House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
Increasing employment and helping people into good work is essential to growing our economy, which is why our “Get Britain Working” plan sets out our vision to reform jobcentres and build a new jobs and careers service that will meet the different needs of local labour markets, people and businesses.
Deirdre Costigan
On Friday, I visited the assessment centre at the west Ealing jobcentre, where staff told me the assessments focus on proving that disabled people cannot work, rather than identifying what jobs they could do if they had the right support. Many disabled people in my constituency are eager for a good job. What more could jobcentres and the Department do to help disabled people into work, rather than simply writing them off?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for meeting with Department for Work and Pensions colleagues in west Ealing and, through her, thank them for all the work they are doing. I know she will have been impressed by them, as I always am.
Disabled people have a right to work like everyone else, and it is our job to see that right realised. Doing so will benefit everyone, as we all win when people’s talents and potential are maximised. It is good for business and strengthens our economy. We are doing great things to bring forward our plan for a new jobs and careers service, which will put disabled people at its heart.
Lee Pitcher
I recently visited two jobcentres in my area, Thorne and Scunthorpe, and saw the great work being done by the staff there. Our jobcentres should be places where everyone can go for help to get them back into work. However, many blind and visually impaired people need technology such as screen readers to use computers, while others might need specialist screen magnification software. Research by Sense has found that no jobcentres have this specialist assistive technology, meaning that some disabled jobseekers cannot use the computers on site to look for work. How will the Government ensure that jobcentres are equipped with essential pieces of assistive technology in the future, enabling more disabled people to look for work?
Alison McGovern
I apologise to my hon. Friend; I could not quite hear which jobcentres he has visited. However, I thank him for doing so and for connecting with DWP colleagues in that way; it is really valuable. I ask him to take all our thanks back to them.
As part of the new jobs and careers service, we will radically enhance our use of technology so that people can access support through the channels that best meet their needs. Assistive technology can aid the accessibility and inclusiveness of the new service that we are building, so we are listening to those who already use it.
On 22 January, the Minister for disabled people, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), and I met colleagues from across Parliament on the all-party parliamentary group on eye health and visual impairment, where we had a great opportunity to listen to experts in this field.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that whatever steps her Department is taking to get people into work are being immediately undermined by the anti-growth, anti-jobs and anti-business measures included in the Government’s Employment Rights Bill?
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Will the Minister join me in commending the dedication and hard work of our work coaches, who assist with job applications and interview preparations?
Alison McGovern
On that one, I certainly will agree. Our work coaches are absolutely brilliant, and they are leading the way in changing jobcentres.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)
In recent months, the Department has run the biggest ever pension credit take-up campaign, across TV, radio and online. Some 150,000 pension credit claims were made in the 16 weeks following the winter fuel payment announcement, and the campaign continues. This week, new work to invite all pensioners newly receiving housing benefit to claim pension credit will begin.
Neil Duncan-Jordan
I thank the Minister. The latest figures show that at least 800,000 pensioners are eligible for pension credit but do not claim it, which means they have now also lost out on the winter fuel payment that they previously would have enjoyed. Does the Minister think that means-testing is working?
Torsten Bell
It is important that 1.5 million pensioners will receive the winter fuel payments this winter. The statistics my hon. Friend refers to relate to previous years, before the recent take-up campaign. However, he is right to highlight that under the Conservative Government, three in 10 eligible pensioners were missing out.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
In recent days and weeks, household bills across my constituency have gone up and up and up. Many who miss out on pension credit because they are just above the cut-off will now be wondering where they will find that extra money. Will the Government think again about the removal of the winter fuel payment and ensure that pension credit is rolled out on a taper?
Torsten Bell
It is important that we keep driving up the take-up of pension credit, but that is not the only support available to pensioners: everyone will see the state pension rise by over 4% this April; the household support fund is very important and will be extended for another year; and the warm home discount is available to the poorest pensioners.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Government figures show that an additional 42,500 households have claimed pension credit, yet that is only about 5% of all those eligible who were not claiming it. As constituency MPs, we are having to support people who are really struggling with the cold and their financial balances. Will the Minister think about setting up a pensioner poverty taskforce, so we can really get underneath the issues facing older people?
Torsten Bell
I am sure that all Members, on both sides of the House, are providing support to their constituents—pensioners, those of working age and children—to ensure they can cope following a difficult few years for everyone because of the cost of living crisis. On pensioner poverty specifically, it is important that we update our understanding of how that has developed. If we look at the record, we see that pensioner poverty halved under the previous Labour Government, but rose by 300,000 under the Tory Government over the past 14 years.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
Those on the guaranteed element of pension credit receive the warm home discount, but many do not. Following the changes made a couple of years ago, linking the warm home discount to the age and size of a property, have the Government made any assessment of how many people have been affected the double whammy of losing the warm home discount and the winter fuel payment?
Torsten Bell
I have heard the hon. Gentleman’s comment and will raise it with the responsible Minister in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, but it is important that all pensioners who are entitled to support get it. That is what the Government are focused on.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
Thanks to the dreadful inheritance left to us by the Tory Government, we need to raise productivity, reduce economic inactivity, increase employment rates and drive up economic growth. Our “Get Britain Working” plan sets out how we will progress our ambition of an 80% employment rate, which would place the UK among the highest-performing countries in the world.
Mr Snowden
There was some lovely wording in that answer, but the Government appear to be doing absolutely the opposite. Following the Budget, it appears that there is not a week that goes by without another employer announcing significant job cuts. Reed recruitment has already announced that job postings are plummeting. What will the Government do to support the Minister’s Department in the situation it will find itself in—a rapidly increasing number of people looking for jobs and a rapidly decreasing number of jobs being posted because of the Government’s policies?
Alison McGovern
I am glad the hon. Gentleman is bothered by the employment rate and I hope he is bothered by the record of his party, which saw employment fall off a cliff after the pandemic and never recover. We were an outlier in that; it did not happen anywhere else in the world. As it is, our jobcentres, which, as we have said, are full of brilliant staff, see just one in six employers ever consider using them to recruit. We will change that. We have a new strategy. The Secretary of State recently announced our plan to ensure that the Department of Work and Pensions serves businesses and that we get the best jobs into jobcentres so that people can take them up, improve their lives and grow our economy.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), to his post as Pensions Minister, and to place on record my personal thanks to his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds), for all her hard work.
Our new Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill will update the Department’s powers to tackle fraud for the first time in more than years, including enabling our serious and organised crime investigators to apply for a warrant; enter and search premises for evidence; seize items such as computers and phones; and bring criminal gangs to justice.
Luke Akehurst
Does my right hon. Friend agree that tackling fraud against the taxpayer is key to setting the country’s finances on a sustainable footing and allowing the investment in public services that my constituents are so desperate to see?
Liz Kendall
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We have a responsibility and a duty to use every possible measure to ensure that taxpayers’ money is wisely spent, on our schools, hospitals and police and on supporting those who are in genuine need. Our new Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, along with fraud measures in the Budget, will save £8.6 billion over the next five years. That is the biggest fraud package ever. We were elected on a mandate for change, and that is what this Government will deliver.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
In the press today there is a reference to a criminal gang who defrauded the DWP by more than £1 million and were able to abscond to a certain eastern European country. Without mentioning too many things that are happening, can the Secretary of State tell me whether there is a way, within the law of this land, of chasing those people up, getting them back here and finding out where all that misappropriated money has got to?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this despicable case. The new powers in the Bill—the existing powers have not been updated for 14 years—will bring us into line with other public bodies and ensure that we can investigate this properly, secure the evidence and get our money back.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
We are fully committed to helping vulnerable people into work. It is good for them, it provides firms with great workers, it reduces the benefits bill, and it boosts economic growth. Connect to Work, which will be rolled out this year, will greatly improve support.
Max Wilkinson
One of my constituents is a highly educated, high-earning civil servant who has serious care needs as a result of a bad accident about 30 years ago. His needs have been assessed as health-related, which means that the NHS pays the £81,000 cost of his care. If they were reassessed as social care needs, he would be forced to exhaust his savings. Each year his disability is reassessed, and during that reassessment his ability to work is unfairly treated with suspicion. The Government say that they want to help disabled people into work, which is a good thing. My constituent is working already, but fears that a huge disincentive will appear on the horizon if his status changes. Do Ministers understand his concerns?
