we have already heard, young drivers—especially young men—aged between 17 and 25 are over-represented in such statistics.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
May I express my sadness and join others in commemorating constituents lost? I would like to name Sammy Phillips and Lewis Moghul, who died in Bix, just metres from where I lived at the time. As a father, I can express sympathy, but I can never really, truly understand such pain. Other Members have spoken of the particular hazards that drivers face on rural roads, including the darkness, narrowness, higher speed limits and other dangers. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful to look specifically at the dangers on rural roads?
Alison Bennett
I absolutely agree that, as we have heard from a number of Members this morning, the risks of rural roads are particularly profound.
We need to find ways to protect people on rural roads and all other people who share those roads with drivers, and today we have had the chance to reflect on the tragic deaths of Hugo, Harvey, Wilf and Jevon. We are also here to remember every other one of those 1,625 people who lost their lives on British roads last year and the countless more in years gone by.
In my own constituency of Mid Sussex, I recently met Marie, who lost her 22-year-old son in December 2014 to a road traffic accident. He was a backseat passenger in a car being driven by a newly qualified driver, who was 21. He was driving in excess of 100 mph on a country lane when he lost control. The car landed on its roof, and the two passengers in the back lost their lives. Marie’s son left behind two young boys; one was eight months old at the time, and the other was five years old. As we have heard, we can and must learn from these terrible events.
With our remarkable progress in reducing road fatalities over the past few decades, the UK now boasts one of the lowest road death rates per 1 million people in Europe. However, every death is one too many, and we must use this improvement as inspiration that better is possible and that change saves lives, not as a reason to sit on our laurels and say, “Job well done.” My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are firm in our belief that we need the Government to publish a road safety strategy without delay. Such strategies have previously delivered significant improvements in road safety. For instance, the Road Safety Observatory has noted a significant decline in road fatalities since the 1990s thanks to the 2000 road safety strategy, which delivered campaigns, such as THINK!, infrastructure improvements and more rigorous driving tests.
An updated strategy would surely be transformative in further reducing accidents and saving lives. Crucially, it would need to focus heavily on rural areas, where 60% of fatal collisions occur. We have seen success with the introduction of measures such as stricter drink-driving laws, seatbelt legislation and tougher driving tests, but we absolutely must improve public transport options to reduce our reliance on cars.
Young people, particularly those in rural areas, should not have to rely on dangerous journeys to get to work or education or to see friends, yet the sharp decline in bus services under the previous Government coupled with rising fares has made it harder for many young people to get around safely. In West Sussex, for example, we have seen a nearly 20% drop in available passenger journeys since 2015. Young people are simply so much more likely to end up driving when there are no decent alternatives. We can solve that by maintaining the £2 cap on bus fares, reopening smaller train stations and offering on-demand services where conventional buses are not viable.
Rural roads would also benefit greatly from better infrastructure, such as the installation of more overtaking lanes, as the RSO has suggested. As well as broader infrastructure strategies, we must embrace new ideas. One of the standout proposals today is Harvey’s hammer, which could be a game changer in saving lives and creating a more safety-conscious culture, especially among young drivers. New technology, coupled with better enforcement of speed limits, education programmes for all road users and investment in safer roads and vehicles, all of which have a proven track record of success, provide hope that we can do so much more in the years to come.
My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I have long championed road safety measures, and we will continue to do so. Marie, her son’s young family and the families of Hugo, Harvey, Wilf and Jevon are in our hearts as we strive for effective change. The Government must support measures to make these tragedies a rarity and support proposals such as Harvey’s hammer, which has the potential to save lives when these terrible events take place.
As hon. Members have set out today, we know that young people face disproportionate risks on the roads, but they should not be punished for it. Instead, we must give them the tools to stay safe. Let us focus on improving public infrastructure, enforcing road safety rules and providing better public transport options, using a new road safety strategy. We owe it to the memory of all young people whose lives have been cut short, to their families, and to all who care about saving innocent lives.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) on bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall this morning. I thank all those who have contributed with powerful speeches. My heart goes out to any family who have lost a child or relative in a road accident. Every single death is a tragedy that should spur us on to do more to prevent future deaths and injuries, and make our roads safer. I cannot imagine the pain of any family getting the knock on the door from a police officer, or however the news is broken to them, to tell them that a child has died on our roads, as in this case, or under any other circumstances.
We must always look at practical measures to improve road safety through the lens of “To drive is freedom”. To drive brings opportunity. For many—I include myself in this—to drive brings pleasure. Our challenge is: what will protect those freedoms, opportunities and pleasures in a safer way?
Mrs Russell
Mandy Ogden said to me:
“Often, the main argument against this change to driver licensing is that it restricts freedom, but our daughter’s freedom has been taken away forever.”
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that, too, is an important point?
Greg Smith
In a few moments, I will come on to the measures that I think would protect the freedom to drive far better, as well as the safety of those who do so. There will perhaps not be agreement with every single point that hon. Members have made in the debate, but I repeat the point. Central to how I would like to look at this issue is not how we can restrict people more, but how we can make people safer in the first place by ensuring that they have the skills required to drive safely, be it in our cities and towns, on our rural roads and motorways, or indeed abroad, where often the rules can be very different. We all know the example of the German autobahns, many of which have no speed limit. It is vital to equip any British citizen going to Germany with the ability to handle a car at very great speed and be safe on those roads.
The challenge before us is how to make everybody—young people, for sure, but also old people, for whom the statistics are just as stark, as the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) mentioned—safer and able to handle a vehicle in all conditions on our roads.
Dr Arthur
Back in 2020, an older driver caused a fatality in Edinburgh, killing a three-year-old boy. The fatal accident inquiry found that drivers over 80 should perhaps be subject to cognitive tests if they want to continue driving. That inquiry is currently with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Will the shadow Minister support action in that area?
Greg Smith
It is important that we look at all evidence suggesting a problem and explore the basis for solving it, but I am no fan of knee-jerk legislation. This House is at its worst when we jump to knee-jerk solutions to any problem presented. It is important to look at all the evidence, practical outcomes and potential unintended consequences. The case that the hon. Gentleman raises and the point that he makes are important and should be looked at—as he referenced, it is being looked at by the DVLA at the moment. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that point.
I double-underline that we should bear in mind that every death on our roads is a tragedy, but there has been significant improvement in road safety over recent years.
Greg Smith
I will just expand this point and then give way to the hon. Lady. Since road user casualties peaked in 1965, with nearly 8,000 deaths, there has been a concerted efforts to reduce the numbers. Thankfully, that effort has largely been successful, across successive Governments of all political persuasions.
According to Department for Transport figures, released in September last year, Great Britain ranked third out of 33 countries reported on in 2023 for the lowest number of road fatalities per million of the population. Of course, that number is still too high, but the direction of travel is positive, and we need to take further action—
Greg Smith
I promised to give way to the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), and will just finish this point. Mindful of time, I may then take one or two more interventions.
Although the claim of a 13% fall in casualties accurately reflects the raw data between 2010 and 2023, it fails to account for the context of vehicle miles, which have significantly increased. During that time, the number of vehicle miles increased from 306 billion to 334 billion. When adjusted to that context, the Department’s data indicates a decrease in the casualty rate from 681 casualties per billion vehicle miles in 2010 to 398 in 2023, which is a 41% reduction. I repeat that we must still take action to get the number down to zero, but the direction of travel has been good.
Anna Sabine
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the personal tragedies of road accidents and refers to Members of all political persuasions. Does he agree that it is brilliant to see cross-party support for these campaigns, but that it might be more helpful for campaigners if His Majesty’s Opposition were better represented in today’s debate?
Greg Smith
I hesitate to go there, on what is a political point. When we are having a serious debate, comments like that are not necessarily helpful to the spirit of trying to engender cross-party working.
I have a history of looking at this subject, including with the Minister for the future of roads. In the previous Parliament, we both served on the Transport Committee, which conducted a deep inquiry into novice and young drivers and the implications for safety. We looked carefully at graduated driving licences and other things, such as the Under 17 Car Club, which was referred to earlier, and which I am a huge fan of. I am a huge fan of trying to get young people—potentially very young people—in an off-road, safe, private-land setting and starting to understand how to drive and control a vehicle safely.
Cameron Thomas
I did not manage to make this point in my speech, but whereas one in five young people will be involved in a reportable road traffic collision in the year following their test, that figure is reduced to one in 33 for those who complete that course. I invite the hon. Member to agree.
Greg Smith
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point, and I entirely agree. The younger we can get people into any sort of powered vehicle, so that they can learn how to control it safely in different conditions in a safe, off-road, heavily supervised setting, the better. That work is all to the good and powerful, and I was certainly impressed by the evidence I heard in that Select Committee inquiry.
That raises a wider point that I invite the Minister to reflect on. I think it was encapsulated well by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) when he said that young people are focused on passing a test rather than learning to drive. Our testing and learning system is too focused on a very limited set of circumstances that any individual seeking their first driving licence has to go through. Testing is done very often in an urban environment, but rarely on the rural roads that we have heard so much about, and learner drivers never go on the motorway and learn to control a car at significant speeds. My challenge to the Minister is this: how can we ensure that when a young person—or any person, for that matter—is granted their pass certificate and gets their full driving licence, they are properly equipped? To me, the solution is not putting in a graduated system afterwards; it is having the confidence that, when someone is issued with their licence, they are able and safe to control any motor vehicle to the best of their ability.
Graduated driving licences would take away too much from young people. We heard from young people in the Select Committee inquiry that I spoke about. What if a young person wants to go into the world of work? What if they want to do night shifts but are told they cannot drive at night? What if they wish to go into one of the emergency services and have to attend night-time emergencies, be that as a police officer—
Greg Smith
I have limited time, but I am happy to take up the debate afterwards.
What if the path that a young person wants to go down requires them to be able to drive a car at night? There have to be answers to these questions. I gently say to all hon. Members here this morning, including the Minister, that a driving licence must be equal for everybody, and that we must look most of all at how we can improve our confidence that everybody who is issued with one can control a vehicle in all circumstances, in all conditions and on all road types. That will involve a significant change, which will improve road safety for everybody.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this morning, Sir Desmond. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) on securing the debate and thank her for continuing to raise the vital issue of road safety. It is clear from the number of hon. Members present— I counted 26 contributions, but I may be wrong—that this is, rightly, an issue of huge public concern. I thank all those who made moving and compelling contributions. I also congratulate my hon. Friend for championing the excellent work that her constituent Crystal Owen is doing to highlight young driver safety following the tragic death of her son, Harvey.
In recent months I have been grateful to have the opportunity to meet with my hon. Friend, with Crystal and other members of Forget-me-not Families Uniting, including Sharron Huddleston and Dr Ian Greenwood, both of whom are here today, and with a number of other families whose lives have been affected by road death. Crystal, Ian, Sharron and many other families are in the Public Gallery, and my heart goes out to all of them. I thank them for taking the time to meet me, for their courage in sharing their heartbreaking stories, either with me or with their constituency MPs, and for their determination to make sure that other families do not face the same grief. It is vital that victims’ voices are heard and their experiences shared, as they have been so movingly today. I am committed to continuing to engage as we develop our policies in this area.
I am sure that many of us remember reading about the deaths of Harvey Owen, Wilfred Fitchett, Jevon Hirst and Hugo Morris in November 2023, and no one could fail to be moved by hearing that terrible story again today in Crystal’s own words. It is literally every parent’s worst nightmare. The deaths of those four young men have had a devastating impact on their families and community, as have the deaths of other young people we have spoken about today. I am determined to take action to prevent such deaths in the future, and improving road safety is one of my Department’s highest priorities.
Despite the two-year probation period for all new drivers that was introduced in 1995, in terms of population and number of miles driven, 17 to 24-year olds, and particularly young men, remain one of the highest fatality-risk groups, both as car drivers and as passengers. Although the latest statistics show that the number of young drivers killed on our roads has fallen by 80% since 1990, that cannot be a reason for complacency. The number of deaths in 2023 was 90, but that is 90 too many. Every one of those young lives lost leaves a devastated family, and often many families, including those of the passengers and other road users. There is a pressing need for action.
Although we are not considering graduated driving licences, we absolutely recognise that young people are disproportionately the victims of tragic collisions on our roads, which is why we are exploring options to tackle the root causes of the issue without unfairly penalising young drivers. The Government want to ensure young people’s access to employment, education and other opportunities while keeping them safe on the roads.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and other hon. Members, particularly those representing rural and semi-rural areas, said, that means giving young people more choices by investing in public transport and active travel. The Government have already begun to do that by announcing additional funding for buses, walking and cycling in the Budget, but of course that goes alongside specific road safety measures.
Those efforts are supported by Driver2020, the Department’s largest young driver research project, which evaluated a range of interventions to improve the safety of young drivers. The project tested the effectiveness of five non-legislative measures aimed at improving safety for young and novice drivers, including keeping a log book, extra hazard perception training, classroom-based education, mentoring agreements and telematics. Driver2020 began in January 2019, and more than 28,000 participants were recruited. The project was delayed by the pandemic, but the Department has now received the final report, which will inform our considerations. As a number of hon. Members said, we can also look to international experience. For example, a number of countries have a lower or zero alcohol limit for young drivers, or a minimum learning period.
Our THINK! campaign does important work to encourage safer attitudes and behaviours among young drivers. Its innovative campaigns are highly targeted to reach young men aged 17 to 24. People sometimes tell me, “I don’t feel that I have seen some of those campaigns,” but that perhaps is because they are not on the channels of the people we are most keen to target. Hon. Members will be pleased to hear that we have just launched the latest phase of our speeding campaign, which highlights the risk of driving too fast for the conditions of rural roads. As hon. Members have said, those circumstances contribute to high numbers of young driver casualties.
A number of hon. Members also talked about action to reduce speed, including lower speed limits, and to enforce speed limits, such as speed cameras. Improving our roads, changing speed limits and installing speed cameras are decisions for local traffic authorities. Obviously, they want to make those decisions in consultation with local communities and the local police. They know their roads best, and I cannot and should not dictate to them from Whitehall. However, I agree that such partnerships are essential and that they should be looking at local-level interventions to make our roads safer. The Department will look at what more we can do to support them, and we stand ready to work with all those working at a local level.
THINK! campaigns have shown positive results, but we know that changing ingrained attitudes and behaviours takes time. This year, we are doing even more to land the vital messages, including working with content creators and influential platforms such as LADbible to tackle speeding via the voices that young audiences trust. Before Christmas, THINK! launched a major new drink-driving campaign, which highlighted the risk of losing one’s licence after drinking even a little before driving, and the subsequent impact on the freedoms that we know mean a lot to young drivers. As a number of hon. Members have said, we also need to address other dangerous behaviours, including failing to wear a seatbelt, using a mobile phone while driving and taking drugs before driving, which sadly is a growing problem. We need to use every opportunity to educate young people about road safety, and that involves working with mayors, local councils, police and crime commissioners, police, schools, colleges, charities, and the many parents and families who have generously used their tragic experience to try to help others make better choices.
The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency delivers a wide range of support targeted at keeping young drivers safe. The Ready to Pass? campaign helps learner drivers to assess when they are ready to take their test, and provides lots of useful information about safe driving for life. Many people have talked about the importance of driving in different road conditions, on rural roads, at night and in the dark. Pass Plus provides further education for drivers once they have passed their test. It is clear to me that we should consider what more can be done to support learner drivers and newly qualified drivers to be safe. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury raised the potential for measures to improve vehicle safety, such as the installation of a Harvey’s hammer device. I will take that suggestion back to my officials for further consideration and write to my hon. Friend.
In my short time as Minister for the Future of Roads, I have heard too many heartbreaking accounts of loss and serious injury. We have been very moved to hear during this debate stories of hon. Members’ constituents who have lost loved ones. I again thank all those Members who came to the debate to share them. It is vital that we hear the voices of those who have been most impacted by road deaths. I assure them that I am listening.
I want to assure everyone listening, but especially those who have been affected by road deaths and injuries, that this Government treat road safety with utmost seriousness. We are committed to reducing the numbers of those killed and seriously injured on our roads. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) said, we can never regard road deaths as inevitable. The majority of road crashes are avoidable, and that is why the Department is developing our road safety strategy. It will be the first in over a decade, and we will set out more details in due course. We will adopt a safe system approach. We need all partners working together—policymakers, road engineers and designers, vehicle manufacturers, the police and road users.
I will be pleased to keep in touch with my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and other hon. Members as we progress our work on road safety and young drivers. I congratulate her once again on securing this important debate.
Julia Buckley
I thank all Members who have taken the time to listen and contribute to the debate, and I thank the bereaved families and campaigners for their time and for listening again to stories that can only be upsetting. I also thank the Minister for her time. I could hear in her summing-up that she was clearly listening to the messages that we put forward today, and we thank her for that. I am particularly pleased to hear that she might consider Harvey’s hammer as a safety measure. I hope that she made note, too, of the local initiative that the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) described. I do not know whether it features in Driver2020, but that educational IT piece takes the rate of post-test driving collisions from one in five to one in 33.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Solar Farms: Agricultural Land
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered solar farms on agricultural land.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. We are addressing an issue of great importance: the proliferation of solar farms on our agricultural land.
As many hon. Members know, I have dedicated much of my life to raising awareness about our ecological and climate crises. I have met people who are set to lose their entire countries to rising seas. Let me be clear: nobody can doubt my commitment to strong action on climate change. However, there are many ways to skin the climate cat, and I do not believe that solar parks on the scale of Cottam, Cleve Hill, Longfield, Mallard Pass, Gate Burton, Sunnica and the proposed Lime Down, in my own constituency of South Cotswolds, are the best way forward.
I have received numerous messages from residents near the proposed site of Lime Down. Without exception, they are distressed about the proposal, and I share their concerns. They are not nimbys; they are thoughtful, environmentally conscious people, who, like me, agree that we need renewables but at the right size, in the right places and in the right ownership.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
Like my hon. Friend, I am very keen on renewable energy. I am a Liberal Democrat, for heaven’s sake! However, I am also a pragmatist. In Washford, in my constituency, a massive solar farm is being built on particularly good agricultural land. Would my hon. Friend agree that we must be practical and put solar panels on commercial buildings and residential houses, rather than on farmland?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. I suppose the issue is twofold. First, the farmers who sign up to solar farms are committed to a long-term lease, and that will impact the family inheritance tax potential. The second point comes in relation to using land better for food production, as it should be used, so that only land that is of a lesser quality, or rocky land, would be more suitable for solar farms. Does the hon. Lady agree that that is the way forward?