Sir Stephen Timms
Yes, I definitely do understand his concerns. Our view is that disabled people should have the same chance to work—the same opportunities—that everyone else takes for granted, and we want to work with disabled people to reform the system to ensure that that is what they get. In the spring, we will publish a Green Paper on reforms to the health conditions and disability benefits system.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
My constituency faces high levels of economic vulnerability: 4.4% of my constituents are not in education, employment or training, and, worse, one in 10 are either NEET or unaccounted for. What action is the Minister taking to ensure that they are helped into both employment and skills development?
Sir Stephen Timms
I think my hon. Friend will greatly welcome the youth guarantee announced in the “Get Britain Working” White Paper. We want to ensure that every single young person gets the same chance. We have seen a dreadful increase in the number of NEET young people over the past few years, and we are getting to grips with that and tackling it.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
The Government are looking across the piece at how the important work of our regulators supports economic growth, and the Pensions Regulator, which oversees the third largest pension system in the world, is no exception to that.
Lincoln Jopp
The then pensions Minister, Guy Opperman, said that green-lighting defined benefit pension superfunds was his greatest achievement of lockdown. The unelected Governor of the Bank of England then unhelpfully intervened and said that superfunds would be a risk to financial stability, and as a result the Pensions Regulator has authorised only one pension superfund to come into existence. Can the Minister be a little more specific and tell us what exactly he is going to get the Pensions Regulator to do differently in order to support the growth mission?
Torsten Bell
That is an important question. The Pensions Regulator does recognise its important role in supporting growth; indeed, it has statutory duties not just to protect savers but to minimise the impact on the growth of employers. Superfunds have an important role to play in ensuring that we have larger pension funds that are able to invest in a wider range of assets. As the hon. Gentleman says, on an interim basis the Pensions Regulator has authorised one such fund, but we will take measures in the pension schemes Bill to make further progress in this regard.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)
This Government have run the biggest ever take-up campaign on pension credit, which is worth around £400 on average to those eligible. It also opens the door to extra support and means that 1.5 million pensioners will continue to receive the winter fuel payment. The modelled impact of the decision to target the winter fuel payment at those who need it most does not account for the measures that this Government are taking to raise pension credit take-up.
Patrick Spencer
There is no doubt that the cut to the winter fuel payment has hit Suffolk hard. NHS Suffolk reported that 97% of beds were occupied over the Christmas period due to a spike in cold, flu and pneumonia-like symptoms. Kesgrave community centre has set up warm rooms for impacted pensioners. The only good news is that the Suffolk Community Foundation has managed to raise £100,000 to support pensioners across our community who are impacted by the cut. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the Suffolk Community Foundation for being there for the most vulnerable people in our society when his Government were not?
Torsten Bell
This Government and the important charity that the hon. Gentleman mentions are here for the most vulnerable pensioners. That is why we are targeting the winter fuel payment at those who need it most, and why we will uprate all the state pension elements by over 4% this April. He raises the case of the national health service and how important it is to older generations, but it is his party that drove the NHS into the ground over the last 14 years.
Sir Ashley Fox
Labour-controlled Bridgwater town council is increasing its council tax precept by 40%. That means that pensioners in my constituency are suffering from not only the loss of their winter fuel allowance, but an enormous tax rise. What advice does the Minister have for those of my constituents who do not qualify for pension credit, and who now face the loss of the winter fuel allowance from this Government and a huge tax rise from their Labour council?
Torsten Bell
I encourage all pensioners to consider whether they are eligible for pension credit, but also to look for the wider support that can be provided via the household support fund and the warm homes discount. I say gently to the hon. Member that the driving up of council tax bills is a direct result of the destruction of local government finances by the Conservative party over 14 years.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I welcome the Minister to his place. I have a simple question for him: how many people are still waiting for their winter fuel payment?
Torsten Bell
The largest campaign to drive up pension credit take-up is now under way, and it will continue in the years ahead. What we are seeing at present is that anyone who made their claim for pension credit before 21 December will receive their winter fuel payment when that claim is processed.
Helen Whately
So the answer is that the Minister does not know. He does not know how many people are waiting for their winter fuel payment. He does not know how many people are stuck in the pension credit backlog. He does not know when they will hear about their claims. He does not know who has had help from their local council. He does not know how many people who lost their winter fuel payment have ended up in hospital this winter. He and his Department have dodged or refused to answer every single one of those questions in recent weeks. Will he commit to a full review of the winter fuel payment cut so that we can get those answers?
Torsten Bell
I will commit to fighting every day to avoid a repeat of the exercise under the last Government whereby pensioner poverty rose by 300,000, having fallen by 1 million under the last Labour Government. We will make sure that we publish details of the take-up of pension credit by the end of February.
Katrina Murray (Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch) (Lab)
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
We will champion disabled people and those with long-term health conditions. Our “Get Britain Working” plan will support many more who were failed by the last Government to enter and stay in work. We will devolve power to local areas for a joined-up work, health and skills offer.
Katrina Murray
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; prior to my election, I represented disabled members on the national executive of Unison. There are many barriers that prevent disabled people and those with long-term health conditions from not only entering but staying in the workplace, from a strict and punitive approach to attendance and sickness to a failure even to consider adaptations that make work possible. It is clear that employers have to be supported to make high-quality work accessible to disabled people. What work is my right hon. Friend therefore doing to engage employers in making work a positive and constructive experience for disabled people?
Sir Stephen Timms
I commend my hon. Friend for her previous work. She raises a very important point. We have launched the “Keep Britain Working” review, which is being led by Sir Charlie Mayfield, the ex-chair of the John Lewis Partnership. It will look at exactly the point that my hon. Friend raises: how to make workplaces and the wider labour market more inclusive, because we know, and employers know, that that is good for businesses and good for disabled people.
Alex Ballinger
As we all know, the last Government were far too quick to write off people who wanted to work but who had health conditions or were suffering with disabilities. Many people in Halesowen tell me that they want to work, and with the right help and support, they can. This will also bring huge physical and mental health benefits. How will the Government reset our relationship with people with disabilities, who for far too long have not been given the support that they need, but have instead been demonised by the Conservative party?
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The manifesto on which he and I fought the election committed us to putting the views and voices of disabled people at the heart of what we do. In the “Get Britain Working” White Paper, we announced the establishment of a disability employment panel to enable us to work with disabled people, ensure that we provide the necessary support and give them the chances that my hon. Friend rightly calls for.
Adam Thompson
In 2019, my close friend and constituent Jim was at his desk, working as a web developer, when out of the blue he felt a sudden pain. Jim was having a spinal stroke. He has never since been able to walk. The pain medication that Jim must take to manage his condition limits his ability to work, but sometimes he has unpredictable bursts of productivity. However, Jim’s benefit arrangements mean that the work that he could occasionally be able to do might result in sanctions to his benefits. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that Jim can get back into work?
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend’s important point, which to some extent has already been raised, shows how the health and disability benefits system needs to be reformed. Disabled people should have the same right to work and the same opportunities and chances as everybody else. Many disabled people like Jim want the chance to work, but they face barriers, including in the benefits system, that make it very difficult for them to do so. We are determined to change the system to get over those barriers.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I am sure that the Minister appreciates the important role of learning disability nurses in maximising the potential of people with learning disabilities. Will he therefore have a word with his Treasury colleagues about the differential effect of the rise in national insurance contributions? Learning disability nurses who work directly for the NHS are exempt; those who work for agencies contracted by the NHS are not exempt. That is an anomaly, and I would be grateful if the Minister considered talking to his colleagues about it.
Sir Stephen Timms
I am sure that the right hon. Member will raise that concern with the appropriate colleagues of mine. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the value of the work of learning disability nurses, whoever their employer is. We are determined that they should have better support to enable people with learning disabilities who want to work to do so.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The experience of my constituent Julie from Heaviley highlights the unfairness of the employment and support allowance application process for those with progressive conditions such as multiple sclerosis. She was assessed by a physiotherapist who lacked any expertise in neurological disorders; she thereby received inaccurate reports that denied her vital financial support. What steps are Ministers taking to ensure fair and timely support for those with progressive conditions that do not necessarily fit neatly into a box, as other disabilities or conditions may?