Dr Savage
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I agree that that is the way forward.
Let us consider the facts. Our agricultural land is dwindling at an alarming rate. We are down to 14.8 million acres of arable land, the lowest amount since world war two, and we are losing nearly 100,000 acres annually. We already import nearly 60% of our food. Do we really want to increase that dependency on foreign supply chains?
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
My hon. Friend is being super generous and I am grateful to her. She makes excellent points. We obviously have means by which we can control how those things happen, through the environmental land management payment scheme and planning law. Would she agree that, through both of those streams, we should be able to ensure that food security is at least as important as energy security, and that we should not be using productive agricultural land for solar farms when they can be developed elsewhere? Westmorland and Furness Council, for example, has used disused land to provide a solar farm of its own on non-agricultural land.
Dr Savage
I agree with my hon. Friend that we should be prioritising locations that do not impact on our ability to meet our food security needs.
The environmental benefits of solar farms are not as clearcut as some would have us believe. Yes, they produce clean energy, but at what cost? Large installations can alter local ecosystems, potentially contaminate soil and even increase local temperatures due to heat absorption by the dark panels—and let us not forget the human cost. Tenant farmers face eviction. Land values are skyrocketing, making it harder for new farmers to enter the industry, and we risk losing the very character of our rural communities that underpins local tourism and our national identity.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I agree with every word the hon. Lady has said so far. Does she agree with me that if we are to protect food security and give it equal billing with energy security and national security, not just solar installations are inappropriate, but the ancillary projects like those I am seeing in my constituency? For example, we have battery storage and National Grid coming along and saying it has to completely rebuild all of the substations on—guess what?—more agricultural land. This is a much bigger problem than just solar.
Dr Savage
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member’s points. I am not against solar energy—far from it—but we need to be smart about how we implement it and all the associated infrastructure. Why not require all new homes to be fitted with solar panels, as proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) in his sunshine Bill? Why not use the vast roof spaces of warehouses, public buildings and car parks? These are sensible, minimally intrusive ways to contribute to our net zero goals.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
I will confess that before being elected to this place, I spent 10 years in renewable energy finance. It is a common claim from certain activists and newspapers that we should put solar on commercial buildings. I do not disagree with that. The problem is the economics of it do not stand up from a finance perspective. Until the Government step in to guarantee a minimum amount of value for export, rooftop solar will never stack up. Neither will carport solar. That is why investors will always go for utility-scale. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we actually want to see a catalyst, if we want to see a change, if we want to see farmers growing crops and not solar panels, the Government need to step in and regulate the market?
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Part of the barrier to public acceptance of large-scale solar farms comes from a need to see a joined-up approach and that we are balancing food security and energy security. What people want to see—for example, in my constituency with the large proposed Kingsway solar farm—is the much promised land use framework and the strategic spatial energy framework, so that they know where the 0.1% should go and that it is going in the right places, that there is a joined-up approach, and therefore that reasonable people can support it where necessary.
Dr Savage
I am sure we are all waiting with bated breath for the long-awaited land use framework.
The National Farmers Union is well aware that British farmers host about 70% of this country’s solar generation capacity, but it is urging the Government to recognise that small-scale energy needs to be prioritised on brownfield sites and lower quality land first. Let us not forget about other nature-based solutions such as rewilding or planting 60 million trees per year. That would not only help to absorb carbon, but restore valuable habitats.
We do need to increase our use of renewables. However, it must be done sympathetically to the environment and should provide, as a priority, community energy to homes, schools and businesses. We have a real opportunity with the land use framework to define our national priorities for the long-term future, emphasising ways of multi-purposing land with ideas like intercropping, living roofs and rooftop solar.
We absolutely need cross-party consensus. The question of meeting future energy needs while not trashing the climate, our countryside or food production is too important to become a political football. The English countryside is currently at risk of being exploited for financial gain by profit-making companies—a corporate wolf dressed in green clothing. We must not allow that to continue unchecked.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Sarah Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on securing this important debate and the number of interventions she received in such a short period of time reflects the strength of feeling.
Before I set out the Government’s approach, I reassure the hon. Lady and her constituents that we agree on most things in this space. We agree that we should be using renewables—whatever they are, wherever they are—in the best way possible. We agree that we need to look at our responsibilities in terms of the climate, agriculture, the countryside and food production. The Government take all those responsibilities very seriously and look them at very carefully. We agree that if we are building solar panels, for example, we should build on brownfield sites first. If we cannot, we should build on areas of lower-quality land first. We agree that food security is enormously important for this country. In the global conditions we find ourselves in, where there is more uncertainty—as we saw with the war in Ukraine and what followed with our energy prices—we need to be mindful of those things. When it comes to the principles, we agree.
I will set out the Government’s overall approach to our clean power mission, which might help to put the debate in context. We, like the hon. Member for South Cotswolds, have been clear from the start that the only way to tackle climate change, secure our energy supply, bring down bills and drive economic growth is through clean energy. The rapid deployment of clean energy infrastructure is essential for our future security and economy.
Greg Smith
Is it not the case that the Government are just plumping for the technology that is available right now, in the form of thousands of acres of solar, when we need 2,000 acres of solar panels to produce enough electricity for just 50,000 homes on current usage? A small modular reactor needs just two football pitches for 1 million homes. As I have said many times, why on earth are the Government messing about with solar given its impacts on food security, which the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) mentioned?
Sarah Jones
The previous Government messed around with solar quite a lot—we are building on what the previous Government did, up to a point. The answer is to look at all the technologies that are available to us. SMRs are enormously attractive in lots of different ways, and lots of colleagues have been talking to us about them. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a process for the development of SMRs. We need all the tools in our armoury and we need to make sure we are using the most modern technology available. He makes a fair point on that front.
Sustainable power generated here in Britain will reduce our contribution to the damaging effects of climate change and our dependence on the volatile global fossil fuel market. It is already creating thousands of highly skilled jobs and will continue to do so. Instead of delaying the inevitable, we have set ourselves a target to push to clean power by 2030. The clean power action plan, published last month, sets out how we will get there, including the likely technology mix required. It is clear that solar will play a major role.
Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)
On the Minister’s comments about the Government’s announcements in December and the subsequent announcement by the National Energy System Operator about moving forward rapidly with renewable energy, and in relation to East Park Energy, which is a proposal in my constituency whereby 74% of the land used would be best and most versatile land, in neither the December statement nor the January announcement by NESO was there any reference at all to the criterion on use of best and most versatile land. Can the Minister just affirm that that criterion is still used in the assessment of which projects the Government will move forward?
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I cannot comment on the individual case in his constituency, of course. But of course when developers are applying for planning permission, they go through a series of criteria and have to adhere to a series of criteria, whether that is for the development of smaller solar plants, where it goes through local authorities, or whether it is through the nationally significant infrastructure project process. The solar taskforce is looking at all these issues as well. We are making sure we are mindful of all of the range of issues that we need to consider when we are looking at bringing infrastructure into communities. I will come to this later, but it is really important to say that we want to do this with local communities—with consultation of local communities and with consideration of what other options are available to us as well. That will continue.
Solar is one of the cheapest sources of power available to us, which is an important consideration when we are looking at the full range of options that we have between us. We are setting a target for around 45 GW to 47 GW of solar power by 2030. That is up from the 17 GW that we have today and it is a substantial increase.
I want to tackle the issue that a number of Members mentioned—the rooftop versus ground-mount issue. The hon. Member for South Cotswolds is right to talk about how we need to be going further to make sure we are putting solar panels on our roofs, and to ask what Government can do to encourage that. We are bringing in new building standards to ensure that all newly built houses and commercial buildings are fit for a net zero future. We expect those standards to encourage the installation of solar panels on new developments. We are issuing later this year a call for evidence on the construction of solar on outdoor car parks. The reconvened solar taskforce is focusing on rooftop solar, and further actions to increase deployment will be set out in the road map this spring.
I was talking to one of our big mayoral authorities yesterday about the power purchase agreements that people could potentially have in this space. If people look at public sector roofs and the collaboration they could have across some of our transport infrastructure and some of our public sector infrastructure, they could do more ambitious projects when it comes to solar, and of course we want to push that as much as we can. If we can put solar panels on rooftops, that is what we want to do. But we consider that we need a mix of both: we need ground-mounted and rooftop panels to get to the numbers that we want to see.
Let me turn to the planning system. All proposed solar projects are subject to a rigorous planning process, which considers the interests of local communities, as I said to the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller).
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
In my constituency of Huntingdon, a new solar farm of 1,900 acres is proposed. It spans from my constituency across into North Bedfordshire, which my hon. Friend the Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) represents. The local population have spent a lot of time liaising with both me and my hon. Friend with regard to the impact that it will have and the lack of consultation that they have experienced. They have been told that realistically, they will receive no real benefit from the solar farm’s being there. They will certainly not receive directly cheaper energy bills for having it built right on their doorstep. What would the Minister say to those constituents, and the constituents of the other Members in this room, who are in effect having nationally significant infrastructure projects foisted on them and who do not feel that they have a say or any real ability to push back on that?
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He expresses a concern that local Members of Parliament will always have when constituents come to them with issues. Look, we are balancing an issue when it comes to solar. At the moment, about 0.1% of all our land in the UK—and, it turns out, about 0.1% of all agricultural land as a proportion as well—has solar on it. Even if we were to reach our targets or go beyond them, it would still be less than 1% of land. We have to look at that statistic, but we also have to look at the local situation, which is where we absolutely accept that we are asking people to have infrastructure in their communities that will affect them. It could change their view, change their roles or change the jobs that are available; it has an impact. Through our clean power action plan, we are looking at the community benefit systems that we need to put in place. I cannot speak to the hon. Gentleman’s particular case because it is going through a process and it would not be right for me to do so, but I am mindful of what he says about the need for communities to feel like they will have some direct benefits and to understand why we need some of this infrastructure.
The reality is that we have not kept up to speed with infrastructure developments in this country over the past couple of decades, and we need to move faster. Whether it is our grid system, renewable energy or our transport systems, we need to build these things for our children and grandchildren to have the future that we want to see. Of course we need to be mindful of the impact and how local people feel. That is why, for the nationally significant infrastructure projects, there is still consultation and strong engagement with communities. That needs to get better, and we are looking at that through our clean power action plan.
I am mindful of the time. I want to move on to food security, which the hon. Member for South Cotswolds mentioned. Food security is national security, and it is very important for this Government. We need a resilient and healthy food system that works with nature and supports British farmers, fishers and food producers. That is why the Government will introduce a new deal for farmers to boost rural economic growth and strengthen Britain’s food security.
Tim Farron
The Minister is being very generous; I am grateful. The concern is that farmers are often pushed into things that they would not choose initially—such as giving over productive agricultural land for stuff that is not food production. Because of the perversity of Government funding changes, perhaps the most egregious thing in the Budget was the 76% cut in the basic payment for farmers this year, which will make many of them feel that their hand is forced to go down a direction that they do not want to go down. Might the Minister have a word with the Treasury to see whether that cut could be taken away?
Sarah Jones
I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point. The wider point about farmers being pushed according to EU or local subsidies over the years is of course right, and we need to get the balance right. I will speak to the numbers again: we are looking to go from 17 GW to around 45 GW, which is a trebling of the current land use of 0.1%. We are talking about small numbers, although I appreciate that in some constituencies, such as that of the hon. Member for South Cotswolds, it will feel much bigger because there are more of these products coming along.
Of course we need to get our system right for farmers. I am a Member of Parliament in Croydon, where we do not have many farmers, but I am incredibly grateful to them for their role and the work that they do, and we need to make sure that we support them. Where it is necessary to develop agricultural land—and we need to start with the basics of using other land first where we can—we do not think it will have any significant impact on food security because of the numbers: less than 1% of the UK’s agricultural land will be occupied by solar farms. We do not believe that will have an impact on our food security.
Sarah Jones
I will finish my point, because it is connected to the point made by the hon. Member for South Cotswolds. The biggest threat to British farmers in the countryside is not solar farms; it is the impact of climate change, and we are already seeing the effects in the floods and droughts that are threatening their livelihoods. We have to be mindful of that when we are trying to tackle climate change and increase the use of solar.
Adrian Ramsay
I appreciate the principles that the Minister is setting out, particularly on the impact of climate change on food security. Every model of net zero energy that I have seen includes a greater role for renewable energy on land, but is there not a risk that without a clear land use strategy that shows how we will achieve a resilient food supply while meeting net zero targets, decisions about where solar farms are located will end up getting made on a piecemeal basis, rather than the basis that the Minister is setting out?
Sarah Jones
The hon. Gentleman has predicted that I was about to talk about the land use framework. He is right. The Government recognise that England has limited land, and the use demands on it include our vital clean energy infrastructure. The Government will deliver our manifesto commitment by introducing a land use framework so that we can consider how to balance competing demands and transform how we use land. That will support economic growth and deliver on the plan for change that the Prime Minister outlined last month. The framework will work hand in hand with the strategic spatial energy plan, which we have commissioned the National Energy System Operator to devise. The hon. Gentleman is right that we have to understand the whole before we make piecemeal decisions, and our criticism of the previous Government is that those overarching plans were lacking.
Pippa Heylings
On that point, would it therefore be right to consider not overruling the Planning Inspectorate just now, in the build-up to receiving the land use framework and the strategic spatial energy plan from NESO, before making these big infrastructure decisions? We would take the public with us if they understood that we will decide where solar farms go once we have the land use framework and the strategic spatial energy plan.
Sarah Jones
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. We already have a planning system that enables us to look at individual projects. The new Government will set those strategic frameworks, but we have to allow the legal processes to continue while we do that. We will see an increase in the push to 2030 and beyond that. We want to see, through good government, a proper national framework that puts these issues in place.
I want to touch again on the community benefits, which hon. Members have raised. I cannot stress enough that communities hosting clean energy infrastructure are doing a service to our country, and they need to benefit from that. It could be argued that we will all benefit in the long term as energy prices come down and we have more energy security, but there are many ways that communities can directly benefit, including through community funds, direct payments and community ownership. We are exploring all the options, and we will have more to say about that soon. In the meantime, Great British Energy will support community energy schemes, helping communities to unlock opportunities through the local power plan, which will support local authorities, community energy groups and others to deliver small and medium-scale renewable energy projects. It could develop up to 8 GW of clean power by 2030.
I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds for securing the debate, and other hon. Members for their very thoughtful interventions. The Government remain committed to balancing the urgent need for renewable electricity with considerations of land use, food production and community benefit. We want to take people with us on this journey, which will see us going into the future with a mix of renewable energy that delivers the lower prices that we all want to see.
Question put and agreed to.
Agricultural Property Relief
(2 days, 10 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
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of changes to Agricultural Property Relief.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interest as a tenant dairy farmer. In Wales, 80% of our land is given over to farming, and our food foundation sector—including businesses that produce, process, manufacture and wholesale food and drink goods—is a vital part of our economy, hitting a turnover of £9.3 billion in 2023. In fact, Cabinet Ministers in the Labour Welsh Government have lauded Wales as a “food nation”, but the UK Government’s decision in the autumn Budget to change the agricultural property relief and business property relief will have a real effect on food, sustainable food production and food security in Wales.
Business property relief and agricultural property relief were introduced in the 1970s and the 1980s respectively to ensure that a farm or family business could continue trading after the owner’s death, protecting it from being sold and broken up. However, on 30 October 2024, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the Labour UK Government intend to change APR and BPR conditions from 6 April 2026. From that date, 100% relief from inheritance tax will be restricted to the first £1 million of combined agricultural and business property, and 50% thereafter. The proposals equate to landowners paying inheritance tax at a rate of 20% of estate value, with the threshold from which they pay being dependent on individual circumstances. That tax is payable in instalments over 10 years without interest.
Combining APR and BPR under those changes means that the asset value of the tools and the machinery necessary to operate a farming business are affected, as well as the agricultural land and property, alongside any diversification activities that the UK Government have told farmers to explore to increase their income. The UK Government contend that those changes will affect around 500 estates a year, and that small family farms will not be affected, but organisations within the agricultural sector say otherwise.
The National Farmers Union calculated that 75% of commercial family farms will fall above the £1 million threshold across the UK. The Farmers’ Union of Wales, using other figures, estimated that essentially all farms that produce nearly 90% of agricultural output in Wales could be liable under the changes. In fact, Eirian Humphreys of LHP Accountants, a large accountancy firm across south and west Wales, told me that of the 51 farming clients who have inquired about those changes so far, 46—around 90%—will have to pay inheritance tax if they die after 6 April 2026.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this matter before the House again. On the subject of the 500 estates, can we all agree that that only relates to the number of estates that claim under APR? It does not take account of the effect of APR and BPR together. In fact, BPR valuations are taken at book value, not at market value, so the number of estates that are liable must inevitably be massively greater than 500.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
indicated dissent.
Mr Carmichael
The Minister is shaking his head. I wonder whether the hon. Lady would join me in inviting him to intervene to explain why that fact is wrong.
Ann Davies
I do not know whether the Minister would like to do so now or at the end. It is up to him.
Torsten Bell
I will at some length explain why the remarks that the right hon. Gentleman just made—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. If Members wish to make an intervention, they should stand to do so. It is up to the person who is speaking whether to accept an intervention.
I was going to say this at the end of Ann Davies’s speech, but I will say it now. This debate is oversubscribed, so I will put a time limit on speeches. Members should make short interventions, because interventions will mean less time for those people who have put in to speak.
Ann Davies
Of the clients that Eirian mentioned, five of them will not come under the tax liability because they have very small farms with off-farm income, they have transferred their farms following ill health, or they have significant debt that offsets the value of their farms.
It is clear that the assessments of the impact of the changes on working farms across the UK, on the wider economy and on the wider food supply chain are inadequate. The data that we have is deficient; it includes smallholdings and non-working farms. Data based on the basic payment scheme or on agricultural output would provide a fairer representation of the situation for genuine farmers.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The hon. Lady is speaking remarkably well about the challenges that this Government policy will create for farmers in Wales, in Scotland and across the UK. Research by Scottish Land and Estates shows that the average UK farm size is 217 acres and the average agricultural land value in Great Britain is £8,200 per acre, which means that the average working farm in the UK is worth about £1.8 million. Does that not show the flaw in the Government’s argument? This policy is not attacking the richest landowners; it is attacking working farms the length and breadth of the UK.