Sir Stephen Timms
We want to improve the assessment process, and there will be proposals in the Green Paper on how to do that. If the hon. Lady would like to drop me a line about this particular case, I will be happy to have a look and comment further.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
For 23 years, my constituent Timothy has attended Eastbourne’s Linden Court day centre for people with learning disabilities. Timothy’s mum, who is his sole carer, has spoken about how damaging it would be if Conservative-run East Sussex county council decided later this month to close the centre. Will the Minister join me in urging the county council to ditch this short-sighted cut, which would leave many Eastbournians and their families without the local provision they deserve?
Sir Stephen Timms
I very much hope that people in Eastbourne will continue to get the support that, by the sound of it, has done a very good job for a very long time. I obviously do not know the details of this case, but it is important that we not only maintain but improve support for disabled people.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I welcome the “Keep Britain Working” review but, according to last year’s DWP accounts, £4.2 billion of benefits were underpaid to claimants, and the claimants most affected were disabled people. What will the Government do to ensure that disabled people who may not be able to work get the money to which they are entitled?
Sir Stephen Timms
It is very important that disabled people get the money to which they are entitled. There will always be people who are not working, and we need to make sure there is good support for them. As I said a moment ago, we will set out our proposals on improving the assessment process in the upcoming Green Paper, but we are also very interested in hearing about the Select Committee’s proposals.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
People living with disabilities in rural areas such as Glastonbury and Somerton face many barriers to finding work, including lack of opportunities, poor transport and high childcare costs. How will the Minister support individuals living in rural areas to overcome the barriers to employment and help them to improve their overall quality of life?
Sir Stephen Timms
We will be doing a lot to support disabled people into work and to remove the barriers that are too often in their way, as the hon. Lady rightly says. I have already referred to the disability employment panel we are setting up. We want to work alongside disabled people to make sure that we get this right and remove the barriers. The Connect to Work programme, which is being rolled out over this year, will do a lot to help. However, if there are particular problems in the hon. Lady’s area that she would like to draw to my attention, I will be very interested to hear about them.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
The media report that people in No. 10 are tearing their hair out in frustration at the DWP taking so long to come up with welfare reforms. We have already been waiting seven months, and now we are told it will be March before there is a Green Paper, and presumably there will be no actual legislation until the end of the year at the earliest—they will be totally bald in No. 10 by then! Given the constant rise in the welfare bill, what is the financial cost so far of Labour’s inactivity?
Sir Stephen Timms
The inactivity bequeathed to us by the previous Government had a huge cost. The shadow Minister may not have noticed that, the week before last, a judicial review was lost on the previous Government’s handling of the work capability assessment changes. The judge found that the consultation was, frankly, dishonest—it did not tell people what the changes entailed—and was too rushed. People did not have a chance to give their views.
We will do this exercise properly. This spring, in the Green Paper, we will set out the full details of what we propose, and there will be a very full consultation so that everyone has a chance to have their say.
Danny Kruger
The answer to my question is £1.8 billion. That is the cost of Labour’s economic inactivity and its failure to reform welfare since the election. The sum is the same as the saving from cutting the winter fuel payment plus the income from taxing family farms. In opposition, Labour opposed imposing conditions on people claiming incapacity benefits. Does the Minister still rule that out, or will the Green Paper face reality and require people to take action, where they can, to address the health needs that mean they are signed off work?
Sir Stephen Timms
The Green Paper will face reality square on. It will set out a very full set of clear policies, it will be frank about what they entail and we will listen to people’s views in response. The money that the hon. Gentleman refers to as having been forgone, will probably have been forgone as a result of the judicial review the week before last, which was because of the previous Government’s failures in consultation.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
The Government keep the rates of benefits, state pensions and statutory pay under regular review. My hon. Friend will be aware that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced to Parliament on 30 October that, subject to parliamentary approval, parental pay will increase in line with the consumer prices index at the rate of 1.7% from April 2025.
Alistair Strathern
The Government’s upcoming review of parental leave entitlement is really important as the UK currently has among the worst paternity leave in Europe. Recent research by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation highlighted not just the growth benefit of greater paternity leave entitlements but the benefit to workforce involvement, so will the Minister meet me and campaigners from the Dad Shift to ensure we are making the most of the opportunity to get people back into work?
Andrew Western
We value the vital role that fathers and partners play in caring for children and in supporting their partners. We recognise that parental leave and pay entitlements, such as paid paternity leave, play a key role in their ability to do that. My hon. Friend is right to cite the planned parental leave review. That is being led by colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade, and I will write to them on his behalf to suggest a meeting.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
To get Britain growing again, we have to get Britain working again, and supporting employers is critical to achieving that goal. That is why last week I announced an overhaul of how the DWP helps businesses, including the introduction of a dedicated employers’ team in the DWP, ensuring that there are single account managers for businesses, so they do not have to have multiple conversations with different jobcentres, and the expansion of the number of training programmes tailored to employers’ individual needs. We are working in partnership with businesses: that is how we all go for growth.
David Taylor
The last Labour Government reduced child poverty by nearly half, from 3 million to 1.6 million, and legislated to eradicate child poverty by 2020. Instead, under the Conservatives, the number of children in relative poverty significantly increased between 2010 and 2023. Does the Secretary of State agree that working with employers to help people, particularly parents, into decent, well-paid jobs, is essential not only to growing our economy, but to reducing poverty, including child poverty?
Liz Kendall
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that having more parents, including lone parents and second earners in couples, in better paid jobs is critical to tackling child poverty. There has been a big shift in the nature of poverty since our success during the last Labour Government, when we lifted over 600,000 children out of poverty, as there are now more children growing up in poverty in a working household, so improving the parental employment rate is critical to driving down those numbers.
Gill German
Tu Mundo, or Your World, is a growing independent business that recently opened its third coffee shop, in Rhyl. Tu Mundo has a distinctive style, not just with the toucan motif that graces everything, including its teapots, but with its commitment to economic growth in the local area. In partnership with the local employability service, Working Denbighshire, Tu Mundo hosts work-start placements for those entering or re-entering the workplace, with several graduates going on to become permanent employees. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Tu Mundo and Working Denbighshire on that work? Does she agree that that is exactly the sort of partnership work that will bring fair economic growth across the UK?
Liz Kendall
Yes. I would like to say a massive thanks to Tu Mundo for all the work it is doing. There is a lot of evidence that work placements or work experience are a really important way to encourage more people into work. Last week, I visited B&M, the fastest growing retailer in the country, to look at what it is doing with short work experience placements, which are a form of “try before you buy” for the company and the employee. The placements have a huge success rate and B&M now recruits 85% of its workers through the scheme. We want to continue such success in the future.
Melanie Onn
Apprenticeships, training and reskilling in new energy technologies will be essential to deliver growth in the hard-working Humber region. Can the Secretary of State tell us more about the training programmes that she mentioned, which will support businesses in expanding opportunities in Grimsby and Cleethorpes?
Liz Kendall
I know that my hon. Friend is passionate about helping more people into work. Youth unemployment in her constituency is almost twice the national average, so it is essential for her constituents that we sort this out. Alongside work experience, we want to expand the number of sector-based work programmes, which have tailored courses for employers. We will also hold summits in three key growth areas—construction, health and social care, and clean energy—to bring employers together with local areas so that we can really go for growth.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The ambition of the Secretary of State for an 80% employment level is bound to be made more difficult by the findings in the impact assessment of the Employment Rights Bill, which foresees a £5.4 billion increase in costs and a 53% increase in strike action, is it not?
Liz Kendall
Government Members are ambitious for people right across the country. We do not accept the situation that we inherited from the Conservative party, as the only country in the G7 whose employment rate had not gone back to pre-pandemic levels. Creating more good jobs in every part of the country and narrowing the employment gap between different areas is tough, but we believe that it is achievable, and it is no less than the British people deserve.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
On economic growth, what does the Secretary of State say to businesses in my constituency that fully support fair pay and national insurance contributions for employees, but whose ability to grow, create employment, and invest is being impacted by the cumulative effect of the changes?
Liz Kendall
I say that in order to put the public finances on a secure footing, we had to take difficult decisions. I understand the pressures that businesses are under, but they know that if we do not balance the books, we cannot grow in future. We are taking action not just to put the public finances on a secure footing but to have a genuine programme to get Britain working again. We do not accept the situation that we inherited from the Conservatives, in which so many people were locked out, denied the right to work, and denied a good, well-paid job in every part of the country.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
The CMS modernisation programme delivers increasingly effective and efficient services. The programme has transformed customer interaction with the CMS, providing customers the choice to make contact digitally. Those efficiencies make it easier for customers to report changes and non-payment, so CMS caseworkers can focus on the collection of unpaid child maintenance.
Ben Obese-Jecty
I have multiple casework examples from constituents in Huntingdon who have been impacted by CMS inefficiencies, including incorrectly calculated arrears with no explanation of how the sums have been calculated, and failure to verify the location of fathers who are not providing financial support, with the CMS claiming that addresses needed to be independently verified but not conducting that verification itself. Such cases have resulted in consolatory payments from the CMS for maladministration and service delays. In all instances, my constituents have been frustrated by their inability to contact the CMS over the phone. In the quarter ending September 2024, 41% of calls to the Child Maintenance Service were not answered. What are the Government doing to improve contact with the CMS by telephone?
Andrew Western
I am very sorry to hear of those specific examples. I will take away the point about telephone communication and come back to the hon. Gentleman, but it may be worth our having a broader conversation about his concerns. I will happily meet him to discuss any of the specifics of the cases he cited.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
In response to a number inquiries that I have had from constituents over the last couple of months, will the Minister say whether reforms to the Child Maintenance Service will include consideration of the paying parent’s capital assets and voluntary pension payments when calculating the rate at which unpaid payments should be made?
Andrew Western
My hon. Friend raises an important point. He will be aware of the recent consultation on the future administration and operation of the Child Maintenance Service. I do not want to prejudge the decisions that will follow as a result of that consultation, but I can tell him that we are considering the next steps at present, and I will update him and the House in due course.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
It is a terrible consequence of 14 years of Conservative misrule that around 4.3 million of our children are growing up in poverty. That is why the child poverty taskforce’s work to complete our strategy is urgent. Taskforce Ministers have met six times and have had extensive engagement with people across the country, including external experts, local leaders and children and their families living in poverty.
Liz Jarvis
According to the End Child Poverty coalition, in 2022-23 the child poverty rate after housing costs in my constituency of Eastleigh was 21%. Analysis by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation projects that child poverty in England will rise to 31.5% by 2029. Every day without action pushes more children into hardship, and they cannot wait for the Government’s strategy to be published. What urgent measures will the Government take now to prevent more children from growing up in poverty?
Alison McGovern
The hon. Lady is absolutely right: this issue is urgent. That was why in the Budget the Chancellor announced the fair repayment rate, which stops families having to deal with so much debt through the universal credit system, saving families over £400 a year, but we know we have to go further. That is why, as I mentioned, Ministers are working hard to bring forward our child poverty strategy.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
I know the Government are working hard on developing their child poverty strategy, but what discussions is the Minister having with the Welsh Government to ensure that combined efforts deliver the best for our children, wherever they live?
Alison McGovern
I regularly meet representatives of the Welsh Government because while we strongly believe in devolution, we know that a partnership between Governments is the best way to protect our children from the terrible consequences of the poverty that the Conservatives left them in.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I am pleased that the Minister is updating us with progress. Does she believe the poverty strategy will be announced quickly enough for there to be changes made in, for example, the spring or autumn statements, or are we looking into next year? Please could she give an idea of the timeline?
Alison McGovern
I hope the hon. Lady will understand from the tone of what I said that this matter is urgent and that we are working quickly and will bring forward proposals as soon as we can.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Alarmingly, there has been talk of ruthless cuts to welfare. That would be utterly devastating as any cuts would push more families into poverty. We will not see a reduction to child poverty by economic growth alone; it will require targeted policy action—something that the Trussell Trust and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation agree with in their essentials guarantee. Do Ministers have plans to change the basic rate of universal credit so that it reflects the cost of life’s essentials—food and household bills?
Alison McGovern
As I have said several times, we are working quickly to bring forward the detail of that plan. In fact, only last week we had a parliamentary engagement session so that colleagues across the House could be brought up to speed on the detail of that work. I sat on the Opposition Benches and watched for 14 years as the Conservatives put our children into poverty. We will waste no time in dealing with this problem.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Children in poverty in Torbay make up 23% of our population but 100% of our future. Barnardo’s recently highlighted that the most powerful tool in the Government’s toolbox to tackle child poverty is ending the two-child cap. Only last week, the annual poverty report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation came to the same conclusion. When will the Minister come to that same conclusion and end the two-child cap?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for coming along to our parliamentary engagement session last week, which I hope he agrees was a productive update for everybody. As I just mentioned, I watched from the Opposition Benches as various policies, including the one he mentions, were introduced. We can see their consequences all around us. We cannot promise to do anything that we cannot pay for, but we are determined to have a child poverty strategy that works.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
As the Minister for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Alison McGovern), likes to say, the Department for Work and Pensions is the HR department of the Government’s growth mission, yet we inherited a situation in which only one in six employers has ever used a jobcentre to recruit. That is not good enough, which is why I announced last week five steps to put it right by overhauling what we do for employers. That includes a new dedicated employers team that has already brought more than 30 companies on board, including Swissport, Home Bargains and KFC. Soon we will host summits with businesses in key growth sectors such as construction and clean energy, as part of our plan to get Britain working and growing again.
Perran Moon
Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly is one of 15 WorkWell pilot regions, which are a core element of the Government’s “back to work” plans to reduce economic inactivity due to ill health. I invite the Secretary of State to visit Cornwall to see how WorkWell is already making a tangible difference in helping those with health conditions to start, stay and succeed in work, and to confirm that the spending review will provide the multi-year funding necessary to sustain and expand that vital service.
Liz Kendall
I would love to visit. That is an important programme focused on keeping people in work and getting those who have recently left back into work as soon as possible. In my hon. Friend’s area, WorkWell provides advice on workplace adjustments, access to physiotherapy, and employment advice and counselling, and is working closely with the voluntary sector and employers, backed by £2 million-worth of funding. That is critical because, with more than 15,000 economically inactive people in his constituency, we must start turning that situation around.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Last week, the right hon. Lady described herself as the HR manager for the Government’s growth plan, so can Liz from HR tell me which of her colleagues should be fired for the addition of 47,000 people to the unemployment figures in December?
Liz Kendall
I am proud to say that I want to get Britain working again after we inherited a situation in which a record 2.8 million people were out of work due to health problems, because the Conservatives pushed the NHS to its knees and failed to have a proper plan to get people back into work. Our mission is to get Britain working and growing again, and that is what our plan will deliver.