Ann Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I totally agree. Indeed, I will give further details about that issue later in my speech.
It is also clear that industry experts were not consulted on the changes prior to the announcement, even though consultation could have led to a fairer and more appropriate solution that is not detrimental to family farms or the wider industry.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a very passionate speech on an extremely important topic. She will know that my constituency of Chester South and Eddisbury borders Wales, and that there are many family farmers in north Wales who are deeply concerned about the consequences of this policy. Does she agree that it will impact not only farmers but the wider agricultural-industrial community, including businesses in my constituency that work alongside Welsh farmers in north Wales, such as Meadow Foods in Chester?
Ann Davies
I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady, and perhaps I should mention that Meadow Foods is the company that takes the milk from our farm—so we are that close to one another. I will say more about that issue as I move through my speech.
The lack of any data on the particular effects of the changes in Wales is a genuine problem. The available data, especially the data used by the Treasury, is a combination of Wales data and England data, or is UK-level data; it is not Welsh data. That is why organisations in Wales have to make their own calculations about the impact in Wales. The Country Land and Business Association calculated that an average 250-acre dairy farm in Wales could be hit by a £119,000 inheritance tax charge, while the average 250-acre livestock farm would expect an £85,000 charge. However, those figures do not include the asset value of diversified enterprise, meaning, of course, that they could be higher still.
It is crucial that farmers, policymakers and other stakeholders in Wales have accurate data to understand the real impacts of the changes within the specific context of Wales. The FUW called for the Wales-specific impact assessment to be modelled with working farms only, as the Welsh Government—the Welsh Labour Government—did during their 2023 sustainable farming scheme analysis. Today, I reiterate the call for the Government to implement that assessment, as my Plaid Cymru colleagues and I have continuously called for since October. The arguments have not changed.
There is evidence that the changes will not make even an iota of difference to the Treasury. In fact, modelling from the Confederation of British Industry Economics found that the changes to BPR will actually cost the Exchequer £1.25 billion between 2026-27 and 2029-30. It is unclear how they work towards Labour’s mission of growth, as industry organisations have come across numerous cases of farms and businesses delaying investments, putting orders on hold and preparing to reduce staffing. Let us not forget that each £1 a farmer spends generates another £9 in that community. What other rural industry does that?
Undermining local farmers and agricultural producers risks missing out on crucial opportunities to shorten our supply chains and to improve our food resilience. We currently produce 60% of the food that we need here in the UK and, when our food imports already outnumber exports by £33.2 billion, causing a reduction in the food that we produce will only increase our vulnerability to factors outside our control—the damaging consequences of which we have already felt in the energy market.
There is also a consensus that the changes do not address the initial concerns about non-farmers investing in land to avoid inheritance tax. For those with new money from capital gains made in the non-agricultural economy, there will continue to be a huge incentive to buy agricultural land, given that the value of that land above the announced threshold will face inheritance tax charges at half the rate of other assets.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Does she agree that, if the Treasury had considered increasing the threshold and raising the overall rate for very wealthy landowners to 40%, it might have achieved the outcome it was looking for? I put on record that I would not have gone down the route that it has anyway.
Ann Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I am coming on to solutions in a minute; I hope that the Minister will listen to my proposed options.
Extending the existing scope of APR to land managed under environmental agreements with or on behalf of, for example, the Government or public bodies also suggests that foundations and large companies could buy up land sold to pay inheritance tax, without being subject to it in the same way. We have a train of people in west Wales who are already buying land for planting trees, carbon offsetting and solar and wind farms.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I find the notion of people buying and selling land purely for fiscal purposes abhorrent. I come from a farming family. My father was broke. He had to sell most of the land. There is not a day that goes by in which I do not look at the fields and regret that my family parted with it. The point I am making is that there is an emotional attachment between the farming family and the land. That is quite different from buying or selling a house, shares or a holiday home in Spain—it is quite different.
Ann Davies
As someone who has lived and worked the land all my life, I totally agree with the hon. Member. It is something that is within our soul; it is not just a trading issue.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
I commend the hon. Lady on her excellent speech. Given that we are asking farmers, who are already under so much emotional and financial pressure, to be even more active participants in helping us to mitigate climate change and restore nature, does she agree that it is not the time to add to their stress and risk losing their deep knowledge of their land, which has been passed from generation to generation?
Ann Davies
I totally agree. Nobody understands those fields better than the farmer who has worked that land. They know where those wet corners are and they know where they should not tread during certain times. The sustainable farming scheme—the SFS—is coming out in Wales next year, and it is about nature restoration, so I absolutely agree.
Estate agents in west Wales are already seeing increased investor interest in purchasing farms following the autumn Budget. Selling land to pay an inheritance tax bill will inevitably hit tenant farmers because the £1 million threshold will hit asset-rich estates. Around 30% of land in Wales is farmed under some sort of tenancy agreement and, although some is local authority-owned, much is owned by private landlords. The Tenant Farmers Association anticipates that more insecure agricultural tenancies will be terminated to allow land to be sold to avoid taxes on death. Other landlords are reducing the lengths of term offered to tenants, who were expecting longer leases, so that farms are more readily sellable in case of tax change.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
Tenant farmers on Ynys Môn are expected to be impacted by the change to APR because landowners there will have no option but to sell their farms to cover the additional cost. The landowners have a good relationship with their tenants but they have no choice but to sell, leaving generational farmers to lose their homes, businesses and future, with long-lasting effects on the rural community. Does my hon. Friend agree that the realities of agriculture in Wales, including for tenant farmers, must be fully considered by the UK Government in a Wales-specific impact assessment?
Ann Davies
Diolch yn fawr. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I should add that the wider economy will lose another vital source of food production. If that land is taken, it will never go back into food production.
My hon. Friend mentioned the effect on Wales, and there is a knock-on effect on the Welsh language: 43% of those involved in agriculture in Wales speak Welsh. Keeping our farming communities alive is key to moving towards the Welsh Labour Government’s target of achieving 1 million Welsh speakers in 2050. There is real worry—farming constituents have told me, with an eye on what it means for their own children, that they are concerned about the impact of the changes on future food production by Welsh-speaking families in areas of Wales already facing depopulation.
The families behind farming businesses are important to this debate. They are not just figures; they are people—people such as Richard Twose of Maenhir, who runs a 700-acre farm of 400 Holstein dairy cows and 300 pedigree Lleyn ewes with his parents, brother and children. APR and BPR changes have blown apart the family’s succession plans. They may now be forced to transfer the parents’ share in the farm and hope that they live for another seven years, or else the family will face a big tax burden on top of their business debt. Just yesterday I heard that, to add to the family’s worries and concerns, Richard’s father had passed away suddenly over Christmas.
The APR and BPR changes do not appear proportionate, in many ways. Inflation has already eroded the nil rate tax band of £325,000, which has been frozen since 2009 and is set to remain frozen until 2030. When APR and BPR were introduced, the nil rate band covered 56 acres of farmland; today, it covers 29 acres.
How the changes apply is not fair because the particularities—who someone shares the farm with, which tools or machinery they own or have hired, how much business debt they have—have a direct impact on their inheritance tax bill. Although the Government have said that married couples and their descendants can benefit from up to £3 million in tax relief, in reality tax experts are quoting figures that vary between £2 million and £4 million, based on different scenarios. We must remember that the Chancellor stated in October that the starting point for calculations is £1 million.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
Diolch yn fawr—thank you—to the hon. Member for giving way. Farmers in my constituency say to me that their problem is the threshold. The on-paper values of their farms—often several million pounds, even if the farmer makes no actual surplus income from the farm—would take them well into being caught by this policy. But the current situation is not working either, because non-farmers bought up more than half the farms and estates sold on the open market in England in 2023.
One local farmer told me that a 350-acre farm in Suffolk was bought by a merchant banker from London who had not even seen the farm and was clearly not intent on farming. Does the hon. Member agree that although we need the Government to increase the threshold, those arguing for the status quo are not doing farmers justice either?
Ann Davies
Absolutely. I am coming to my solutions, so I hope the Treasury will listen. I have three solutions that I think would work, because there are alternatives to this policy. The first is that abolishing capital business asset rollover relief could have provided a more targeted measure to tackle wealthy individuals buying agricultural land to avoid tax. That is the big one.
Secondly, taxing assets at the point of selling, rather than at the point of passing to another generation, would be a fairer measure to keep family farms. Thirdly, modifying existing proposals could double the zero-rate band and significantly increase the threshold, while allowing a shorter period than seven years for potentially exempt transfers. I have an additional comment on that. Do any of us have the right to live for seven years? That, my friends, is really not within our gift. Those are a few solutions from expert organisations in the sector, which could have proposed their solutions before the Government made their decision. That underlines again the importance of proper consultation with stakeholders.
To sum up, the APR and BPR changes have come at an already difficult time for farmers, with high costs of production, adverse weather and marketplace volatility taking their toll. Working farms that have been at the heart of Welsh communities for generations will suffer. As a constituent told me,
“Every farmer deserves the right to security of the farm they own or rent.”
Farms are not businesses but family legacies, vital for our rural economy and key to preserving our Welsh-speaking culture. Plaid Cymru supports closing loopholes that allow billionaire landowners to avoid paying their fair share, but this one-size-fits-all approach ignores the unique challenges of Welsh farming. That is why it is so important that the UK Government implement a Wales-specific impact assessment that reflects the realities of agriculture in Wales.
A petition calling for the UK Government not to change inheritance tax relief for working farms has reached more than 146,000 signatories, and is being debated here on 10 February—put that in the diary, folks! It is clear that the public agree that it is time for the Government to listen to farmers, conduct a proper analysis and rethink this damaging policy before it is too late.
Several hon. Members rose—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. The debate is well subscribed, so I am going to start with a four-minute limit. If there are a lot of interventions, that time will have to be reduced.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) on securing this important debate about a topic of major concern for many of my constituents.
Farming is at the heart of Wales’s social fabric, playing a vital role in our economy, food security and stewardship of the beautiful Welsh countryside. On Saturday, I met representatives of the FUW in Llansilin and NFU Cymru at a farm in Llanerfyl to discuss the ongoing challenges that farmers face. Farming is currently the least profitable sector of our economy, and changes to APR are having a significant impact on family-run farms.
A lifelong farmer in my constituency raised her children on her 220-acre farm. Although considered small, the farm is valued at more than £1 million. Her 48-year-old son, who has farmed alongside her since the age of 18, had hoped to take over the farm. His young daughters now share his passion. Sadly, they now face the prospect of losing the farm they have worked so hard for.
Let me be clear. I support progressive taxation to ensure that the wealthiest pay their fair share towards the upkeep of our society. In the 21st century, we see individual plutocrats and super-wealthy multinationals buying agricultural land to avoid paying inheritance tax, with no intention of using it for farming. That reduces our farmed land—something we can ill afford, given our fast-growing population in an unstable world.
The proposed changes to APR for farmers come on the back of this and more, and feel like the straw that broke the camel’s back, or as we would say in Wales: “Yr hoelen olaf yn yr arch.—[Translation: The final nail in the coffin.]”—if the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin can forgive my north-east Wales accent. The changes risk having a deeply detrimental effect on working family farms. What is at stake here? Food security. I have repeatedly spoken in the Chamber about my heartbreaking experiences with hungry children and food banks. In recent years, we have seen something that many never thought they would witness: food scarcity, empty shelves in the supermarkets and astronomical food price inflation. It cannot be overstated how that period of food inflation has affected the poorest in our country.
I will not say more about the proposed APR policy as a whole. Prior to my election in July, I attended 10 hustings —we do like our hustings in mid-Wales; my thoughts on this topic are well-known and on the record. However, I will speak about mitigations. First, I respectfully request that the Minister considers raising the threshold. If this policy is to target those who buy farmland solely to dodge inheritance tax, then let us make it so: raise the threshold and actually increase the rate for people like that, so that no family farm is affected.
Secondly, I implore the Minister to look at an exemption for farmers who—I risk sounding macabre, but I want to make myself clear—are too late in life to plan for this proposed change. I hope the Minister and you, Mr Stringer, can forgive my emotion. When you sit with an elderly farmer and his wife, both fighting back the tears, and they say, “If only I could die now, if only there was some kind of pill I could take now, so that my children don’t have to worry about this,” that has a profound effect. Diolch.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) for securing this important debate. I agree with her and the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) about emotional attachment; I urge hon. Members to watch “The Field” with Richard Harris—his Oscar-winning performance.
I want to return to the point that I have made in previous debates and which has already been made by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr. The key issue is that food security is national security; we as MPs have a duty to ensure that and to deliver jobs for communities across the country and low prices for consumers. Yet the Government behave as if they think food appears magically on the shelves at supermarkets.
My constituency of Aberdeenshire North and Moray East holds some of the best agricultural farmland in the country, and it will be disproportionately impacted by this change. Three quarters of the land in my constituency is used for agriculture, and the people who work that land are incredibly worried. Personally, I would have sympathy with a policy that targeted wealthy individuals who purchase agricultural land as a means of avoiding inheritance tax. However, that will not be the sole consequence of this legislation—that is the crucial point.
After the Chancellor delivered her Budget speech last year, the NFU and the National Farmers Union Scotland immediately cast doubt on the revenue that the policy would actually raise; they were ignored and dismissed. Now, even the Office for Budget Responsibility—Labour appear quick to mention it, but then ignore when it suits—has cast doubt on the revenue that the policy would raise. It states that the Treasury figure of £500 million is now highly uncertain. The justification for the policy is falling apart.
Since we last met on this issue, almost every major supermarket chain in the UK has publicly backed farmers, urging the Government to halt their plans and carry out a consultation. Ashwin Prasad, Tesco’s chief commercial officer, said there must be a pause in the Government’s implementation of the Budget measures, while a full consultation is carried out.
Farmers recognise Labour’s APR change as a bad decision; now the UK’s leading supermarkets have confirmed it. We must not forget that Labour brought in this change after explicitly ruling it out. Long-term clarity is needed when it comes to planning the future of family farms and the UK Government have failed farmers on that point. Listening to the NFUS and the NFU on this issue would have saved a lot of hurt for farmers, rural communities and shoppers across the country.
I have heard time and again from the Government that this policy was necessary to tackle the difficult financial situation that they inherited from the previous Government. I do not see how a bad inheritance justifies an objectively bad policy for consumers and farmers. If the necessity was so, why did the Chancellor rush to Davos to offer tax reliefs to non-doms, why is she not tackling widespread tax evasion by prominent individuals, as was reported recently by the BBC, and why is she not considering a wealth tax?
It seems ironic that the Labour Government complain about their dire inheritance while ignoring the dire inheritance that they are inflicting on family farms throughout the UK. It is not too late for the UK Government to reassess this damaging policy and make the necessary changes to protect farmers across these islands and in my constituency. It is a bad policy, Minister, and it is time to rethink it.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Reform)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) on securing such a valuable debate.
Being a farmer is not job; it is a career. In fact, it is not a career; it is a way of life. As one of the few active farming MPs, I am more qualified than most to comment. We were told before the election that Labour had no intention of changing APR, and farmers would have voted for Labour specifically on that pledge from the Environment Secretary. They certainly would not now. We should call it what it is: an outright betrayal.
Where do people think our food comes from? It does not grow on shelves in Waitrose; it is grown by British farmers on British farms. I urge all MPs to speak to their farming constituents. They will all say exactly the same: the backbone of British farming is being intentionally broken. If Labour continues down this path, thousands of grieving British farming families will lose their farms forever. Is that really what the Government want? The answer seems to be yes.
This assault on British family farms will undermine our food security, making our already uncertain place in an increasingly dangerous world even more precarious. Supporting British farmers today means safeguarding our domestic food supply for tomorrow. That should be the aim of any responsible Government. A rethink of this policy is urgently required.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
It is starting to feel a bit like groundhog day, because the Government are clearly not listening to the entire agricultural economy, community or experts. Let us go back to the beginning and have a brief history lesson. The hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) just mentioned that the Government said prior to the election that they had no intention of changing APR. At the Budget, the Chancellor told us that this was a measure to prevent very wealthy individuals from buying up agricultural land to avoid inheritance tax. That was proven by analysis of the policy to be untrue, so there was a pivot and we were told that the measure was about raising revenue for public services in rural areas. Then the OBR said, “Well, actually, it’s not going to raise the revenue it says it’s going to raise,” so the whole thing has unravelled week after week.
We have heard from other hon. Members today about the issue of the APR analysis not taking into account the BPR effect, and what that does for tenant farmers and farmers who have used BPR as one vehicle to wrap everything into in the event of a death. We have farmers, agricultural organisations, supermarkets, tax experts—even The Observer this weekend—coming out against the policy. It is truly remarkable that the Government have managed to unite all those people against one single measure.
Today, quite significantly, we had analysis from the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. That is important, because the AHDB is a non-departmental Government body, not a lobbying organisation. Its analysis, using data from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the farm business survey and the Scottish Government, says that over 75% of farms will be affected by this measure—three times the amount that the flawed Treasury modelling said.
Most of those farms simply cannot afford a large inheritance tax bill because, as we all know, they do not have the income to pay it. The result will be the sale of land upon death, most likely to the wealthy individuals or businesses that this very policy was allegedly meant to deter. In turn, that will take land out of production, risking both our food security and local agricultural economies. My hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) made a really important point about the impact on construction firms, feed merchants, hauliers, plumbers, electricians—all those who rely on a healthy farming sector.
The Government have ploughed on, with their head in the sand, but at what cost? There is a political cost —the decimation of Labour’s reputation in the countryside —but, more importantly, there is a human cost. This measure has placed enormous stress on family farms and, unforgivably, we have heard stories of suicide.
If the Chancellor can look again at non-doms, she can look again at this policy. If the Treasury is seeking to deter the wealthy from buying agricultural land, let us look at this again. If it is seeking to raise revenue, let us look at this again. The farmers are not going to back down, and we are not going to back down, so let us do the right thing, get round the table and find a better way forward.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I commend the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) for bringing forward this debate. She is a real advocate for farmers, and her constituents will have noted that.
As has been said, farming is not just a job, but a way of life. It is a generational commitment. In rural Northern Ireland, including in my constituency of Upper Bann, despite the recent inclement weather, rising production costs and the very real concerns of avian flu, bluetongue and the affliction of tuberculosis, our farmers continue to toil away. As we stand here today, they are milking cows and feeding livestock. They are working the land and ultimately feeding the nation. Farmers take great pride in their work, with zero days off and low incomes, and they bear the immense responsibility of being the custodians of our countryside and the lifeblood of our rural communities. Schools, businesses and essential services depend on them.
Jamie Stone
I sincerely hope that I am wrong in what I am about to suggest, but if the value of land were to drop as a result of these measures, and a farm had borrowed heavily and owed the bank a lot, it could be the case that the bank would foreclose and force the sale of the farm.
Carla Lockhart
The hon. Member is not wrong—he is rarely wrong. That the policy could lead to the splitting up of family farms is a concern for many farming families across Northern Ireland and this United Kingdom.
Agriculture has long been and continues to be the backbone of the UK economy. The agrifood sector contributes significantly to our GDP and employs hundreds of thousands of people across the country, yet, despite their crucial contribution, farmers face ever-increasing pressures that are not of their making.
Farming is deeply personal for me: I was raised on a farm, I am the daughter of a farmer, I am the wife of a farmer and, as I have said in this place before, I am the proud mum of a little boy who aspires to be a family farmer. He also dreams of being a professional footballer, but we will talk about that another day. So when I speak of farming, it really cuts deep, and it is from my heart that I bring the Government the simple but urgent message that they continue down this path at their peril. The proposed tax changes are a heavy blow to those who are already struggling, and they will be a wrecking ball to our rural communities and rural way of life across this United Kingdom. They will undermine our food security, drive up prices and undermine the world-class environmental standards that British farmers adhere to day and daily.
The changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief fly in the face of the manifesto commitments of this Government. Prior to the general election, the Prime Minister told farmers what they wanted to hear. It feels very much like “you’ve threw them under the bus,” as we would say in Northern Ireland, for little monetary return for the Government coffers. He said:
“Losing a farm is not like losing any other business, you can’t come back…You deserve better than that.”
Those words came from the Prime Minister’s mouth, and they ring very hollow in our rural community.
The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland has done a deep dive into the figures, which clearly outline the significant and disproportionate impact that the changes will have on Northern Ireland’s agricultural sector. DAERA’s analysis has shown that the vast majority of farms will be affected. In fact, under the current land valuation of £21,000 per acre in Northern Ireland, approximately 40% to 45% of cattle and sheep farms will be impacted, and an astounding 87% of dairy farms will be caught by the tax. It is not a marginal impact; it will affect almost half of farms in Northern Ireland, which together account for 80% of the total agricultural land, 70% of beef cattle, 90% of dairy cows and 80% of all cattle. The proposed changes will disrupt the very heart of our agricultural output. Sadly, that situation is replicated across the whole of the UK.
Despite all the evidence and concerns, the UK Government continue to state that only 500 farmers will be impacted by the changes. The official figures from the Office for Budget Responsibility remain highly uncertain. In fact, the OBR itself acknowledged that the estimates are among the most uncertain in the entire Budget package. According to independent analysis, the true number of affected farmers is likely to be five times greater than the Government’s estimate. I have made this point repeatedly in this place: no farmers, no food.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On a point of clarification, Mr Stringer, I understand that the Front-Bench speeches will begin at 3.28 pm. Does that mean that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) and myself can divide the 17 minutes until then between ourselves?
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
On the time limit that I have set, if people took the four minutes, we would finish the Back-Bench speeches at 3.19 pm. One of the problems is that some people have put in to speak but are not standing. That made the calculation difficult, because I assumed that people who had put in to speak would be bobbing, and they have not. At the moment, I will go with the four minutes that we have agreed.
Jim Shannon
Thank you for that clarification, Mr Stringer. I did not intend to put you under any pressure. I wish you well and thank you for your chairship.
I thank the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) —I hope my pronunciation is right, with my Ulster Scots accent—for securing this important debate on a matter of grave concern for many constituents and communities across the United Kingdom, and for those that I proudly represent as the Member of Parliament for Strangford. I declare an interest as a member of the Ulster Farmers’ Union, a farmer and a landowner. All my neighbours—every one of them—are concerned about this issue, and they have expressed that to me very clearly.
Farmers are the backbone of our rural economy. Their work provides not only the food that graces our tables but the stewardship of our natural landscapes, which are an integral part of our cultural and environmental heritage. Yet the changes to APR threaten to destabilise that foundation. I have spoken to farmers in my constituency and beyond, and their message is clear: the changes will place a substantial financial burden on farming families, forcing many to sell land to cover tax liabilities.
In response to a survey by the Country Land and Business Association, 86% of farmers indicated that they would need to sell all or part of their land if APR were removed. I understand that approximately 70% of farms in Northern Ireland—that comes from the Ulster Farmers’ Union legal officer—will be affected, because the farms are smaller.
It is really important that we get this right. Farmers have faced unrelenting challenges in recent years, including soaring energy and fertiliser costs, unpredictable weather patterns and inflationary pressures. The past decade has been marked by uncertainty. The loss of APR would mean that future generations could face unsurmountable inheritance tax. For smaller farms, especially, that could spell the end of their viability. The reality is that the changes will sweep up in their net many genuine, hard-working family farms. It is not just a financial issue; it is a matter of fairness, community sustainability and food security.
The Minister is an honourable person, but let us be honest and reasonable: what is right and what is wrong? Justice is what we are looking for here, and that must be addressed. When global supply chains are increasingly fragile, it is unwise to undermine domestic food production. Every acre lost to inheritance tax obligations reduces our ability to feed our population sustainably and affordably.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Clearly, many Members on both sides of the Chamber are incredibly concerned by the Government’s proposals to cut agricultural property relief and business property relief. Farmers from my constituency came to see me and they are incredibly worried. In an area with high land values but relatively small farms, they think that they will lose their farms. Does the hon. Member agree that, as well as having a global impact, losing those farms will be incredibly detrimental to the rural economy—to veterinary practices, agricultural merchants and other businesses attached to farming?
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. With those wise words, she has hit the nail on the head. When the Minister looks round this Chamber, he will see that everybody—those who have spoken and those who are here—is united against the change to APR. We are not going to put the Minister under pressure unduly, but if it were me, I would think twice about getting into a fight where it was 27 to one.
Jamie Stone
The hon. Member will be aware that my wife’s family come from Northern Ireland. My understanding is that the price of land there is quite a lot higher per acre than in Scotland or England. Does that not mean that what we are talking about today has a disproportionate effect on the Province of Northern Ireland?
Jim Shannon
It certainly does. For the Minister, we will lay on the line what we are after. The £1 million threshold is wrong, because it does not adequately reflect the rateable value of a farm. If the threshold was £5 million, that would save the small farms. The hon. Member for Caerfyrddin, who introduced the debate, talked about solutions. I have a solution for the Labour party, and I do not care if the Labour party claims it—that does not matter to me. What matters to me is that the threshold should rise from £1 million to £5 million. If it does, family farms will be saved, and if they are saved, we have a chance of moving forward.
I am trying to put that forward to the Minister as a positive solution. With the Ulster Farmers Union representatives William Irvine and Alex Kinnear, I had a meeting with the Minister away back before Christmas. We put that solution to him, and he said that he would take it to the Chancellor, because ultimately it will be her decision. It is a really clear way forward.
The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) is right in what he says about Northern Ireland. Land values are more expensive in Northern Ireland than anywhere else, which is why the 70% figure is greater for Northern Ireland than anywhere else. We want to have the same mechanism for everybody across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but there are other ideas about mechanisms such as extended payment windows or graduated tax liabilities to alleviate the financial strain on small farms.
I urge the Minister to provide clarity and reassurance to farmers, who are deeply concerned about the future. Again, I say this to him: if we want to do something positive following this debate—as I think we can and must—the issue of the threshold is the way forward. When people add up the value of the land, the value of the machinery and the value of the stock, they are well over the £1 million threshold, but what if he made the threshold £5 million? I have not grasped that figure out of the air; the Ulster Farmers Union and the National Farmers Union put it forward as a figure that could address the issue.
I am not going to put a lot of pressure on the Minister today—well, actually, I am. We are all putting pressure on him, because we see a way forward—genuinely, constructively and positively. I beseech him to take that message from the debate today to increase the threshold and save family farms.
This is an issue across Northern Ireland, including in the constituencies that my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and I represent. All my neighbours are worried sick about what the future holds, as are those tenant farmers in Wales and Scotland—across this great United Kingdom. We need the threshold to be raised. If the Minister does that, we will be on his side.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. First and foremost, I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) on securing this vital debate. Right hon. and hon. Members will perhaps be sick of hearing me talk on this topic, but I feel compelled to provide a voice for my farmers. My constituency of Tiverton and Minehead has a similar make-up to the hon. Lady’s. It is overwhelmingly rural agricultural land and home to many farming communities. There are some 1,600 holdings according to the CLA and 432 of those farms will be hit by the Government’s APR changes.
We Liberal Democrats applaud our farmers. As a former director of the National Farmers Union, I feel well placed to highlight the damaging consequences that will inevitably be visited upon them as a result of the changes to agricultural property relief. The Government’s claim that 27% of all farms will be affected is, if I am being generous, misinformed. According to in-depth analysis conducted by the National Farmers Union in collaboration with the OBR and Treasury experts, 75% of the nation’s working farms fall above the £1 million threshold and will be struck by the punitive changes. The changes are said to be caveated by different assumptions on rate relief.
There are misapplied exceptions. The first one is that the average family farm would not top the threshold of £3 million in value, which is just not the case. Great Ash farm in my constituency is a typical good-sized family farm consisting of 256 acres and is on the market for £3.5 million. In an inheritance tax valuation, the farm’s livestock and machinery would be added to the value, bringing the total to around £3.68 million. Even when the acreage is not as large, the value of agricultural land alone often pushes farmers close to, if not over, the £3 million threshold and can certainly shatter the individual threshold of £1 million. If we add to the value of the land the livestock, deadstock, properties, machinery and business, the owners of the farm are looking at a hefty valuation—not one that they can capitalise on to keep the farm, but one that will ensure they are caught in the claws of this onerous death duty.
The second misapplied exception is because farm ownership is not in all cases split equally between a husband and wife, and it does not always pass to a direct descendant. Existing capital gains tax rules have discouraged many older farmers from transferring their farms to their children owing to the potential tax burden, which means that ownership is staggered across many generations in some cases. Often, when there are not ownership models that meet the co-owning married couple status that the Chancellor uses for the modelling of those exceptions, it means that the various personal and dependent inheritance tax exemptions that go into the flawed Treasury equation on this policy cannot be used on many occasions.
The third misapplied exception, the residence nil rate band, is unlikely to be applicable. It is reduced by £1 for every £2 when the estate exceeds £2 million. Therefore, if a farm business exceeds £2.65 million, the residence nil rate tax band is no longer valid. That is yet another misapplied Treasury exemption, which will not have a realistic effect on family farms’ ability to keep the taxman from taking everything they have. In conclusion, I will make no apology for standing up for my rural communities—
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. Your four minutes are up. I call Alistair Carmichael.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I had put in to speak, but when I saw the attendance in the Chamber, I thought I would exercise a self-denying ordinance. That seems to have been counterproductive, so I will take a couple of minutes to drill down into some of the underlying assumptions in relation to this issue.
Let us bear in mind that there are three ways in which agricultural land can be passed on in succession. It can be relieved under agricultural property relief, under business property relief, or under a combination of the two. Hitherto, that has offered executry practitioners and others a range of different options. Frankly, as long as the land qualified as agricultural farming land, it did not really matter which route was taken.
In fact, any value was pretty academic because there was 100% relief in any event. I suspect that is why the HMRC guidance in relation to business property relief says that for a relief claimed under BPR, the book value, if I can use that shorthand, should be used. There is then no need to have the full market value. The letter that the Chancellor sent to the Treasury Committee on 15 November last year made no reference to those estates that passed on land under BPR only. To my mind, it is almost certainly the case that a large number of other farms will be caught by the measure that have not been included in Treasury calculations.
That view is reinforced today by the publication of the report by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, which, as the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) said, is a non-departmental public body of DEFRA. The body is levy funded, but the press release says that it is not for it to say whether inheritance tax should be exigible in these circumstances—it just wishes to inform the debate with its analysis. Its analysis is that 42,204 farms out of 54,938 of 50 hectares or more will be affected.
That must surely give the Treasury some cause for concern, and a basis on which it could pause the change. We still have a long time to go; it will not be in the Finance Bill until October or November of this year. Where an element of doubt exists, it would surely be sensible for everyone concerned if the Treasury were to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the farming unions and others.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is making an extremely fair assessment. Does he acknowledge that the Treasury is full of capable civil servants and Ministers who have a number of other options available to them? No doubt the argument will be that there is a black hole to fill, but even if one does accept that, there are still better options overall for the agricultural and rural communities that serve us across this country.
Mr Carmichael
There are other options. On another day, with more time available, we might be able to look at what the tax take will be for the changes. The Secretary of State, when he gave evidence to the Select Committee, said that they were not going to be a problem because most people will avoid them. In fact, there will be opportunities for that to be the case.
The underlying concern here, which the Minister has the opportunity to address, is whether the Government still adhere to the belief that there is a public policy interest in ensuring the transition of family farms down the generations. If that was the original basis on which the reliefs were introduced, and if it remains the policy objective to this day, the figures need to be looked at more carefully. The thresholds could be increased or there could be a 10-year clawback—whatever the solution may be; the industry is full of ideas. There are any number of people who will come forward with suggestions for the things that at least some people in Government say they sought to achieve by making the change.
If—the Prime Minister was not very clear about this; well, he was clear that he was not bothered—the object was to avoid the super-rich using land to shelter their wealth, there are better ways of doing that. The Minister will get full co-operation from the farming unions and communities, but in order to have that, there has to be a dialogue. At the moment we are getting nothing from the Treasury. If he takes no other message back to the Treasury today, he should take this: the Chancellor must meet the farming unions.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
We are back on schedule, so there are 10 minutes each for the Front-Bench spokespeople.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) for securing this important debate, and I applaud the cross-party work she is doing to ensure that Welsh farmers have a strong voice in this place. We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), who pointed out the holes in the proposed policy change. I welcome the contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), whose voice is so valued by the agricultural community across these isles. He pointed out that there is still time for the Government to engage properly with the sector, and that it is in the public interest to preserve these farms.
Last weekend, a group of farmers came to Llandrindod Wells to show me their accounts. What they wanted to show me was not how much they were making, but how little. Their figures were corroborated by statistics released this month by the Welsh Government, which show that farming incomes have fallen by a staggering 34% across Wales in the last year. The average income now sits at just £22,000, which is perhaps not surprising considering what farmers have had to cope with recently: rising energy costs, runaway fertiliser inflation, supermarkets forcing unfair prices on producers, the transition away from the EU customs union, disastrous Conservative trade deals with Australia and New Zealand, and extra regulations from the Welsh Government. Those are just a few of the issues they are coping with, and we can now add to that the rise in national insurance and the changes to APR and BPR announced in the autumn Budget. Family farms are on the brink.
The people working on our farms in Wales deserve a decent living. Farming is already a tough business, but those figures and challenges highlight how unsustainable the situation is for many families. The Government’s proposed changes to agricultural property relief make things worse by forcing farmers either to sell parts of their land or to make repayments that will wipe out any annual profit. The Government are relying on outdated APR claim figures from 2021-22 and including non-commercial holdings in their calculations, which downplays the policy’s impact. According to NFU Cymru, the number of farms in Wales that will be affected is closer to 75% than the 27% claimed by the Government. If the Government are so confident in their numbers, why will not they release a full impact assessment that includes national breakdowns for Wales and Scotland?
When speaking to people in the sector, it is clear that they know what the impact will be: a further contraction in the rural economy. More young people will be forced to leave farming, placing our food security at risk, driving up food prices and damaging the wider rural economy. The process of rural depopulation will continue, making it harder for local councils to provide services. In Wales, the policy could have a calamitous impact on the Welsh language.
Recently, I visited Llanelwedd primary school, and a nine-year-old pupil asked me about the rising cost of fertiliser. I asked him whether he was going to farm when he grew up, and he looked me in the eye and said, “I am a farmer already.” Yet, under these new policies, this young man may inherit a smaller farm with little profit and fewer opportunities.
Farming is not a typical business, but it is an essential one. In Wales, we have already seen the decline of many industries as a result of political decisions, and I fear that the proposed changes to APR could have the same devastating effect on farming. Who will farm the Welsh countryside? Will it be Welsh farming families who have worked the land for generations, or will it be the super-rich? It is reported that the Government plan to soften the blow for non-doms, but they seem unwilling to listen to the farmers who are the backbone of our rural economy. Our farmers are patriots and servants of the land. Who will feed us when they are gone?
Surely, Ministers must now look again at this policy. It is not just Opposition parties and farming unions that are criticising it, but the Office for Budget Responsibility, supermarkets and even, as of this weekend, the Labour First Minister of Wales. Rural Labour MPs need to stand with them and to pressure the Government to reconsider, and I applaud the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) for doing exactly that in this debate.
There are alternatives. Many in my constituency are already asking why Labour is targeting family farms, small businesses and charities for tax rises, while letting big banks, oil companies and tech giants off the hook. That is where the full troughs lie.
APR is not a loophole. As has been mentioned, it was purposefully introduced to protect family farms and safeguard our food security. If the Government want to stop tax evasion, they must work with the farming sector to find a solution that does not punish struggling farmers, because Welsh farmland belongs in Welsh farming hands.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) for securing this incredibly important debate.
Here we are yet again, having summoned yet another Minister to the House. We have slowly worked our way through all the DEFRA Ministers, and now here we are with the Treasury. I welcome the new Treasury Minister to his place; he is replacing the Farming Minister, who seems to have disappeared from these debates. I hope the new Treasury Minister lasts longer in his post than the infamous “Ed Stone”, which he was so proud to have masterminded.
Let us remember why we are here. Last weekend, the NFU’s farming day of unity saw one of the biggest agricultural rallies, which took place in all parts of the United Kingdom, with people from all walks of life coming together to support our farmers. That followed protests outside supermarkets and Westminster, and at auction marts, but still the Government refuse to get behind our farming community and listen. Let them be under no illusion: the strength of feeling outside this place is rightly strong, and the issue will not go away.