Helen Whately
Wishful thinking is all very well, but let us talk about the facts. Those 47,000 people probably spent Christmas worrying about how they would pay the bills without a job, and they are now looking for work in an employment market decimated by Labour’s jobs tax. How high does the right hon. Lady forecast unemployment will get under her Government?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Lady wants to talk about the facts. The facts are that we inherited a situation in which we will be spending £20 billion more on working-age, incapacity and disability benefits because of the mess her Government made, and in which there has been a doubling of the number of young people out of work due to health conditions, so people are more likely to be out of work due to poor health in their 20s than in their 40s. Our radical reforms will give people the right to work and the support they need, and will get the benefits bill on a sustainable footing.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The Minister for Employment (Alison McGovern)
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I am so pleased to hear about that work in Bracknell Forest. That is why the fourth part of our child poverty strategy is about local support. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and his constituents to ensure that strategy is a success.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I was pleased to hear that Labour councillors on Hull city council have voted to condemn the Government’s shameful decision not to compensate WASPI women. Has that given the Minister pause for thought?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)
I recognise the strength of feeling on this issue right across the House. We carefully considered the ombudsman’s report, but as the hon. Member knows, we do not think it is fair to provide compensation costing up to £10 billion when 90% of affected pensioners knew that the state pension age was rising, and the evidence shows that letters being sent earlier would have made little difference.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
Liz Kendall
I absolutely will. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have launched the “Keep Britain Working” review led by Charlie Mayfield, the former chair of John Lewis Partnership. He is doing precisely that—looking at how we can better support employers to help keep people in work and get them back to work. Mental health is a real concern for me, with so many young people not in education, employment or training, primarily driven by mental health problems. This is an issue we have got to sort, because it is terrible for them and for their future, and terrible for the economy too.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
The hon. Member will know that we introduced the biggest ever increase in the earnings threshold for carer’s allowance for those who are able to combine some work with caring. We are determined that carers should get the support they need—there is a premium in universal credit as well, for example—but of course, we will keep all these matters under review.
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
Sir Stephen Timms
I commend the resilience of my hon. Friend. Before Christmas, I spoke at a report launch with the charity Working with Cancer, which focuses on exactly the issue she has raised. She is right: employers have a key role in supporting people with cancer to continue to thrive in work, and the “Keep Britain Working” review will engage with people with lived experience as well as employers.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
It is now nine years since the Scotland Act 2016 transferred a swathe of welfare powers to the Scottish Government. Are Ministers in a position to give a finite date by which the Scottish Government will actually have taken on all those powers and responsibilities? That is still not the case.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
As the right hon. Gentleman rightly says, a number of benefits are currently delivered under agency agreements. It is very much for the Scottish Government to broker a conversation with us about either extending those agreements or bringing them to an early conclusion. I am yet to have any such conversations, but should I have any, I will be very happy to let him know.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is right that there has been a particularly big increase in mental health problems among young people. Given what the last Government did, I can well understand people being worried. We will continue to support people with mental health problems in the health and disability benefits system. The proposals for reform we will bring forward in the spring will make sure the system is fit for purpose and fair to the taxpayer, and they will deliver the support in work that people such as my hon. Friend’s constituents need.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
The Child Poverty Action Group has reported that 4.3 million children in the UK are living in poverty. In a classroom of 30, that is nine children living in poverty. Given that the Government have ruled out scrapping the two-child benefit cap, will the Minister commit to publishing measurable targets for reducing child poverty during this Parliament?
Alison McGovern
As I have already mentioned in a number of responses, we understand the scale and seriousness of the problem the hon. Member mentions. We have already published the terms of reference for the child poverty taskforce, and we will continue to keep the House updated as we move forward, given the seriousness of the issue.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
Liz Kendall
Yes, I do commit to that, and I thank my hon. Friend for his tireless campaigning on the issue. With almost 1,000 young people unemployed in his constituency, or almost one in 10, I know what an important issue it is. His area is part of one of our youth guarantee trailblazers, meaning that every young person is earning or learning. I commit that the whole Government will continue to work with him and partners in his constituency to make sure that no young person is left behind.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Jamie from my constituency is a full-time carer, but he is also in full-time education and is therefore not entitled to carer’s allowance. Will the Government confirm that they will extend carer’s allowance to those in full-time education?
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I recently met a very impressive group of young people who have managed to navigate their way through education while also having very heavy caring responsibilities. We are working closely with the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Carers Trust and the Learning and Work Institute to make sure that we are providing the support young carers need.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
Sir Stephen Timms
Yes, I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him for highlighting that case. We have asked the Department for Health and Social Care to review its decision in that case—I hope with a positive outcome.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The Minister will have heard several references to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report this afternoon. The report demonstrates not only that extreme poverty is rising, but that the only part of these islands where child poverty will fall in the next four years is Scotland. Is it not time that the Westminster Government took a leaf out of the Scottish Government’s book?
Alison McGovern
I think it is fair to say that we have spent a great deal of time talking to people from all parts of the United Kingdom, and we will continue to do so, because only a strategy that covers all of the UK will be a success.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Andrew Western
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The assessment I have made is of a trend that is up, up, up after 14 years of the Conservative party failing to act. We lost £9.7 billion in fraud and error in the Department for Work and Pensions last year, and we have lost £35 billion since the pandemic. That is too much, which is why I hope colleagues will support the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill on Second Reading later.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Hundreds of farmers and other small business owners in Westmorland who earn less than the minimum wage are not eligible for universal credit because of the failure of that system to take account of variability of income. Will the Minister look to put that right so that we can support the people who support us?
Sir Stephen Timms
We are committed in our manifesto to a review of universal credit and I expect to set out shortly the details of how that review will go forward. I will be very happy to look at the particular case the hon. Gentleman raises in the course of the review.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
We all know that the best route out of poverty is through well-paid work, but for families in my constituency, where a third of children grow up in poverty, low-paid and insecure jobs are a massive barrier. What will the Department do to help more families back into work and to alleviate poverty for children growing up in Southampton Itchen?
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend eloquently makes the case for our “Make Work Pay” reforms. This is not just about helping our economy grow, it is also about protecting people from poverty. In all we do to change jobcentres, we want to support people into good, sustainable, well-paid work because that is the best way out of poverty.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
A constituent came to see me last week who had not eaten for four days. Her state pension had increased in line with the triple lock but this took her over the threshold for pension credit, which then took away her entitlement to a range of other benefits including the winter fuel allowance. What are the Government doing to ensure people do not experience such a significant cliff edge?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Torsten Bell)
I thank the hon. Member for raising that case and I would be happy to meet her to go into a bit more detail. That is exactly why we make sure the pension credit threshold rises in line with the basic state pension through the triple lock.
Damien Egan (Bristol North East) (Lab)
During covid, assessments for personal independence payments were moved either online or to over the phone. Today less than 5% of those assessments have returned to face-to-face, so what assessment have Ministers made of that change and are there any links with the rise in fraud?
Andrew Western
My hon. Friend is right to identify that in the PIP space the Department has introduced a blend of phone, video and face-to-face assessments with the aim of delivering a more efficient and user-centred service. Since telephone and video assessments have been introduced there has been no evidence to suggest that these delivery channels are less effective than face-to-face assessments in detecting fraudulent claims. In 2023-24, PIP overpayments accounted for just 0.4% of the DWP’s overall spend on PIP but I assure my hon. Friend we will keep a close eye on that.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
Marie Curie research has found that 15% of the three quarters of a million end-of-life carers are living below the poverty line, rising to 22% a year after bereavement. Given these statistics, will the Minister consider extending the time that carers can claim carer’s allowance from two months to six months after bereavement?
Sir Stephen Timms
We keep these matters under review. I have not looked at that particular proposal before, but if the hon. Gentleman would like to drop me a line I will certainly give it a careful look.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I applaud the Front-Bench team for its energy in driving the child poverty taskforce, but every decision has consequences and costs. Will the Minister outline the costs of some of the processes she is looking at changing, particularly the cost of lifting the two-child cap, and if she does not have the figure to hand will she write to me?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Treasury Committee for all her work on this issue. I will happily engage with her through correspondence on the matter.
AstraZeneca
(1 day, 13 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
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
(Urgent Question):To ask the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology if he will make a statement on AstraZeneca.
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
As the largest company listed on the London Stock Exchange, employing more than 10,000 people and investing about £2.5 billion every year in the UK, AstraZeneca is a close and valued partner to this Government and is critical to the UK’s thriving life sciences sector. We saw that in the covid-19 pandemic, when AstraZeneca partnered with the University of Oxford to create a safe and effective vaccine that was manufactured and distributed around the world, saving millions of lives.
This type of partnership for the prevention of illness is critical to achieving the Government’s ambition of reducing the burden on the NHS. AstraZeneca’s decision not to invest in Speke, Liverpool is therefore deeply disappointing and follows intensive work and collaboration between the Government and the company. This collaboration on Speke dates back to 2020 and led to an announcement at the spring Budget 2024 when AstraZeneca set out its intention to invest £450 million into its flu vaccine manufacturing facility. To secure that investment, the previous Chancellor provided assurance of His Majesty’s Government support, valued at around £90 million, subject to successful completion of due diligence. That support was based on His Majesty’s Government’s initial assessment of figures provided by the company.
Both the previous Government and this Government have always made clear that full due diligence would be required before a final Government offer could be confirmed. Since the spring Budget, AstraZeneca confirmed a significant change in the composition of its proposed investment, resulting in a smaller level of research and development being conducted in the UK. As the shadow Minister would expect, that change in AstraZeneca’s UK investment resulted in a corresponding change in Government support.
Our revised Government offer sought to ensure value for money for the taxpayer and followed due diligence of the investment put forward by AstraZeneca. We remain closely engaged with AstraZeneca as we develop our new industrial strategy, build a health system fit for the future and drive up economic growth. In the spring, the Government will release our industrial strategy, containing a comprehensive plan for growing the life sciences sector. That will build on the significant momentum generated by the plan for growth, including delivery of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, as well as the Budget announcement of the life sciences innovative manufacturing fund, the suite of inward investment announced at the international investment summit and the strategic partnerships announced with Oxford Nanopore and Eli Lilly.
Alan Mak
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.
Just five days ago, in another speech about growth designed to divert attention from the total lack of growth caused by Labour’s high taxes and anti-business approach, the Chancellor specifically praised AstraZeneca: she knew that the last Conservative Government had successfully negotiated a deal for Britain’s biggest public company to invest £450 million into Britain’s economy.
Under the Conservative deal, AstraZeneca would have expanded its flu vaccine factory on Merseyside, creating new jobs, improving the UK’s pandemic preparedness and sending a clear message to the world that Britain’s life sciences sector is open for business. Instead, Labour has cut the funding that we agreed and has imposed a national insurance jobs tax. That has destroyed the business case for expanding the factory and the deal is now off. Will the Minister explain why the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology failed to stand up to the Chancellor when she cut his funding, destroying the deal and handing high-quality jobs and investment to our competitors?
In the past 12 months, AstraZeneca has committed to investing more than £1 billion in Singapore, nearly £3 billion in the US and more than £450 million in Canada. It could have invested £450 million in our country, too, so what are the Government doing to bring back the jobs and investment that they have just turned away?
By last July, all that was required was for Labour to confirm that it would proceed with our deal. AstraZeneca wrote to the Chancellor and the Science Secretary on 9 July, but received no reply. It wrote to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade in early July too, but he fobbed it off. The company did not receive its answer until last October. By then, it was too late to deliver the project and now the deal is dead. Will the Minister and the Science Secretary write to the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah), offering to appear before her Committee to explain what went wrong and how such failures can be avoided in the future?
Delivering this deal secured by the Conservatives was a big test of Labour’s economic credibility, and it has failed. In the same week that it talked about growth, it has botched a deal that was vital to our economy. Labour promised growth, but delivered failure and let Britain down again.
Chris Bryant
What utter nonsense. We endured 14 years of growth that even the shadow Minister’s own Back Benchers used to describe as anaemic and feeble. Average growth under Tory Governments is 1.2%; average growth under Labour Governments is 2.4%. We are far more likely to secure growth in the British economy under a Labour Government.
The shadow Minister simply did not listen to what I had to say. The Conservatives sat on this so-called deal with AstraZeneca for four years. The process started in 2020, and it is interesting what was announced to the House and what was actually announced in the paperwork. In the House, the then Chancellor said that AstraZeneca had announced plans to invest to
“fund the building of a vaccine manufacturing hub in Speke in Liverpool.”—[Official Report, 6 March 2024; Vol. 746, c. 845.]
He did not make any mention in the Chamber of the money that was needed from his Department to be able to pay for it. The paperwork that attended that announcement stated:
“AstraZeneca’s investment decision is contingent upon mutual agreement with the UK Government and third parties, and successful completion of regulatory processes.”
That was absolutely typical of the previous Government: they thought that when they had announced something it had come to pass, but due diligence is needed to ensure the best possible financial advantage for the British taxpayer.
We have seen clearly that AstraZeneca’s original intention last year was to deliver £150 million-worth of R&D, but then it decided to cut that to something like £90 million-worth. That was its decision, based on its own investment decisions, and we as a Government had to assess whether £90 million from the UK—as supposedly promised by the previous Chancellor—was the right amount of money to put into the pot, or whether it was better to offer slightly less. Unfortunately, at the end of that process AstraZeneca decided that it would not proceed.
Let me make it absolutely clear to the hon. Member that this is the best country in the world in which to invest in the private sector. Some £63 billion of investment was secured at the growth summit last year, and £14 billion—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. The shadow Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for East Grinstead and Uckfield (Mims Davies), keeps pushing it a little bit. I think we should hear no more of that.
Chris Bryant
Thank you, Mr Speaker. And £14 billion was secured following the announcement of our artificial intelligence opportunities plan. We have cut the rate of corporation tax to 25%, which is the lowest in the G7. We are creating a pension mega-fund to be able to invest further. According to PricewaterhouseCoopers’ last CEO survey, we are, for the first time ever, the second-best place in the world to invest in the Government, and that is because we have a Labour Government, not a Conservative reject.
Mr Speaker
I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
The UK Government are committed to growing the economy through increased R&D and advanced manufacturing. AstraZeneca tell us that it is committed to investing in the UK, which is where it is headquartered and where one of its largest customers—the NHS—is based. It is like hearing that two people are madly in love with each other, yet the wedding is off. I look forward to the Minister of State for Science explaining the background to this to the Select Committee when he appears before us next week.
In the meantime, will the Minister confirm that the UK is committed to incentivising R&D investment? Will he set out the mix of R&D and manufacturing investment agreed to by AstraZeneca under the last Government, and to which it was committed when it dropped the deal? Finally, the deal, as well as growing the economy, would have made our pandemic supply chain more resilient by reducing our dependence on mRNA vaccines. Will he set out how he intends to address that?
Chris Bryant
It is good to hear from the Chair of the Select Committee. I want to make it absolutely clear that AstraZeneca is not leaving—people are not losing their jobs because of this decision. There are still 10,000 people employed by AstraZeneca in the UK and, for that matter, it is proceeding with its nasal-based flu vaccine for children, just in a different way. All of that is important.
My hon. Friend asked about the precise details of the R&D mix that was part of the investment. As I said, it was to have been £150 million of investment. AstraZeneca decided to cut that to £90 million, which is why the contribution that the previous Chancellor had suggested of £90 million into that pot simply did not add up for the UK taxpayer, which is why we came to that set of decisions. However, she is absolutely right that we are fundamentally committed to the life sciences sector for the saving of life, for making sure that we have an NHS that can really deliver for people, and because we want to have valuable jobs that we do better in this country than anywhere else in the world.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
This news makes for yet another disappointing day for the UK’s investment landscape. We could be a global leader in innovation, but ever since the previous Conservative Government’s scrapping of the industrial strategy businesses have been left with uncertainty. The life sciences sector is vital not just for economic growth, but for our health and technological innovation. It contributes over £43 billion to the UK economy, supports thousands of highly skilled jobs and drives breakthroughs in medicine and healthcare, yet in conversations that I have had with businesses, I have heard time and again how the UK’s fragmented approach to investment is holding them back. That is why I have highlighted those concerns in previous questions to the Secretary of State.
The Government have promised to publish “Invest 2035” this spring, but right now companies still have no detail on what support will be available and when. Without urgent action, we risk more world-leading firms following AstraZeneca’s lead and taking their investments elsewhere. Will the Minister please confirm exactly when the final Invest 2035 strategy will be published? The Government said that the decision was based on value for money, so will the Minister and the Secretary of State also publish the impact assessment, so that we can see for ourselves?