When the Government announced this policy, I thought they were just being naive. Then I thought they were perhaps being arrogant. Now the only conclusion I can come to is that this is a vindictive policy aimed at our farming community. That is because the Government are still unwilling to listen to the concerns raised by Members and stakeholders, whether that be the NFU, the CLA or the Tenant Farmers Association. The Chancellor is yet to engage with any of them.
Although the Government will no doubt claim that only affect 27% of farms will be affected, research conducted by those industry experts concludes that at least 75% of commercial family farms will be, because the £1 million threshold will impact the many. This disconnect stems from significant flaws in the Government’s methodology, which fails to account for the many market conditions and economic realities that our farming businesses face.
Given that the average size of a farm is about 200 acres, the average value of a farm holding will without doubt be well in excess of the £1 million threshold. When we take into account the value of the farmland; the farmhouse, and potentially a cottage or two; and any stocks, machinery or growing crops that may be in store, it will exceed the £1 million cap, therefore impacting the farming business. When we take into account the profit that a business may be making—or indeed struggling to make—on an average-sized farm of 200 acres, it is going to struggle to pay that bill.
What do farmers do? What are the options available to them? They can sell assets to pay the inheritance tax bill, or they can sell some of the livestock or some of the machinery, stocks or crops that may be in store, all impacting the productivity of that farming unit. Alternatively, they may want to take out a loan, which is an option suggested by the Government. I do not know whether the Treasury Minister has spoken to any banks, but I have, and none of them is saying that they will offer a loan to pay a tax bill. That is because the gearing of many of our family farming businesses is so highly strung that they could not pay any additional loan that may be granted to them, because the serviceability of that debt, which probably exists alongside the family farming business they already occupy, is so strongly geared.
That is before we take into account all the other budgetary consequences the Government have brought about: the increase in employer’s national insurance contributions, the increase in the minimum wage, the immediate effect of delinked payments, the removal of capital grants, the fertiliser tax that will no doubt be introduced and the double-cab pick-up tax. All impact the profitability and productivity of our many family farming businesses. This policy will also lead to a significant reduction in the land available to rent, given that around two thirds of working farms rent some or all of their land.
That is before we take into account the human cost. Farming can be a very lonely business, and I fear that the added weight of the changes to not only agricultural property relief but business property relief will be forcing some of the older generation, including those who are seriously ill at the moment, to make decisions right now. Indeed, I have spoken to a few. I spoke to one farmer just last week who is aged 78 and in ill health. If he passes away before April 2026, any death tax will be zero. If he passes away after April 2026, the death tax imposed on his family will be over £1 million. What decisions is that individual having to make right now? Those are the consequences of the decisions and choices this Government have made.
Will the Government have the moral courage to pause their actions and consult the industry experts I mentioned, as well as Opposition Members who continue to raise concerns on behalf of their constituents? As the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), has rightly asked every time she has been at the Dispatch Box, will the Government record farm suicides in the next few months so that we can properly assess the human impact of the choices this Labour Government are making? What measures could be put in place to mitigate the impact of these changes on those who are already over retirement age or in serious ill health? They have held on to these assets for many years and many generations, and they simply want to be in a position to hand them down to the next generation.
I want to ask the Minister a few questions. Why on earth has an economic impact assessment been undertaken of the consequences of the changes to agricultural property relief, and of agricultural property relief dual-claimed with business property relief, but not solely of business property relief? Has any impact assessment been taken into account in the changes to inheritance tax, as well as the wider budgetary changes as a result of the measures I have already alluded to?
Why do the Government believe that it is unnecessary to take into account the size of a family farm when indicating the negative consequences that this proposal will have? If they implement a £1 million threshold, the size of a farm absolutely matters, because that takes into account not only the amount of land being farmed, but the existing productivity and the assets retained within that business. Why is the size of the farms not being taken into account?
If the Government are so determined to push ahead, can they tell us why on earth have they arrived at the £1 million threshold as the appropriate figure? How do they deal with the progressive disappearance of the residence nil rate band on estates valued at more than £2 million? How will they protect tenanted land on estates that will be valued at levels much higher than any threshold? What hope is there for the tenant farmer who is told that their landlord is now having to liquidate the capital value tied up in the land that they rent to satisfy the Government’s potential tax liability? As a result, that tenant farmer will have no tenancy, because the tenancy will have to come to an end. For the tenant farmer, that will mean losing their home, their business and their livelihood. No amount of tax planning will help those tenant farmers to find a way forward.
In setting out the £1 million threshold, the Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed that she wanted to protect hard-working family farmers. I can tell the Minister that all family farmers are hard-working, so why on earth was the threshold set at that level? On behalf of the tenant farming sector, I can say that whatever level is set, it will do nothing to protect our tenant farmers. They will be impacted by the collateral damage caused by the decisions their landlord will have to make.
Just this week, the noble Lord Mackinlay of Richborough received an answer to a written parliamentary question in the other place that stated that agricultural property relief and business property relief on assets tied up in private pension funds will not receive any of the reliefs that Ministers are citing. As the Pensions Minister, can the Minister confirm that and explain why the Government have further excluded farms held under those types of ownership from this calculation? Given the Government’s response in the other place, they will absolutely be impacted.
There is much more to do. As we have indicated, the Conservatives will reverse this disastrous family farm tax, which will impact hard-working family farms. The Opposition position is clear: this policy is bad for farming businesses, bad for rural economic growth, bad for food prices and bad for food security. Farmers can see it, the NFU can see it, the CLA can see it, the Tenant Farmers Association can see it and the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers—of which I must declare I am a fellow, Mr Stringer—can see it. The supermarkets can see it, the Opposition can see it and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden)—the one lonely Labour MP sitting on the Government Benches—can see it, so why on earth can the Government not see it?
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Minister, we have a generous amount of time left. Can you try to ensure that you leave at least two minutes for a winding-up speech?
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) on securing this debate and for engaging with many different pronunciations of the name of her constituency over the course of the last hour and a half. She rightly makes a powerful case for Welsh farming, which all of us in south Wales would like to reinforce.
We will not all agree on the policy under discussion today, but we all agree that topics such as this are important to many and should be properly discussed in this place—ideally at a lower temperature than in this room. I have listened closely to the contributions to the debate, and I thank all hon. Members for setting out their views and for speaking on behalf of not only their constituents, but their acquaintances, friends and family members. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) made a clear case about the emotional, not just economic, importance of land to farmers and farming families. Most of us will have someone close to us who farms, but even those who do not will recognise the huge contribution that our farmers make to our food security, our economy and our rural communities. None of us takes those contributions for granted, and we have heard that today.
Before I turn to the specific points raised by hon. Members, I will briefly—I promise it will be brief—set out the context for the Budget decisions we are debating. This Government’s inheritance matters, however much the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) declines to mention it. We had unsustainable public finances, equally unsustainable and struggling public services, councils going bust and prisons overflowing, so tough decisions were unavoidable in the Budget if we were to restore economic stability, fix the public finances and support public service. That is the backdrop to the decision to reform agricultural property relief.
That decision was not taken lightly, but it was a necessary decision, not least because rural communities lose out more than most when health, transport and council services across the UK do not live up to the standards that any of us expect. It was the right decision, because the Government will maintain significant levels of inheritance tax relief for agricultural property, far beyond what is available for most assets, because we recognise the role that those reliefs play in supporting farmers.
The debate is really about how we balance the objectives of protecting family farms with the public finances and public services. The status quo—the full, unlimited exemption introduced in 1992—has become unsustainable. The benefits have become far too heavily skewed towards the wealthiest estates. Some 40% of agricultural property relief benefits the top 7% of estates making claims. The top 2% claim 22% of the relief, which means 37 estates are claiming £119 million in a single—
John Glen
The Minister is a serious economist with a serious track record in analysing public finances. With all due respect, given the significant uncertainty and the fact that numerous organisations representing farming interests outside the party political debate have asked serious questions about the deliverability of the scheme and the amount of money that will be raised, surely he must accept that there is time for people such as he to work with officials to find better ways of finding the sums that he says he needs—I am not disputing that—to do the right thing by the farming communities of this country and not cause the unintended damage that will clearly take effect.
Torsten Bell
I thank the right hon. Member for his kind words, even though I cannot agree with everything that followed. I will come on to some of the points that he raised shortly. I think this will come up several times in the course of what remains of the debate, but we cannot use farm valuation data to make claims about inheritance tax claims. On the latter, we have the actual data for the claims made, which is what we rely on.
Several hon. Members rose—
Torsten Bell
I will make some progress and then I will give way.
We see a similar picture for business property relief. It is in large part these reliefs that mean the largest estates pay materially lower rates of inheritance tax than more modest estates. That undermines faith in the fairness of our tax system more generally. Given the pressures we face, it cannot be right to leave this system unreformed, which is a point the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) made well.
That is the context and the rationale for the changes to how we will target agricultural property relief and business property relief from April 2026. Contrary to the claims that these reliefs are being scrapped, which I am afraid to say were repeated by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) just now, we will continue to provide significant tax relief, including for small farms and businesses. Individuals will still benefit from 100% relief for the first £1 million of combined business and agricultural assets. Importantly, the relief sits on top of all the other spousal exemption and nil-rate bands. Depending on people’s circumstances, up to £3 million can be passed on by a couple to their children or grandchildren free of inheritance tax.
Jim Shannon
I will try to be brief. On the rateable value, which the Minister mentioned earlier, my understanding after talking to the legal person of the Ulster Farmers’ Union is that the rateable value is based on whether the farm was handed over in the 1970s, in the 1980s, in the 1990s or even in the 2000s, but the rateable value does not show the real value of the land. Therefore, it is a flawed system. If it is a flawed system, the Minister needs to go back to the very beginning and look at it. I say that respectfully; I am not trying to catch anybody out. I am just saying that if something is not right, then get it right.
Torsten Bell
The point I was making was about the hon. Member’s point that the relief had been scrapped; I was just making the point that the reliefs have certainly not been scrapped and that they remain very generous indeed.
Beyond the thresholds I mentioned, the 50% relief will continue and there will be a reduced marginal inheritance tax rate of 20%, rather than the standard 40%. Furthermore, in response to the points raised by several Members today about the cash-flow challenges that some farms face, particularly after bad years like last year, I will point out that heirs can spread the payments over 10 years interest-free, which is a benefit that is not seen anywhere else in the inheritance tax system.
Mr Carmichael
If people are looking at a £400,000 bill, which is what they would pay on a £3 million farm, and they earn £25,000 a year, they will still struggle to make that payment in 10 years; in fact, it would be downright impossible. That is how the land gets sold.
Torsten Bell
I will not comment on the individual example the right hon. Gentleman gave, but in general he is right to say that there can be large variations in the profits of farms between years and between farms. That is partly why the tax system already allows us—uniquely for farmers—to average profits over periods of time. Obviously, our advice to all farmers who think they will be affected by the change is that they should seek advice in turn.
I turn to the impact that these reforms will have, as that has been the central focus of most comments today.
Torsten Bell
I will make some progress.
In 2026-27, up to 520 estates claiming agricultural property relief, including those that also claim business property relief, are expected to pay more as a result of this change. That means that around three quarters of estates claiming agricultural property relief will not pay any more than they do now.
The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) asked questions about business property relief and specifically about claims that are not covered by agricultural property relief. Around three quarters of estates claiming business property relief alone—that is, the same proportion that have agricultural property relief, once we exclude those only holding alternative investment market or AIM shares, which are often held for the purpose of avoiding inheritance tax—will not pay any more inheritance tax in 2026-27. All estates making claims for these reliefs will continue to receive generous support, at a total cost of £1.1 billion to the Exchequer. The system will remain more generous than it was before 1992, when inheritance tax was applied at a maximum rate of 50%, including on the first £1 million that was passed on.
Several Members have implied that the change will end the passing-down of farms between generations. I gently point out in response that farmers, agricultural landowners and small business owners did not receive 100% relief on inheritance tax for almost all of the 20th century, yet farms and businesses were very much passed down between generations. Indeed, the tax system will continue to support that process. As the Institute of Fiscal Studies has said, our reforms will:
“still leave…land much more lightly taxed than most other assets”.
These changes should also be seen in the wider context of support we are providing for farmers and rural communities. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) was wrong in his comments about the Office for Budget Responsibility, as the document produced this week provides no new information. However, he was right about the importance of food security, as was the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe). That is why the Budget committed £5 billion to farming over the next two years, including the biggest budget for sustainable food production in our history. It also committed £60 million to help farmers affected by the unprecedented wet weather last winter. The wider tax system will also continue to support farming—tenants as well as owners—including through exemptions from business rates, the use of rebated diesel and the ability, as I said, to average tax affairs over a number of years.
As we have heard today, the reforms to inheritance tax generate strong views. I understand that. I recognise that a small number of estates will have to pay more. I have not hidden from that today, nor in conversations—
Robbie Moore
Will the Minister confirm when he and the Government will start listening to the points being made by everybody outside this place—different stakeholders, banks, accountants—
Robbie Moore
And supermarkets. The Minister and Government are, dare I say it, alone on this point.
Secondly, as he did not allow my intervention earlier, will the Minister confirm why the Government are not taking into account the value and the size of agricultural units when projecting the impact the changes will have on family farming businesses and farming businesses?
Torsten Bell
The hon. Gentleman raises the question of supermarkets. Supermarkets can talk but there is a lot they could do directly to support our farmers—
Torsten Bell
I listened to the question and I will make more progress. I have not hidden from what I have heard from individuals across the country about this issue in recent months, including from talking to farmers in mid-Wales and East Anglia. Reform of the reliefs is necessary if we are serious about putting our public finances on a stable footing and repairing our broken public services, including the schools, hospitals and roads that communities across the UK—
Torsten Bell
No, I am going to finish. Communities across the UK, including in rural areas, rely on those things every single day. We have taken these decisions to make the system fairer and more sustainable and the decisions come alongside significant new investments in farming and support for small business.
Thank you, Mr Stringer, and all those who have spoken today, in particular the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin for securing the debate. I look forward to her concluding remarks.
Ann Davies
Diolch yn fawr, Mr Stringer. First, I want to thank all hon. Members for their contributions today. I appreciate their words, interventions and speeches. This is so important for food security but for us in Wales it is also, as has been mentioned, about the Welsh language and our culture. As I mentioned in my speech, there are alternatives that could bring further taxation into the Treasury and, more importantly, secure our food-producing farms for future generations. I have to be honest, I am really disappointed with the response we have had from the Government and the Treasury today. It is not what I was hoping to hear.
The issue affects my constituency of Caerfyrddin—I will say it again so Members can tune in to the pronunciation, although I thank everyone for trying—where 60% of residents live rurally. It affects all rural constituencies, of all political colours. We are here to represent our constituents and I ask kindly if we can do that with integrity, purpose and fairness. We need to have a Welsh impact assessment of the APR and BPR and I call again on the Government to do that.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of changes to Agricultural Property Relief.
A133-A120 Link Road
(2 days, 10 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
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. I will call Sir Bernard Jenkin to move the motion and the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates. I have been informed that two hon. Members have been given permission by the mover and the Minister to speak in the debate.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government funding for the A133-A120 link road.
Thank you very much, Mr Stringer. There may even be a third intervention from a colleague, which I hope will be all right with you. I should have notified you in advance, for which I apologise. I thank the Minister for taking part in this debate regarding the further funding of the new A1331 link road.
The top line is that central Government must fund phase 2 of this road. The previous Government committed to do so, and provided 100% grant via a housing infrastructure fund grant of £99.9 million in 2020. Since then covid and inflation have struck, and the grant is now £50 million to £60 million short of what is needed to complete the road. That estimate is hearsay and not official, but it does not seem unreasonable.
Essex county council has started the construction of phase 1 but phase 2 is not funded. The Government’s housing targets for Colchester and Tendring cannot be met without this vital new road. This development of 7,500 new homes is very substantial, but I support and understand the need for it. However, the development cannot be justified unless the road is completed in advance. Indeed, without completion of the road, the developers may well stop investing in the houses because the traffic will be intolerable and the new homes found to be unsaleable.
The proposed Tendring Colchester Borders garden community—or TCBGC—located between the A120 and the A133 north of the University of Essex, includes new primary and secondary schools, dedicated employment spaces, a nature reserve and a commitment to 30% affordable housing. The new homes will generate a huge increase in traffic. The new direct access to the A120 and the A133 is essential for the viability of the development. It will also significantly mitigate local adverse traffic impacts, both during the construction phase and as the new homes are occupied.
The whole project now hinges on phase 2, which will complete the link to the A120. Without phase 2 the A1331 will be a road to nowhere, and only add to traffic on already congested roads. There is no viable or agreed funding for phase 2. I hope I do not have to disabuse the Government of that fact. Many councillors and local people fear that phase 2 will never be completed. So far, the Government have told the county council, “There is no budget” for any additional funding.
My first question is this: will the Government please now consider making up the shortfall? I wrote to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on 11 November and received a reply just last night. These debates have a purpose: they provoke a response. I am grateful for the Minister’s letter, in this case from Baroness Taylor, in which she states:
“Essex county council and Latimer (the housing developer) have committed to use reasonable endeavours to procure delivery of phase 2…And in order to safeguard its delivery, there is a planning policy requirement for the developer to demonstrate funding is in place for the full link road.”
I put it to the Minister that this really is wishful thinking. Think about it: 7,500 homes and a £60 million contribution to finish phase 2—that is £8,000 per home, and that is just for the road. Where is all the other section 106 funding required for this development going to come from?
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for securing the debate.
In November 2024 I had the pleasure of joining partners from Essex county council, Colchester city council, Latimer, Clarion Housing and Homes England, as well as contractors, to see the start of phase 1 of the link road. As the hon. Member rightly said, it is just phase 1, and we need phase 2 to be completed. Speeding up phase 2 by creating a deal with those partners, including the Government, will be a vital part of that. I hope he will support initiatives around that, as we have already been having those kinds of discussions. I also invite the Minister to visit the project to see just how short a link road will be required to complete what will be an outstanding development that straddles both our constituencies.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
The hon. Lady is clearly keener on the development than I am, but if the Government come up with some money to make this whole development viable again, I will of course resume my support for it. I would also very much welcome a visit from the Minister, but it remains to be seen whether we will get one. I am afraid that I refused to attend that event in November because I thought it was irresponsible to start a road if nobody knew how it would be funded or when it would be completed. The Minister may, in her response today, refer to a December memorandum of understanding on this matter between Essex county council, the Colchester and Tendring councils and Latimer, but I have to point out to her and to the Department that this is not a binding agreement. Paragraph 1.6 states that the funding of infrastructure, including the A1331 link road, is contingent, and that it
“will only be possible if the overall delivery of TCBGC is financially viable.”