Chris Bryant
I am afraid that I will have to write to the hon. Lady on that last question, as I am not sure precisely where we are with an impact assessment. She is absolutely right that the UK’s life sciences sector generated something like £108 billion in turnover in the financial year ending 2022—a sharp 13% increase on the previous year. We want to build on that. The sector has seen year-on-year growth since the financial year ending 2015, and turnover is now 40% higher than in the financial year ending 2022. We are keen to publish, as part of our industrial strategy, our precise plans for the financial services sector. We said that will be in the spring—it certainly still felt like winter in the Rhondda at the weekend, so I am afraid she will have to wait until spring has sprung.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
AstraZeneca is a key partner in the Liverpool city region’s life sciences innovation zone, as is Maghull health park in my constituency, with its research and development plans. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government will engage with partners in the city region, including the University of Liverpool, the metro mayor Steve Rotheram, council leaders and the region’s MPs, to try to recover ground on this deal, which will add to the success we have already seen with AstraZeneca in the city region and across the country?
Chris Bryant
Regional mayors have an important role to play in helping bring investment into key areas. I am happy to ensure that the meetings that my hon. Friend has asked for take place. This has to be a joint venture between everyone. I want to underline that it is not the case that AstraZeneca is leaving the United Kingdom, or that it does not have confidence in the United Kingdom, because it clearly does—it invests more than £2.5 billion every year into the UK economy. It is a key partner of the UK and will continue to be so.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
What a shame the Minister has chosen to substitute aggression for what should be regret for what is, whichever way he paints it, obviously a terrible failure of negotiation. I chair the all-party parliamentary group for life sciences, and I can tell the House that this is a terrible blow not just for Speke and Liverpool—the city of my birth—but for our vaccination development environment generally. The lack of this production facility means that there will be no pull for vaccination development in the UK and the various technologies that come with it. What will he do to replace that?
Chris Bryant
Of course we feel regretful. We would have preferred to get this over the line but that was not possible, in large measure because AstraZeneca decided that it did not add up in whatever particular way for it. The right hon. Gentleman makes one very good point: we want a manufacturing provision in the country, and my colleague Lord Vallance is working on that very closely with the sector.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
Friday’s announcement was deeply disappointing. The Liverpool city region is home to one of Europe’s largest pharma clusters. The Government were prepared to put millions into the project with AstraZeneca, which it has now walked away from. Is that money still on the table for other viable life science projects in our region? Will the Government commit to meet our metro mayor, Steve Rotheram, to discuss that further?
Chris Bryant
That is the cleverest bid for finance that I have ever heard, so my hon. Friend gets an award for that. She is right that we stand ready at any point to assist key investments of this nature, especially in the life sciences sector. The difference between the amount of money that was theoretically made available by the previous Government and the amount that we were prepared to put forward was remarkably small. The issue is how to ensure that similar investments get over the line. Someone from the Department will meet Steve Rotheram.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
How does losing £450 million of investment on Merseyside and into the wider north-west area equate with the Chancellor’s stated priority of economic growth?
Chris Bryant
The right hon. Lady puts it in a particular way, but it is not a way that is consonant with the facts. The fact is that this deal had not been signed or got over the line by the previous Government, who, as I have said, would quite often announce things and not actually deliver in the end. In spring 2024, the then Chancellor made it very clear in the documents that accompanied the Budget that all of this was contingent—his words, not mine—on due diligence. The then Government had not yet done the due diligence.
Tim Roca (Macclesfield) (Lab)
More than 5,000 people are employed at AstraZeneca’s Macclesfield campus, producing world-class medicines and contributing £1.8 billion in GVA and 1% of total UK exports. AstraZeneca has confirmed to me that the Speke decision does not impact Macclesfield, a site that it is committed to. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are committed to working with AZ so it continues to have a bright future in Macclesfield?
Chris Bryant
Yes, 100%. I know that my hon. Friend has visited AstraZeneca and spoken to it many times. He is absolutely right to note that there are, I think, 4,000 working at the Macclesfield site, and will continue to do so. I am sure that AstraZeneca has a very strong future in Macclesfield. Nothing in this decision changes that one iota.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
We in this House often underestimate how many options companies such as AstraZeneca have on where to invest. The Minister is not known for taking no as an answer, so can I urge him to continue to make the case for this investment, be flexible on VFM and keep fighting for this specific deal?
Chris Bryant
Not necessarily for this specific deal, but certainly for a deal with AstraZeneca, yes.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
AstraZeneca’s decision to pull its £450 million investment in the Speke manufacturing plant is a blow for the creation of jobs across the city region, including in my constituency. I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Garston (Maria Eagle) for her tireless efforts in trying to get this deal over the line. Will the Minister join me in recognising the brilliant work of the scientists at the facility, and will he meet me and colleagues to explain how he can guarantee investment in R&D in the city region going forward?
Chris Bryant
I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend knows, as she knows, although I think it would probably be more useful for her if she were to meet Lord Vallance, who is the Minister for life sciences. My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we would of course much prefer this investment to go ahead and to have been able to get this deal over the line. However, it has not been possible, and we now have to look at different ways of ensuring that we strengthen the relationship with AstraZeneca. However, I would point to other investments that have been made in recent months, including in life sciences, to quite significant effect.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The Financial Times reports that, during its negotiations with the Government, AstraZeneca raised concerns about the vaccine plant, but also about the rejection of one of its breast cancer drugs and the drug pricing mechanism. Does the Minister agree that AstraZeneca’s rejection of his Government’s final offer is not the only concerning issue for our biopharma industry, and will he assure me that he is raising issues around the regulatory and reimbursement processes with the Health Secretary and the Treasury as barriers to growth in a sector already struggling with post-Brexit red tape?
Chris Bryant
The hon. Lady’s first point was on the voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing and access, which is reduced to an acronym that is not really an acronym: VPAG. This is, as it says on the tin, a voluntary agreement between Government, the pharmaceutical industry and the NHS, which is designed specifically to ensure that we protect the NHS’s medicines budget. It is voluntary, and AstraZeneca has always been a party to it on a voluntary basis. I am not sure that is the problem the hon. Lady thinks it is—although, if she has further evidence, I would be happy to speak to her.
I think she is also referring to the rejection by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence of a breast cancer drug. This is the first time in six years that a breast cancer drug has been rejected by NICE, and it is obviously concerning for everybody who wants to be able to use these drugs. However, we have an independent and much-respected system in the UK. I stand by that independence; I am not going to undermine it.
Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)
May I say in the gentlest possible way to my hon. Friend the Minister that losing investment in Merseyside and the north-west is not compensated for by investment in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, particularly as some years ago we lost Diamond Light Source from Daresbury? I would also like to ask him a question on a deeper issue beyond the normal party political dance: it’s their fault. it’s not, or whatever. When Kate Bingham, the heroine of covid and developing vaccines, finished she made excoriating comments about our civil servants and their ability to understand science and biological sciences. What is the Minister doing to improve that situation, so that distinguished people like Kate Bingham do not say that officials in the civil service treat this huge industry with suspicion and contempt?
Chris Bryant
If I might just refer to the first comment first, I am the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore, so I fully understand that investment in one part of the country is obviously great for that part of the country, but it does not necessarily mean that every part of the country is rising with everybody else. Trying to make sure that economic investment spreads across the whole of the United Kingdom, including in the north-west, the north-east and in the south Wales valleys, is a really important part of our historic mission.
On my hon. Friend’s other point, AstraZeneca complained about the length of time all of this has taken. As I say, it started in 2020 and it was only in 2024 that the first announcement was made—as I understand it, by a text message from the then Chancellor of the Exchequer to the chief executive of AstraZeneca. We might need to learn better ways of informing our decisions about science.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Did the Government’s rise in national insurance contributions and the over £400,000 a year extra that AstraZeneca would have needed to pay for the site contribute to its decision to withdraw?
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on vulnerable groups to pandemics. More than 1.2 million clinically vulnerable people are still shielding from covid because their mRNA vaccine does not provide efficient protection for immunosuppressed people. Will my hon. Friend set out how the Department is putting the UK at the forefront of international R&D in life sciences to support those very vulnerable people?