Remember that it is £8,000 per home just for the road. TCBGC will no longer be financially viable. Financial contributions through section 106 will not be enough to cover the cost of phase 2 of the road along with all the other essential infrastructure plans for this development.
What has got to give? Will we finish up with more GP practices closing their lists and not accepting more patients, or more schools without places for local kids? Section 106 funding should be for local infrastructure, not for national infrastructure such as this proposed new A road. The clue is in the term “A road”—it is part of the trunk road network. What is the benefit-cost ratio for this new road? The original funding application said 7:1. A 7:1 benefit-cost ratio is well above the threshold of “very high”, which is only 4:1, so this public investment will give very big payback for the local economy, jobs and tax revenues.
Can the Minister provide us with a benefit-cost ration for just phase 1, which the Government have now retrospectively agreed to fund on its own? This was approved via a material amendment to the grant determination agreement that the Government have signed, allowing the county council to build just phase 1 with the grant money so far allocated. The Government agreement makes them complicit in the wishful thinking that this development will be viable. My guess is that the benefit-cost ratio for just phase 1 will be at rock bottom. It will have very little economic benefit at all, and would never have passed muster if it had been proposed as part of the funding arrangements at the outset.
Without knowing what the phase 1 benefit-cost ratio is, how could the Government possibly justify turning down the request for funding to complete the A1331 link road? I speculate that the benefit-cost ratio of finishing the road is off the scale because of the sunk costs already committed. Labour has promised growth and new homes to voters, but with infrastructure first—
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I would have preferred earlier notice of the intervention, but I will of course give way to the hon. Lady.
Marie Goldman
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman and thank him for giving way. His point is about the importance of infrastructure coming first. Just down the road from the proposed A1331 is the A12 widening scheme, which affects my constituency of Chelmsford, which will potentially affect the delivery of 55,000 new homes, and for which we are waiting for confirmation of funding. Those homes would, of course, go a long way towards meeting the Government’s 1.5 million target. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the “infrastructure first” principle is crucial, and that the Government must not overlook it when they are considering funding?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
If the Government want to achieve anything like their 1.5 million target, they will have to put the money up front for the infrastructure. Here is a shovel-ready deal for the Government to show their commitment to achieve their target of 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament. If the promised 7,500 new homes are not built because phase 2 of the A1331 is not completed, then Colchester city council and Tendring district council do not have a chance of achieving the Government’s ambition. Without phase 2 of the road being completed ahead of the new homes—which was the original intention—the most likely outcome is that the new garden community will be started and then stalled. There is already standstill traffic every day on the A133 where the southern end of the A1331 is intended to relieve traffic congestion. A few hundred new homes will just add to that gridlock.
In November, in my letter to the Secretary of State, I made it clear that I have not, until now, felt the need to object to this massive housing development in my constituency. I recognise the need for new housing, but my support is contingent on the principle of “infrastructure first”. If there is no new money from the Government and nobody can say when the road will be completed, I will object, and so will the vast majority of the people of Colchester and Tendring. The Government are shifting responsibility on to the developer and local authorities for the road on which the viability of the whole scheme depends. I therefore ask the Minister—although somehow I do not expect a conclusive answer today—to top up the housing infrastructure fund grant so that it covers 100% of the cost, as originally intended, and to publish the benefit-cost ratio of just funding phase 1, so that we can see what poor value limited HIF funding now represents. I also ask the Government to affirm the principle of “infrastructure first”—I hope the Minister can do so—and ask for their acknowledgment that the section 106 money is not appropriate for funding a major piece of national infrastructure. An A road is being proposed here, not a local road, which is why central Government should fund it.
I notified you, very late, Mr Stringer, that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) might want to add a few words.
Nigel Farage (Clacton) (Reform)
I am here to support my geographical neighbour, the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin). He is absolutely right: it would be wholly irresponsible to commence the building of thousands of houses without knowing that a road will be completed. So I completely support what he says, and I am sure that constituents in all neighbouring constituencies overwhelmingly agree.
I just wonder whether, when these things are debated, be it here or in the main Chamber, we ever pause for a moment to understand what we have done—what both Conservative and Labour Governments have done—a 10 million increase in the population in the last 20 years; the Office for National Statistics this morning suggesting that another 3 million to 4 million will be added in the next few years. These are all problems of uncontrolled mass migration and the population explosion. I wonder whether many Members level with their constituents about the causal factors here.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Rushanara Ali)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I thank the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for securing this important debate and for highlighting his concerns about this project, and I thank other hon. Members for their interventions. As someone who spent many years securing debates of this form to raise important issues affecting my constituency, I know how much these debates matter to constituency MPs.
The Government recognise that there are significant benefits to high-quality, large-scale developments that deliver much-needed housing. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex acknowledges the importance of housing in communities such as his and those up and down the country. We recognise that the right infrastructure must be put in place first, including the right transport infrastructure. Without that, facilities and transport become overstretched. One of the consequences is congestion and delays for existing residents and commercial traffic.
The housing infrastructure fund was established in 2017, primarily to provide up-front infrastructure funding to support the delivery of large-scale strategic housing developments. The £4.2 billion fund will unlock 260,000 homes, 30,000 of which have already been started, with a further 73,000 completions expected during this Parliament. That will make a significant contribution to the Government’s target of 1.5 million homes, which is a major commitment of this Government—previous Governments also had commitments around house building, recognising the need for housing in our country.
The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex spoke about the Tendring Colchester Borders garden community project in his constituency. That project is expected to initially unlock 5,000 homes at the garden community, and that figure will increase over time to a total of 7,500. The hon. Member highlighted a number of points, and I will restate some of them. This Government are providing £99.9 million from the housing infrastructure fund for Essex county council to build a rapid transit system high-speed bus route. That will run from the north to the south of Colchester, connecting to the new community. I am pleased to note that that is under construction.
I appreciate the concerns that the hon. Member shared about the second item of infrastructure being funded: the A1331 link road, which will connect the A133 and A120. Over the past few years, infrastructure projects across the country have been affected by a number of unexpected factors, such as the pandemic, rising inflation, the shortage of skilled labour and other external events, and in a constrained fiscal environment the Government have had to make tough decisions.
Due to the escalation of the costs with the Tendring project, it is no longer possible to construct the entire link road with the funding available. Additionally, there continue to be delivery challenges with sections of the road, particularly in relation to land acquisition. In response to the request from Essex county council in 2023, the previous Government made the decision to use the available grant to only fund phase 1 of the link road. I appreciate the hon. Member’s concerns about that descoping of the project. I assure him that, together with the first phase of the link road, the existing local road network is sufficient to support 5,000 homes in the garden community. Moreover, I assure him that the intention to deliver the full link remains.
To that end, there is ongoing engagement between Homes England and local partners on the support that will enable the full link road to be delivered as soon as possible. That includes capacity funding to support planning, facilitation of joint working between public and private sector partners, and cross-Government brokerage support, which I hope addresses some of the points the hon. Member raised.
Both Essex county council and the housing developer, Latimer, have committed to use reasonable endeavours to procure delivery of phase 2. Additionally, to safeguard its delivery, there is a planning policy requirement for the developer to demonstrate that funding is in place for the full link road. My Department is also providing support through our new homes accelerator programme, which will help with the pre-planning process for the garden community.
Tendring Colchester Borders garden community is an important project in an area of high demand. The housing infrastructure fund grant is a catalyst for a wider £250 million private sector investment into infrastructure. The new community will include a new country park and significant green and blue infrastructure, promoting sustainable and active travel, a new 25-hectare sports and leisure park to be used in conjunction with the University of Essex, and a new 17-hectare business park for general employment, business and industrial purposes. The Government are committed to the full delivery of the infrastructure originally planned under the housing and infrastructure fund grant.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
The Minister is saying one or two interesting things. First, I have never heard anybody say—I wrote down what she said—that the “local road network is sufficient to support 5,000 homes”. I do not know who has told her that, but I promise her that she has been misinformed. On the point she just made about all the other desirable infrastructure for the development, that has to come out of the section 106 money, which will now, according to the MOU, be diverted to the road. Section 106 money is not unlimited. The possible £60 million for the development—to fund that road—is a very large sum. It is £8,000 per household. Why is she convinced that this is still a viable development?
Rushanara Ali
The hon. Member has set out his critique. What is important is that we get it right, and that requires close working, with him and other hon. Members, and my Department, and that is why the brokerage element of what we do is really important. He makes very important points; we can continue the conversation beyond this debate, as I appreciate that there are a number of complex issues that need to be worked through. However, we are determined to support the development and ensure that it is a success.
Sir Bernard Jenkin
I have little doubt that the delegated authority of the three combined authorities will be minded to give planning permission come what may. However, I reckon that the decision would be subject to judicial review if the road is not guaranteed at the time of planning permission being granted. It is a policy decision to ensure that the road is guaranteed, but what else is then taken away? That itself will be challengeable under judicial review, given that it will be so far from the original plan. I am grateful to hear from the Minister that she wants the conversation to continue. Long may it continue, and I hope that we can reach a satisfactory solution.
Rushanara Ali
I am grateful to the hon. Member, who is an extremely diligent Member of this House, with many years of experience, and a great campaigner. He makes important points about planning matters, which obviously I cannot go into, but I look forward to working with him.
I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. This Government are committed to making sure we deliver on housing, but it is of course extremely important that we continue to work closely with hon. Members to make sure we address the issues that come up. I very much look forward to continuing the discussion with the hon. Member and to ensuring that my Department can do what it can to support a successful way through on this project.
Question put and agreed to.
Defence Procurement: Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
(2 days, 10 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
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered SME participation in defence procurement.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I recognise that procurement is not usually a topic that gets pulses racing, but the threats posed to the UK and our allies certainly should. Central to our ability to rise to these challenges is using the defence industrial strategy to unleash the inventiveness, ingenuity and creativity of British industry.
I will cover three things: our need to respond to the changing face of warfare; adopting a proactive entrepreneurial approach to acquiring the defence supplies we need; and the practical steps we can take to place small and medium-sized enterprises innovation in the service of our national defence.
I turn first to our need to respond to the changing face of warfare. Technology has been rapidly altering the nature of warfare at a pace rarely witnessed before. We see this most clearly in Ukraine, where drone technology has rewritten the rules of modern conflict. Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine and the resulting war have shown us the incredible speed at which military technology is advancing. Reconnaissance drones paint detailed maps of occupied territory, helping to guide unmanned attack drones in strikes on Russian vehicles and equipment. The role of this technology is now so important that a dedicated branch of the Ukrainian military has been established to deploy it. Here at home, I have seen first hand the RAF’s latest unmanned air systems as part of an armed forces parliamentary scheme visit.
Drones, artificial intelligence and rapidly evolving satellite technology are being used to redefine all aspects of conflict, from the battlefield to the information war, to who controls space. Amid those significant and growing global threats, it is vital that Britain is at the forefront of developments to ensure that we can defend not only ourselves, but our allies and interests across the globe.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing today’s debate on SME participation in defence procurement. Having run my own start-up construction business in bonnie Scotland many years ago, I can appreciate full well that small and medium-sized enterprises are not given their due and rightful importance by Government structures, and more generally. The Government’s own Green Paper notes there is a need
“to address issues that inhibit or prevent growth in the defence sector”.
Does my hon. Friend agree that defence contract opportunities must be made more accessible to SMEs in order for us to support their growth and continue innovation?
Alan Strickland
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right: across the economy with the Government’s growth mission, defence must be a crucial sector, but as he has said, too often SMEs are shut out by bureaucratic processes, which I will be keen to talk more about.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this topic forward. He is absolutely right to recognise the importance of SMEs and what they can do. In Northern Ireland, Thales invented and produced the NLAW— the next-generation light anti-tank weapon—which slowed down the Russian advance; Thales is also at the forefront of cybersecurity, and all those things are very important. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, when it comes to supporting all SMEs across the United Kingdom—those 434,000 jobs—Northern Ireland must be an integral part of that? I know that is what the hon. Gentleman and the Minister think, and it really is the way forward.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
Order. This debate is for an hour and is well-subscribed, so I ask hon. Members to be brief in their interventions.
Alan Strickland
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. He is absolutely right that the commitment of Ministers and the defence industrial strategy to sovereign supply must include all parts of our United Kingdom, including the excellent capabilities in Northern Ireland.
Being war-ready for conflicts we cannot predict that will use technology that has not yet been invented, means giving our military the agility and capability to adapt to this changing landscape. Changing the way in which we think about defence procurement is central to this. My second point is around adopting a proactive, entrepreneurial approach to acquiring the defence supplies we need.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for securing this important debate.
Universal Quantum is an SME based in Haywards Heath, in my constituency, which builds utility scale quantum computers. It already works in partnership with leading organisations and investors in the field. Does the hon. Gentleman agree the Ministry of Defence should ensure emerging technologies, such as quantum computing, that are being spearheaded by SMEs like Universal Quantum are part of its procurement strategy?
Alan Strickland
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. I agree. As she rightly says, warfare is developing very quickly and high-tech solutions, of the excellent type she described in her constituency, must absolutely be part of that.
When I talk to innovative SMEs at the Durham University spinout science park in my constituency, it is clear we need to think differently about defence procurement. NETPark in Sedgefield is home to more than 40 cutting-edge firms, many of which supply major defence companies and our allies across the globe. They include Kromek, which invented new ways of detecting radiation and biological weaponry; Filtronic, which manufactures satellite components; and Graphene Composites, which produces ultra-light ballistic shields. Their experiences suggest that we need to do more to remain globally competitive. As other hon. Members have rightly said, too often small businesses can feel that UK defence procurement focuses on process at the expense of outcomes and can stifle bottom-up inventiveness with top-down bureaucracy.
Our allies show us how we might do this differently. The United States Defence Department takes a broader approach to encouraging and funding military innovation. SMEs are encouraged to approach the Government directly with ideas for new products or with potential technologies they are developing and to showcase tech solutions to problems that may not have even been considered yet by officials. In turn the US Defence Department and its research agency, the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency, proactively seek out innovative small companies that offer new ideas and technologies that contribute to tackling future military challenges.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing today’s debate. Is he suggesting that the Ministry of Defence needs to completely change its culture and processes in the way it liaises with these important and innovative companies? Certainly that appears to be the issue in my constituency, where there are many very innovative SMEs.
Alan Strickland
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I absolutely agree. In my previous life in the housing and the charity sector, I have interacted with Government procurement across Departments. There is a challenge with culture across Whitehall, as my hon. Friend says, of often struggling to deal with the realities of innovative and agile small firms.
The approach I described means the US spends around a quarter of its entire military budget directly with SMEs, much higher than the comparable figure for the UK. The UK Defence and Security Accelerator does good work in directly using SMEs to fill technology gaps. However Northern Defence Industries, representing more than 300 companies, has called on the MOD to do more to facilitate open call competition. That would allow SMEs to showcase their defence products directly to Government, without having to wait for specific procurement projects and tenders to be opened.
I strongly welcome the intention of Defence Ministers to use the defence industrial strategy to drive engagement with non-traditional contractors, including SMEs. We have a real opportunity to change the way Government think about procurement and a real chance to grow the culture, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) referred, that gives us the wartime pace of innovation that we need. Just as Churchill’s groundbreaking military technology labs did during the second world war, let us use the resources of the British state to harness the inventiveness and ingenuity offered by our world-leading science and tech companies.
Turning finally to the practical steps we can take to place SME innovation in the service of our national defence, one of the key things we could look at is the reliance across Government on the prime contractor model. In practice this means that the Ministry of Defence often uses large contractors to work with SMEs further down the supply chain rather than engaging with them directly. For some years it has been common across Government, under all parties, to shift to working with smaller pools of larger suppliers. That has some obvious benefits, such as reducing the number of contracts that officials need to manage, transferring financial risk and outsourcing much day-to-day contract management, but there is also evidence that the approach can have its downsides, particularly in squeezing out smaller, innovative suppliers. When I worked in the charity sector, strengthening the prime contractor approach in delivering the Work programme led to a number of innovative charities with a real track record of getting people into jobs being unable to work with Government in the future.
So what can be done? Where possible, let us try to reserve complex framework contracts for large projects that genuinely need them, reducing the proportion of tenders available only to prime contractors. Where large contracts are required, can we look at these to see whether we can break them down into smaller components that are more accessible to SMEs? Secondly, where working through a prime contractor is the right answer, could we strengthen the requirements for them to engage with SMEs proactively and simplify contract arrangements? Thirdly, could we open up opportunities for the Ministry of Defence to contract directly with SMEs by removing red tape and doing so with an agile and entrepreneurial mindset? If businesses at NETpark can be direct suppliers to DARPA, the US Defence Department, NASA and other allied Governments, I am confident that, through the defence industrial strategy, we too can open up more opportunities for SMEs.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. To simplify the point he is making, we should all remember that from small acorns great oaks grow, and even big companies in my constituency such as Rolls-Royce and BAE Systems will have started at some point as an SME. What he is suggesting today would help those SMEs that we all have in our constituencies maybe one day to grow into those grand great oaks.
Alan Strickland
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. Considering that we have shop-bought drones making such a difference in Ukraine and that technology is being used in all sorts of ways, my hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to hunt out and support the small, innovative businesses doing very different and distinctive work in constituencies around the country.
It has been a privilege to set out some of the challenges faced by our innovative SMEs and how the defence industrial strategy can address them. I look forward to welcoming the Minister to my constituency soon for a business roundtable to discuss these issues in more detail. I strongly welcome the Government’s putting growth at the heart of the new defence industrial strategy. The defence sector supports one in 60 jobs in the UK, the majority of which are outside London, so this is a real and tangible way of spreading growth, skills and opportunity to all corners of our country. More than that, if we can improve the way we work with SMEs, it will allow us to build an ironclad, sovereign supply of vital defence equipment. Not only will that provide jobs and drive growth but it will protect us from global shocks in the supply chain.
Warfare is changing, and we must change with it. Global production is threatened, so we must ensure sovereign supply. As the threat grows, so must our defence manufacturing base. I look forward to working with Defence Ministers on this important strategy and to further contributions from hon. Members of all parties in this debate.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to speak in the debate. We will start with a three-minute time limit on speeches.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland), who has done us all a great service in securing this debate. I want to use my limited time to draw attention to some fantastic SMEs, including one in particular that is based near Honiton in the south-west.
The south-west has an absolutely fantastic defence industry, which is powering up the region and making for some fantastic industrial developments. The Ministry of Defence employs about 33,000 people directly in the south-west, but of course there is also a huge, integrated supply chain that supports many more jobs besides. It is surely the aim of the new Government to have a more innovative and resilient supply chain.
Supacat has been producing vehicles in Dunkeswell in Devon for more than 40 years and is at the forefront of designing and supplying cutting-edge tactical military vehicles. Its high-mobility transporter vehicles have been used by British forces in Afghanistan and on UN deployments in Mali. More than 95% of its supply chain comes from UK-based SMEs, 85% of which are in the south-west. It currently has a contract with Defence Equipment and Support; the Ministry of Defence is buying 70 Jackals and 53 Coyotes, as the Minister will know.
In the past, there has sometimes been an instinct to buy off the shelf and from overseas, which would be a huge mistake in relation to the procurement of vehicles for the impending short-range air defence—SHORAD—programme. That instinct to look overseas in the first instance weakens investment, reduces long-term job security and, ultimately, puts future domestic procurement at risk. Supacat has more than 150 skilled workers in Devon, but its future depends on orders that will be delivered beyond November 2025.
The Defence Secretary intends the new defence industrial strategy to boost world-class production and manufacturing, and I understand that supporting UK exports will be key to that. It is incumbent on us to buy from fantastic companies such as Supacat, if we then look to countries such as Saudi Arabia, Czechia and Ireland to buy the Jackal, as they have done. To conclude, there are some fantastic SMEs, including Supacat at Dunkeswell, and I commend to that company the House.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) on bringing this debate to the House. I wholeheartedly agree that the Government need to work in close partnership with businesses of all sizes, and the Government have made it clear to me that they recognise the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises entering the defence procurement programme. I commend the Government’s engagement with the sector and I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for agreeing to visit Stockton North to meet local businesses in a region steeped in industrial heritage, resilience and innovation.
Through the money spent on defence, the Government can satisfy their mission of building more in Britain and increasing skilled jobs in all corners of the country. Teesside and Stockton North are places that not only built the bridges and structures of the past, but are ready to lead the future of our nation’s defence capabilities. Teesside industries have long been the backbone of British manufacturing, and today the Teesside defence and innovation cluster stands poised to drive next-generation defence matériel. I will give the Minister a taster of some of the businesses that she will see on her visit to Stockton North.
Tracerco is a business based in Billingham in my constituency. Its cutting-edge detection equipment, already being deployed in Ukraine, is saving lives and ensuring the safety of soldiers in some of the most dangerous environments on Earth. Wilton, situated on the banks of the Tees, has a proud history of precision engineering and fabrication. It is expanding its work in the defence sector, demonstrating how Teesside’s industrial expertise can be the cornerstone for delivering the complex infrastructure projects that our armed forces need.
Of course, RelyOn Nutec is a facility with a name that is synonymous with world-class training. Generations of offshore workers have passed through its doors, and it is now preparing the workforce for the next wave of defence projects, ensuring that we have the skills that we need for the challenges ahead. Teesside is a region with a proud history, but more than that, a bold future, and is prepared to bolster the nation’s resilience in an era of increasing global volatility. From the steel forged in Redcar to the innovation being crafted today, we have always been a place of strength and ingenuity.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and I commend the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) for bringing this matter to the House.
As has already been referred to, Northern Ireland has a rich history in defence and in the production necessary to maintain defence. That is true in the large business sector where, for example, we have Thales, which of course has led the way in next-generation defence equipment. The primary thing I will say to the Minister today, however, is that we also have a great layer of SMEs under that in Northern Ireland that are not getting a fair crack of the whip when it comes to MOD procurement.
I say that on the strength of evidence given to a parliamentary inquiry by ADS Group—the trade association. It set out some very stark figures for 2022-23, the most recent year for which we have relevant data, that said that all the Government contracts to Northern Ireland SMEs in that year amounted to a paltry £2 million. For Scotland, the figure was £29 million and for the much-favoured south-west of England, the figure was £408 million. Even though 95% of ADS Group members are SMEs, Northern Ireland SMEs got only 0.15% of MOD expenditure in 2022-23. How can that be fair? My basic appeal to the Department and to the Minister is for fairness, a level playing field and equity in the distribution of contracts.
We have remarkable skills in many of our SMEs and we have many leaders in the digital and technology sector. Some of them subcontract to Thales, but all those firms have much to contribute in their own right. I say to the Minister that we must bring some equity to the situation. It can never be fair that in 2022-23, the MOD’s per capita spend on all contracts was £100 in Northern Ireland, £380 in Scotland and England, and £250 in Wales. Let us have some levelling up.
Chris Evans (Caerphilly) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) on securing this timely debate.
I also welcome—quite belatedly—the Minister to her place. She has an extremely tough job, as was underlined by Sir Jeremy Quin, the former right hon. Member for Horsham, who had her role in the last Conservative Administration, when he said:
“Defence procurement is never easy—it is a tough thing to get right—and I have not yet found a state anywhere on earth that can really deliver to the kind of standards that I am sure the hon. Gentleman would wish to see.”—[Official Report, 18 July 2022; Vol. 684, c. 718.]
That is further underlined by the latest figures from the MOD about Government projects, which were set out in the portfolio in March 2024. That document said that 88 projects are on red, 18 are on amber and only one is on green. Behind those figures is a supply chain that will also be affected. Many firms in that supply chain will be small and medium-sized businesses that do not have large bid-writing or tendering teams. Under the Procurement Act 2023, if all goes according to plan, SMEs will spend less time bidding for contracts that they do not win and many of the tick-box exercises will be reserved for the company that is offered the work.
During my time in opposition, I was often told that the MOD has a tendency to change its mind at short notice. The best example of this, which I am sure the Minister has sleepless nights about, is the Ajax programme; it wasted £5.5 billion, including in my former constituency.
It is important to strike the right balance between removing unnecessary red tape and ensuring that contractors can prove that they are up to the job. When I was in opposition, the most important thing that I learned when speaking to SMEs was about late payments. In all the time that I shadowed the role of the Minister for Defence Procurement, I got angry only once, when a prime contractor stood in front of me and said, “Now we’ve finally been paid by the MOD, we can pay the supply chain”—18 months later.
The businesses involved in the supply chain are not large—very often, they consist of just five or six people being innovative—yet they lose out because prime contractors put the needs of other people above their needs. Of course, there will always be examples of good practice, but one major defence contractor operating here in the UK was, at the last count, taking an average of 101 days to pay its supply chain. Would any of us accept a three or four-month wait to get paid?
In 2020, multiple major defence firms were suspended from the prompt payment code for consistently failing to pay their suppliers on time. SMEs across all sectors spend a total of 50 million hours a year chasing payments. If the Government mean what they say about promoting productivity and growth in defence SMEs, addressing late payment must surely be a priority going forward.
Voluntary codes are all very well, but they are just that—voluntary. If we are serious about this issue, we must enshrine redress in legislation. It is unacceptable to pay our SMEs—the lifeblood of our economy—late, and there should be penalties for that. Late payments create cash-flow problems, which in turn affect SMEs’ access to finance. That cannot go on.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) on securing this important debate. He spoke about the importance of defence procurement for our region in particular, and our potential for strengthening our national economy and national security.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) says, for decades, Teesside has helped to build and power our economy, and the steel forged in our furnaces became the bones of bridges, railways, and skyscrapers around the world. We once built the world, and today we stand ready to defend it. In addition to the examples that we have heard of Teesside innovators working at the cutting edge, I will give an example from my constituency—that of Tees Components.
Tees Components provides the precision machining required to service the state-of-the-art equipment that our Navy relies on, such as the bow thrusters used on Astute-class submarines. Such manufacturers play an integral role in developing local skills through high-level skills training and apprenticeships, and in delivering good-quality jobs in an area that really needs them, but where talent and tenacity are never in short supply. Too often, however, such companies—with world-leading innovation and a proven track record—are left to struggle for a seat at the table. It is clear to me, and to other Members, that there is much more to do to open up procurement for SMEs.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor on the need to improve engagement with SMEs. The Federation of Small Businesses has long called for a centrally managed body to oversee MOD contracts; I wonder whether the new strategic leadership of the national armaments director, as promised by the Government, can help to disaggregate some of those contracts and deliver the changes that are required.
Currently, only 4% of direct MOD expenditure goes to SMEs, and indirect involvement in the supply chain often proves unsustainable. Although large multinationals typically receive payments within five days, SMEs often face late payments, as we have heard. One solution could be specifically earmarking a portion of the prime contractor bid funding to support SME participation. That could include measures to mitigate financial risk, such as up-front payments.
I believe that the new Labour Government understand the challenges that we face. We have already heard some of the measures being taken to reform defence procurement and make it work for Britain. I am proud that the Government have identified defence as a growth-driving sector in our industrial strategy and I welcome the work under way in the SDR and in the defence industrial strategy to ensure that British business is prioritised in procurement.
This debate is about ensuring that we invest in defence, but it is also about ensuring that we invest in our communities—our workers, engineers and innovators who want a chance to contribute to Britain’s success. It is about remembering that national security does not begin and end on the battlefront, but in the workshops and design labs of Skelton or Sedgefield.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
I thank you, Mr Stringer, for the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship and my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) for tabling this important debate. The UK defence sector is recognised as a global leader: Government defence spending supports more than 400,000 jobs across the UK, and many jobs in my constituency. I therefore welcomed the Defence Secretary’s announcement of plans to develop a new defence industrial strategy with the aim of producing a better—more integrated, more innovative and more resilient—defence sector in the UK. I therefore want to make the point loud and clear to the Minister that, in my constituency of Mansfield, we are well prepared to support the Government in that mission, and indeed are already doing so.
I draw particular attention to a local business, Glenair, which I will visit next month. It employs about 1,000 people in my constituency and works to supply products that are critical to our defence, including military aerospace, nuclear and military land systems. Glenair is driving those innovations; in fact, it is on the cutting edge of innovation. I am pleased that the Government want to do all they can to support this industry, and therefore companies such as Glenair, here in the UK. Glenair is a fantastic example of an employer that is investing in its workforce. This year, it took on almost 60 apprentices across a wide range of disciplines, not just in engineering. It established those apprenticeships well before the apprenticeship levy was introduced, because it recognises how important well-supported, well-trained and highly skilled workers are to its business. This is also why it is crucial for us as a Government to invest in further and higher education.
Let me summarise my main points: first, we already have some fantastic innovative businesses here in the UK; secondly, investing in education and looking at how we can be more innovative will make a significant difference to delivering on our objectives; and, thirdly, in Mansfield we are unashamedly ready to support the Government in doing so. During the election campaign last summer, I promised to deliver on local missions for the people of Mansfield. One of them was to do everything in my power to help provide a stable and growing economy with good-quality jobs for everyone. With that in mind, I invite the Minister to visit Mansfield so that she can see for herself the fantastic opportunities that are available. Let us work together so that we can play our part in delivering that objective.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) for securing this important debate. He is a huge champion for SMEs in his constituency and for national security in general.
I will begin by pointing out that defence primes are not evil. They do not set out to harm British national security. They do amazing things, and some of the things we are proudest of in Britain—sovereign capabilities —are delivered by those primes. It is no surprise that a huge proportion of defence spending goes to them, because some of the capabilities that they deliver—things that give us our unique edge in the world—are the most expensive things on the British balance sheet.
Primes do not have to be negative in the context of SMEs either, because they can offer SMEs something that we all know is missing: the ability to communicate with the Government. By joining with primes, SMEs are sometimes able to advertise their ability to the Government in a way that they would not be able to otherwise.
Richard Foord
To reinforce the hon. Member’s point, the way that Supacat has teamed up with Babcock in Plymouth in recent years to scale up its skilled workforce by 60% is an example of what he is describing.
Fred Thomas
The hon. Member is absolutely correct. It is not quite in my constituency—it is in the neighbouring constituency, Plymouth Sutton and Devonport—but I agree.
In terms of SMEs, primes can also offer a service to the Government and the Ministry of Defence. If we had a massive change in system, which would be extremely hard to execute, and the MOD was suddenly able to procure directly from SMEs across the country, we would have an enormous challenge of integrating the different capabilities into a usable platform. Half of the things would not be able to talk to each other; they would be made to do their one task and we would then try to put on top of them a second radar system or some piece of satellite that could speak down to whatever comms link we were using. That is enormously expensive. However, primes can do that integration. They can go to the Government and say, “You have a demand signal to do something,” rather than to have a particular capability—to monitor the North sea, for example—and then go out to the SMEs in different constituencies that hon. Members have highlighted so fantastically, gather various bits of capability and knit that into one big package to sell to the Government. That would feel more expensive and slower to the Government, but it could be cheaper in the long term, in some instances.
That said, I and colleagues are overwhelmed almost daily by individuals in the UK defence industry reaching out on LinkedIn or by email, begging the Government to listen to what they are offering. They are patriotic people who think they can save us money and give us strategic advantage by delivering a piece of capability, when we currently spend obscene amounts of money on something that sometimes does not work well or produce the desired effect. I would love the Minister to give us a sense of what the Government are going to do differently from previous Governments to actively offer a forum for those SMEs to pitch their capabilities. I am immensely proud of the Secretary of State and the Minister who joins us today for their work so far—
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) on securing this important debate.
SMEs are the backbone of the UK economy and a vital part of our defence industry. They bring agility, innovation and high-quality jobs to communities across the country. Yet despite their immense potential, SMEs face significant barriers to fully contributing to our national defence procurement. There is a real and long-standing problem across the MOD’s defence procurement system: it is beset by inefficiencies, including delays, overspends and rigid processes.
Liberal Democrats believe it is time for a fresh, ambitious approach to tackle those challenges. Our plan focuses on flexibility, accountability and long-term strategy. We would replace the current rigid system of defence reviews with a more flexible system of continuous reviews of security threats and evolution of defence plans. That would enable procurement to evolve in response to emerging security threats and rapidly advancing technologies. Further, we would integrate defence procurement into a comprehensive industrial strategy. That would ensure a reliable pipeline of equipment procurement, safeguard jobs and skills, and promote UK-based businesses.
Collaboration with NATO and European partners is key to developing cutting-edge technologies and ensuring interoperability. For the areas of defence where we wish to maintain our sovereign capabilities, we must achieve that through greater collaboration with domestic SMEs. The survival of SMEs, such as small technology businesses, is dependent on their ability to develop and deploy innovative products at extraordinary speed. They are configured for agility, fast-paced decision making and recruitment of high-value talent.
By contrast, Government organisations, including the MOD, operate within more complex mandates and constrained budgets. It is neither realistic nor efficient for the Government to attempt to replicate the private sector’s pace of innovation. The MOD must improve its procurement processes to leverage the agility of SMEs.
Mr Dhesi
I thank the Lib Dem defence spokesperson for allowing me to intervene. The Procurement Act 2023 was intended to make it easier for small businesses to access public sector procurement. Does she agree that it is now for the Government to set out clearly what other support will be made available to already busy SMEs, to remove the complexities and barriers as they seek to gain contracts within the pipeline?
Helen Maguire
I absolutely agree and will come to that later in my speech.
By focusing its limited research and development budget on adapting high potential dual-use technologies for defence purposes, the MOD can maximise innovation while delivering value for taxpayers. Furthermore, by involving more SMEs, we can manufacture critical components locally, reducing security risks associated with reliance on non-NATO or non-European allied suppliers. That approach also spreads the economic benefits, stimulating regional economies, creating jobs and fostering innovation.
Defence contracts provide stable revenue streams, enabling SMEs to invest, scale up and contribute more broadly to the economy. The previous Conservative Government let small businesses down. They created chaos and uncertainty when businesses needed certainty and stability, especially in the aftermath of the pandemic. Liberal Democrats are fighting for a fair deal for SMEs, starting with overhauling the unfair business rates system and providing more support with energy costs.
The current state of SME participation in MOD procurement is underwhelming. Only around 5% of the procurement budget is allocated to SMEs; 42% of contracts go to the same 10 suppliers. That is simply not good enough and we can do better. We welcome the announcement of a new defence industrial strategy, and we hope it is completed swiftly so that businesses can plan. I especially welcome that one of the six priorities of the strategy is to prioritise UK businesses, and another involves fostering a more diverse community of suppliers, including non-traditional SMEs. We will hold the Government to account on sticking to those priorities.
Ultimately, I want to see the strategy turn into meaningful action. SMEs need simpler access to contracts and reduced bureaucracy, including help to overcome defence-related banking challenges and support to compete on a level playing field with the largest suppliers. It is time for the Government to unlock the potential of SMEs to fuel local economies, increase the UK’s defence sovereignty and lead on innovative technologies.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) on securing an excellent and very timely debate. If I may say so, as someone who ran an SME, was involved in public procurement, and was Minister for Defence Procurement, this is a subject that gets my pulse racing. Perhaps I am an anorak, but it certainly does—particularly considering the changing nature of warfare and its extraordinary impact on procurement, which he rightly mentioned. Of course, we are talking about Ukraine.
There has been much criticism of procurement in recent years, and the Minister for the Armed Forces was pretty damning yesterday, but I am incredibly proud of what we did in government, uniquely in the world, in standing by Ukraine. That was one of the greatest procurement achievements in our country’s recent history. We shipped out there the NLAW—made in Belfast, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) mentioned —despite legal advice to the Government that we should not. Ben Wallace took the risk, with the full support of then Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and we stood by Ukraine. If we had not, it may have capitulated, which would have been terrible for world peace.
That reminds us of the ethical importance of supporting the defence sector. Peace is the No. 1 ethical goal of the UN, but to have peace we need defence, and for that we need a thriving defence sector. Too often, we hear an ESG—environmental, social and governance—narrative that we should not invest in defence. As I understand it—it was in The Times—20 defence companies have either been advised against attending careers fairs because of safety fears or decided to cancel under pressure, which is shocking.
I have two specific questions for the Minister on ESG. Can she confirm that, in reviving the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, the Government will seek to strengthen how protest against defence companies is dealt with on campus? The Chancellor mentioned in a speech yesterday the importance of opening up investment in the UK from our pension funds. She is 100% correct about that, but can the Minister confirm that we will be clear to those pension funds that investing in defence is ethically positive because it helps support the security of our country and the wider world?
Let me make a couple of economic points. When we talk about investment, we must understand the importance of laying out the pathway to 2.5% quickly. ADS, the trade body for SMEs in defence, is worried about the procurement freeze, tightening—whatever we want to call it—in the MOD, which is undoubtedly happening, and its impact on cash flow and confidence among defence SMEs, at a time when they are facing higher tax costs, regulations and so on. I hope that the Government can bring forward the pathway to give businesses the confidence to keep investing in the defence sector.
Equally, there is much to be positive about. The hon. Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor was absolutely right to say that because war is changing, procurement needs to change, and SMEs must play a huge part in that. There are some features of the integrated procurement model I announced that I think are particularly important. One is export. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) mentioned the Jackal, and he mentioned the Czech Republic, where I made my first ever trade visit. The Jackal was proudly on display, and I sincerely hope that that deal is successfully concluded. That underlines how, to support the defence sector, we need international market success, because our market is not big enough to support our defence sector.
Perhaps the most important point, which several colleagues referred to, is accessibility for SMEs. They can feel that it is difficult to penetrate the defence procurement system. As Minister, I spoke many times about the most uplifting experience I had in procurement, which was visiting an SME that had developed a drone that was being used in Ukraine. That is obviously very sensitive, but I can say that it had cutting-edge capability. When I was there, that SMEs was getting feedback within hours. To get that, there has to be access, at a secure level, to frontline data, so we wanted to develop far more engagement with defence SMEs at “Secret”. I strongly recommend to the Minister continuing to create that feedback loop between industry and Government, so that SMEs know what is happening.
Finally, on dual use, I was determined to recognise—if I had had more time in government, perhaps I would have got further with this—that there are so many brilliant companies in our economy that probably do not think about getting involved in defence. We need to fire up that talent base and get them involved in defence procurement, particularly in areas such as software, because that is what will drive procurement going forward. If we get the funding in place, back our defence companies and send the signal that investing in defence is morally right because of the threats we face, then we can look forward to a bright future for our defence companies.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
We have gained a few minutes. I ask the Minister to leave a couple of minutes at the end for the proposer of the debate to wind up.
The Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry (Maria Eagle)
I will certainly do that, Mr Stringer. This debate has been excellent, and it is good to see so many colleagues in the Chamber to participate, even if they could not make the length of speech that perhaps they had hoped. None the less, everybody was able to get the nub of what they wanted to say into the debate. For that we have my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) to thank, because it is he who secured the debate; I congratulate him on it. I welcome this debate on the involvement of SMEs in defence procurement because this is an issue, as my hon. Friend and many others have said, that is of critical importance to the future of our military and to our capacity to deter potential adversaries.
We all know that Britain faces acute and growing dangers—conflict in the middle east, the war in Ukraine and tensions in the Indo-Pacific—and we also know that our armed forces have been underfunded and hollowed out over the last number of years, which is why we are having a root-and-branch strategic defence review to assess these threats and develop the capabilities we need to counter them. It is why we are boosting spending this year by just under £3 billion in real terms, and why we are going to set out a pathway to 2.5% of GDP on defence. I am not going to repeat everything that was said in the House yesterday on this, but I realise that it is a matter that everybody across the House is concerned about.
Our armed forces are only as strong as the industry and procurement system that supports and equips them. The procurement system itself was described during the last Parliament by the Public Accounts Committee as “broken”. It is clear that changes need to be made. My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor set out some of what he wants to see, including the ability to respond more swiftly to the changing face of warfare. A number of Members, including the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), have set out some of what they have seen, during their time in this place, of that effort being achieved, particularly in respect of the support we have been giving over the past few years to Ukraine. There is nothing like an emergency situation like that to ensure that we innovate. It is important that we learn the lessons of that innovation for our procurement more generally.
I am particularly concerned, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor, to get SMEs more involved in our procurement processes. He made a number of suggestions, as did other Members around Westminster Hall, of how we might be able to do that. The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) mentioned Supacat, which I saw last week at the international armoured vehicles conference. Everything he said about Supacat is correct. It is an excellent example, and the hon. Gentleman was able to provide the Chamber with numbers in relation to jobs and the improved economic growth in his area that it is able to provide. That is precisely the kind of thing that we want the new defence industrial strategy, when it is published, to be able to pursue and do better with.
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) said rightly that MOD spend in Northern Ireland is less than in some regions of England, and he quoted some numbers. He is quite right, but there is no indication that SMEs over there have less ability to innovate or to provide services of the type that the MOD needs. I hope to be able to do precisely what he asks and increase that number. I will be visiting in due course, not too far in the future, and I hope to hear from some of the SMEs that he and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—who is, unusually, no longer in his place—talked about.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) talked about the Teesside defence and innovation cluster and some of the companies in his constituency. He is right: I promised him a visit—I think we are trying to organise it now. When I am considering which proposals to take forward in the defence industrial strategy, before it is published, it is tremendously helpful to hear directly from SMEs about their experience. I have already done some of that and, between now and the end of the consultation, I will be doing as much, in as many regions, as I possibly can, in all of our nations around the UK. I hope to be in a position to get a good sense of the big issues that smaller companies are raising with us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans) was passionate in making his points about late payment; this is not the first time that he has raised that issue in parliamentary settings. The Government do recognise the importance of fair payment practices. Direct suppliers to the MOD are required to sign up to the prompt payment code to be eligible for MOD contracts. The Director General Commercial recently wrote to large suppliers to remind them of that responsibility because some are better at complying than others.
My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas) argued, “Let us not decide that all defence primes are evil”—I think that is the word he used. I thought that was going a bit far, but his point was that they are not the enemy; they can be part of the solution. There are examples of good practice, where primes have been very clear about involving small, innovative, agile companies. There are some examples that are not so good, and we need to improve the way in which small firms engage with MOD contracts, whether directly or through contracting with a prime on a particular programme.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) asked me to visit. I think I have offered to visit absolutely everybody else in Westminster Hall, so it would be churlish of me to say no to him. I cannot promise to visit before the end of February, but I can promise to come and see some of what his constituency has to offer. It obviously has a long history of engineering and of working hard in tough industries. I look forward to that visit. He mentioned that he is visiting a firm that supplies products across domains, and it sounds like he will have an interesting time.
I look forward also to dealing with the points made by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire). I was glad to hear her say that she is in favour of a comprehensive industrial strategy because the defence industrial strategy that we are going to bring forward is part of a thorough, countrywide industrial strategy for all Departments. She will recall that that strategy identified defence as one of the eight growth sectors on which we ought to rely to improve economic growth and spread prosperity across the nations and regions—and that is what we want to do. In fact, the defence industrial strategy that we will bring forward will act as the sector action plan for that broader strategy, so we will be joining up.
The hon. Member for South Suffolk raised the issue of protest-related activity on university campuses and what that means for the ability of defence companies to recruit the best talent. This Government recognise the crucial importance of attracting new entrants to the defence sector. Obviously, university campuses provide a way of engaging with young people who might want to work for existing companies or set up their own and get involved in the defence sector. We do need to do that. We are working closely with the Department for Education and with Skills England to address the skills landscape in the defence sector. Part of that is about making sure that young people at educational institutions such as universities can get the full range of information, at university careers fairs and so on. I hope that between all of us we can make an improvement, to the extent that there is a problem that was identified by The Times.
James Cartlidge
I think what everyone wants to see from the defence sector is that we champion the ethical value of investing in defence because it delivers security, and in doing so challenge those who protest as if these companies were somehow out there to harm us.
Maria Eagle
I agree with that and I think there would not be too much disagreement across the House of Commons about that. I think it is something we can agree on, and that we should try to get that sense out there. Increasingly, as people see the increasingly dangerous world we are living in, there is the capacity for any concerns that there might have been about defence in the past to be seen properly in context, and for it to be seen that actually, defence is a key part of our ability to continue with our way of life as we choose in a democracy.
I have a couple of minutes left before I hand over again to my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor. It has been an excellent debate. In many ways we have not had enough time to get through all the contributions that colleagues around Westminster Hall would have wanted to make, but as I go about trying to deal with our defence industrial strategy, it is helpful for me to hear from colleagues, just as it is helpful for me to get around the country as much as I can to listen directly to SMEs. It helps make sure that the policy prescriptions we come out with in the defence industrial strategy are the right ones; that we can change procurement in a way that will assist SMEs to have full involvement as they wish in defence procurement; and that we can spread prosperity and economic growth across all our regions in England and all the nations of the UK. That is the prize in front of us, and that is what we can do if we get this right.
Alan Strickland
I thank the Minister for her strong leadership on this vital issue. We have discussed these matters on a number of occasions and I know the Minister is committed to really driving this priority through the defence industrial strategy and the wider strategic defence review, which I strongly welcome.
I also thank hon. Members around Westminster Hall for what I think has been a strong shared sense of purpose about the importance of tapping in to our innovative small businesses to meet the challenges we face. We have heard about the real pride in defence contractors around the country from the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord), my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) and my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer). We have heard of the importance of ensuring that economic growth across the country is driven by the defence industry from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). We have also heard really important points about payments from the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Chris Evans). I thank the Minister and everybody who has taken part today.
We have all acknowledged that the global threat is growing, becoming more complex and evolving much more quickly. There has been broad agreement that part of the answer is ensuring that we can open up more opportunities to small, nimble, agile high-tech SMEs across the United Kingdom which can be at the forefront of helping us and our allies to meet this challenge.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered SME participation in defence procurement.
Written Corrections
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Corrections
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Defence
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Healey
We are grateful to those service personnel—not just the crew of the HMS Somerset, who were, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, mobilised on Christmas day to respond to the EstLink 2 damage, but the 10,000 servicemen and women who were deployed away from home at Christmas—for their service. We know that they do it to keep the rest of us safe, and we are very grateful.
[Official Report, 22 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 1029.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey):
John Healey
We are grateful to those service personnel—not just the crew of the HMS Somerset, who were, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, mobilised on Christmas day to shadow Russian vessels through UK waters, but the 10,000 servicemen and women who were deployed away from home at Christmas—for their service. We know that they do it to keep the rest of us safe, and we are very grateful.
Prime Minister
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Badenoch
The Prime Minister thinks that he can distract people from what is wrong with the Bill. This is not about breakfast clubs and school uniforms. Teachers and parents will be horrified at just how bad this Bill is. Even his own MPs may not realise it, but the Bill will cut teachers’ pay—it cuts pay for 20,000 teachers. His Education Secretary says that there is “not a ceiling” for pay—[Interruption.] Labour Members are all shaking their heads; they clearly have not read the Bill. The Education Secretary hasn’t read the Bill either, because clause 45 means that teachers’ pay will be capped. Did the Prime Minister know that the Bill as it stands will cut teachers’ pay?
The Prime Minister
We do need flexibility in our schools. If the Leader of the Opposition had hopped off social media for a while, she would have seen the amendment put down this morning to achieve that end.
[Official Report, 22 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 999.]
Written correction submitted by the Prime Minister, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer):
The Prime Minister
We do need flexibility in our schools. If the Leader of the Opposition had hopped off social media for a while, she would have seen the amendment announced yesterday to achieve that end.
Written Statements
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
UK Trade Envoy Programme
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
The Secretary of State has today appointed 32 Parliamentarians covering 79 markets to the United Kingdom’s trade envoy programme.
The United Kingdom’s trade envoys will play an integral role in the Government’s growth mission and delivering our plan for change by helping to create opportunities for UK business to compete abroad, break into new markets and attract greater inward investment from their markets.
They will play a crucial role in supporting my Department’s growth priorities, in particular through helping deliver the industrial and trade strategies and attracting foreign direct investment to every region in the UK. They complement the work of our ambassadors, high commissioners and His Majesty’s trade commissioners in their respective markets by engaging with their host Governments, leading trade delegations, hosting inward delegations, meeting businesses in the UK and in market, and lobbying on market-access issues.
The role as a United Kingdom trade envoy is unpaid and voluntary with cross-party membership from both Houses.
The Secretary of State is pleased to appoint:
The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney MP) as the United Kingdom’s Trade Envoy to North Africa.
The hon. Member for Bolton South and Walkden (Yasmin Qureshi MP) as the United Kingdom’s Trade Envoy to Egypt.
The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Calvin Bailey MP) as the United Kingdom’s Trade Envoy to Southern Africa.
The hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman MP) as the United Kingdom’s Trade Envoy to Morocco and Francophone West Africa.
The right hon. Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Jane Ramsey) as the United Kingdom’s Trade Envoy to Ethiopia.
The hon. Member for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy MP) as the United Kingdom’s Trade Envoy to Ghana.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Flo Eshalomi MP) as the United Kingdom’s Trade Envoy to Nigeria.
The hon. Member for Edmonton and Winchmore Hill (Kate Osamor MP) as the United Kingdom’s Trade Envoy to East Africa.
The hon. Member for Tooting (Dr Rosena Allin-Khan MP) as the United Kingdom’s Trade Envoy to South Africa.
The right hon. Lord Spellar of Smethwick (John Spellar) as the United Kingdom’s Trade Envoy to Australia.
The hon. Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris MP) as the United Kingdom’s Trade Envoy to New Zealand.
The right hon. Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Tom Watson) as the United Kingdom’s Trade Envoy to the Republic of Korea.
The right hon. Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Richard Faulkner) as the United Kingdom’s Trade Envoy to Taiwan.
The hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah MP) as the United Kingdom’s Trade Envoy to Indonesia and ASEAN.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western MP) as the United Kingdom’s Trade Envoy to Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.
The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman MP) as the United Kingdom’s Trade Envoy to Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Brunei.
The hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Sharon Hodgson MP) as the United Kingdom’s Trade Envoy to Japan.
The hon. Member for Manchester Rusholme (Afzal Khan CBE MP) as the United Kingdom’s Trade Envoy to Türkiye.
The hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel MP) as the United Kingdom’s Trade Envoy to Ukraine.
The right hon. Lord Austin of Dudley (Ian Austin) as the United Kingdom’s Trade Envoy to Israel.
The hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky MP) as the United Kingdom’s Trade Envoy to Switzerland and Lichtenstein.
The right hon. Lord Alderdice (John Alderdice) as the United Kingdom’s Trade Envoy to Azerbaijan and Central Asia.
The right hon. Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (lain McNicol) as the United Kingdom’s Trade Envoy to Jordan, Kuwait and Palestine Territories.
The hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin MP) as the United Kingdom’s Trade Envoy to Pakistan.
The hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden MP) as the United Kingdom’s Trade Envoy to Mexico.
The hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton MP) as the United Kingdom’s Trade Envoy to Southern Cone.
The hon. Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton MP) as the United Kingdom’s Trade Envoy to Commonwealth Caribbean.
The right hon. Lord Liddle (Roger Liddle) as the United Kingdom’s Trade Envoy to Andean.
The hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister OBE MP) as the United Kingdom’s Trade Envoy to Brazil.
The hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden MP) as the United Kingdom’s Trade Envoy to Central America.
The right hon. Lord Hannett of Everton (John Hannett OBE) as the United Kingdom’s Trade Envoy to Sri Lanka.
The right hon. Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Rosie Winterton DBE PC) as the United Kingdom’s Trade Envoy to Bangladesh.
The new title of United Kingdom trade envoy programme better reflects the envoys’ duties in representing the whole United Kingdom, with the support of the Prime Minister, Secretary of State and Ministers.
[HCWS392]
Early Years Qualifications
(2 days, 10 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
Having high-quality early education and care available on parents’ doorsteps is key to giving children the best start in life. In our plan for change, we have set a milestone of a record proportion of children starting school ready to learn. We will measure our progress through 75% of five-year-olds reaching a good level of development in the Early Years Foundation Stage assessment.
A key priority to achieve this milestone is rolling out Government-funded childcare support to improve access. Eligible working parents are already benefiting from the latest phase of the expansion of childcare in September 2024, being able to access 15 hours a week of early education and childcare from the term after their child turns nine months. And from September 2025, this will increase to 30 hours per week as we deliver the final phase of the expansion.
In our plan for change, we committed to work in partnership with the sector, reforming training and support for the workforce to drive up standards. To make it easier to recruit and train the right staff, the Government are working to expand the workforce to deliver the high-quality early years provision needed. We are introducing new routes to becoming approved as early years educators and early years teachers. We are also making it easier for educators and employers to check their qualifications and know that they are working within the early years foundation stage requirements.
Early years teacher degree apprenticeship
The Government have worked with sector experts to create a new undergraduate route to achieving early years teacher status, through the publication of a new early years teacher degree apprenticeship. The apprenticeship complements the existing early years initial teacher training route and is designed for those wishing to specialise in teaching young children and babies. It enables people starting out in their careers, as well as experienced early years educators, to gain a degree and become an early years teacher without needing to incur any debt while gaining invaluable experience at work. This three-year course will be available throughout England and will help ensure we have a highly qualified workforce to support the next generation of young children and help settings recruit the staff they need.
Experience-based route
Following last year’s technical consultation, the Government intend to proceed with the introduction of an experience-based route for early years staff. This new route will support the recruitment and retention of staff by allowing suitable educators who do not hold an approved qualification to be included in the staff-child ratios at level 3 following the successful completion of a period of supervised practice. Early years providers and educators will be able to begin using the experience-based route from 3 March 2025, and we will work closely with the sector in the coming months to ensure that employers and educators understand how to deliver the route and realise the benefits.
The qualification, experience and process requirements for the route will safeguard quality by ensuring only staff with the right experience and qualifications can access the route, that the duration of the process allows for sufficient development of skills and knowledge, and that providers maintain an appropriate number of fully qualified staff. These requirements were supported in the consultation response, and in response to sector feedback we have increased the required experience of assessors and supervisors in this route from six months to a minimum of two years.
Check an Early Years Qualification service
Early years qualification requirements can be difficult to understand, particularly when determining whether a qualification is approved for working in staff-child ratios. We have developed the “Check an Early Years Qualification” digital service to help managers check the approval status of qualifications held by existing and prospective staff. We expect this to save managers’ time and increase their confidence in having sufficient, appropriately qualified staff to meet the demand resulting from the expansion of funded childcare entitlements by September 2025.
The service has been tested with individuals and organisations working in the early years during its pilot and iterated in line with feedback. It will be made publicly available on www.gov.uk later this spring.
Together, these new measures are just the latest steps this Government are taking to grow and develop a valued early years workforce, who provide the high-quality provision that supports children and families right from their earliest years.
[HCWS391]