Chris Bryant
Not only have we set aside £520 million precisely to be able to invest in the life sciences industry with an innovation fund, we are very keen to work with specific businesses to understand how they can make more secure, long-term investment. The single most important thing for most people making an investment in the UK is whether they believe there is political, fiscal and financial stability in the UK. That is what we are absolutely determined to deliver. My hon. Friend makes a very good point about those who are immunosuppressed for all sorts of different reasons, whether their medication or a condition. I will take that point back to the Department.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The Chancellor said that economic growth is the most important thing and this was an opportunity to get some of that economic growth. This was an opportunity to get something over the line and the UK Government failed to deliver it. How can the House and the public trust anything the UK Government say? How can they say that this is the founding mission if they then fail to deliver for a region that could really do with that economic growth?
Chris Bryant
The thing is that spending taxpayers’ money has to be proven to be good value for money. That is why, whenever we are making an investment such as this, we have to make sure it delivers more return on investment than £1 for £1. When AstraZeneca made the decision to cut the R&D part of its budget from £150 million to £90 million, it made sense for the UK Government to look again at the amount of money we could legitimately put in on behalf of the taxpayer. If the hon. Lady had been in my place, I think she would have made exactly the same decision.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister agree that the Chancellor’s announcement last week of investment in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor shows very clearly that the Government see a bright future for life sciences in the United Kingdom, and will he forgive me for giving a brief plug to a post-war new town—my constituency of Harlow—which would very much like to be part of that future?
Chris Bryant
There are all sorts of bids coming in now, none of which I am in charge of, but we have seen significant added investments in the UK since the autumn. For instance, Iberdrola is doubling its investment through Scottish Power from £12 billion to £24 billion over the next four years, and Blackstone has confirmed a £10 billion investment in Blyth in Northumberland. What is essential, however, is for us to ensure that that investment stretches across the UK, that we have the skills we need in order to deliver those investments, and that we have the economic structures in place to enable them to remain, because they are long-term investments, not just short-term ones. Also, sometimes, we have to tackle the over-regulation that exists in some elements of the economy, particularly in relation to planning, so that we can get down to making the decisions that the Tories should have made for 14 years.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
The chief scientific officer has previously stated the importance of this investment in the UK’s pandemic preparedness. In the light of the announcement, what assessment has the Minister made of the impact on the UK’s ability to respond to future pandemics?
Chris Bryant
It is not entirely dependent on our AstraZeneca programme, and indeed, as I have already pointed out, the piece of work in which it was intending to invest—I hope I will get the science right—was changing the way in which it would create the nasal flu vaccine for children from an egg-based to a cell-based system. It has now decided not to do that, but to stick to the egg-based system. I think that if the chief scientific adviser or the chief medical officer has anything on which to update the House, he and/or she will do so.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Despite AstraZeneca’s decision, the UK biotech industry almost doubled last year to £3.4 billion, but it was concentrated in just a few companies. Will the Minister commit to looking at some of the trial research rules to enable smaller companies to work better with NHS trusts so that start-ups and local firms can prosper?
Chris Bryant
My hon. Friend is right: not only do we need to enable smaller companies to start up, but we need to enable them to grow to scale. Otherwise, the danger is that we develop the good idea, someone else ends up buying the intellectual property, and all the value disappears out the UK’s back door. When I met the husband-and-wife team who run BioNtech—they are amazing, not least in respect of some of the work they have done in developing immunotherapy, which is probably the stuff that saved my life when I had stage 4 cancer—they spoke warmly and glowingly about all the work that they want to do in the UK, alongside the work of AstraZeneca. As my hon. Friend says, we need to get small companies set up, to grow them, and to enable them to be world leaders like AstraZeneca.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Investment in highly paid industries producing good-quality research and development, and the spin-offs from that, are, of course, important to the economy and to long-term growth. I agree with the Minister that when it comes to using public money we have to be careful about how it is spent, and not just throw it at a company because it has threatened to walk away from investment. In fact, I should have thought that those on the Opposition Front Bench would be quite happy to hear the Minister talking about the proper use of public finance like a prudent Conservative Minister. My question, however, is this. Although due diligence had to be done, and it may well have been assessed that this was not a good use of public money, was the investment lost because of a lack of communication between the Government and the company during the assessment process, when perhaps the company could have been convinced that it could proceed, even with less support?
Chris Bryant
I will take support from wherever I can get it, so I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It is a very simple point that when the Government invest in businesses of whatever kind, we have to make sure that we get value for money for the taxpayer, even when there is a very large cheque on the table. AstraZeneca decided to change the structure of its research and development, which is one of the reasons why we had to change the amount of money that we were prepared to put in, but the right hon. Gentleman’s other points are very good and well made.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
Alongside other Members representing Milton Keynes, I attended the Chancellor’s speech last Wednesday and spoke to many companies, including those from the life sciences sector. There were two really important points that they wanted to make, after being reasonably pleased with what they heard from the Chancellor. The first was about the importance of talking up our world-leading universities, after the previous Government continually talked them down. Will the Minister commit that this Government will continue to sell our world-leading universities, including Oxford and Cambridge, on the world stage?
The second point that companies wanted to make was that investing in life sciences right across the country requires a successful Oxford-Cambridge arc. Will the Minister commit to doing whatever it takes to make the entire corridor successful, including by getting a devolution deal for the midlands and speaking to his colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that that happens?
Chris Bryant
Yes, and I agree with everything my hon. Friend says. The Oxford-Cambridge corridor is really important. Reading the newspapers over the weekend, I was intrigued by how many Conservative commentators kept on saying, “What I don’t understand is why the Conservatives didn’t do this over the last 14 years.” It is not enough simply to build the Oxford-Cambridge corridor; we need to make sure that we build on creative and scientific innovations at all our universities in the United Kingdom, and not just at Oxford and Cambridge.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
We received terrible news from AstraZeneca over the weekend. It is businesses across the country, such as those in my constituency of Broxbourne, that create economic growth, not the Government. The Government have increased red tape and employer’s national insurance contributions. Can the Minister outline how he is promoting businesses and encouraging them to invest in the United Kingdom?
Chris Bryant
As I have already said, we had £63 billion of investment at the summit before Christmas, and we have had £14 billion of investment since Christmas. I have a specific responsibility for data in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and the number of data centres investing in the UK is significant. We now have 500, which puts us third after the United States of America and Germany. We are determined to grow the economy. The hon. Gentleman is sort of right to say that it is the private sector that creates growth, but it is also true to say that the Government contribute to growth. For instance, if we manage to build 1.5 million additional homes in the UK, that will contribute to growth. If the Conservatives do not believe that, they are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
The wider context of the issue before us today is that this country is at the forefront of the global life sciences sector, of which there are clusters across the UK. In my constituency of Stevenage, which was the first post-war new town in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, we have GlaxoSmithKline, Autolus, and the Cell and Gene Therapy Catapult. Will my hon. Friend tell the House how this Government are committed to spreading growth in the life sciences sector across the whole country, and thank all our hard-working scientists?
Chris Bryant
That is precisely the job that Lord Vallance is engaged in. We are trying to make sure that our research and development budget across the whole of the UK is spent in a way that delivers economic growth and investment in companies that are start-ups, but also in ones that need to scale up. We are also working with the Department for Education to make sure that we have the skills that we need in the UK—not just to come up with a good scientific idea, but to develop entrepreneurialism and to be able to take an idea to market and make a living out of it.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for providing some insight into the way in which the Government and their Ministers look on economic matters. Does he appreciate that investment per capita in R&D is very much greater in America than in this country? There are now a range of incentives at federal and state level that will act as a draw to life sciences, notwithstanding what has happened in Washington over the past few days. What is there to tie a company such as AstraZeneca to this country? Why would it not look more favourably on America as a destination of choice?
Chris Bryant
To be honest, that sounded like a bid to send AstraZeneca to the United States of America. I do not think that is what hon. Members of this House should be doing; I think they should be standing up for the UK as the best place for AstraZeneca to invest. [Interruption.] There is no point in pointing at me like a child: that does nobody any favours. The honest truth is that AstraZeneca is and will remain one of the biggest investors in the UK economy.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
No matter how the Minister tries to dress it up, this is a blow to the UK economy, to life sciences and to manufacturing. What message about the Government’s lack of support for manufacturing does this decision send to global investors and, importantly, to the local jobs market?
Chris Bryant
It does not send any kind of message like that. The point is that in the UK we have secured dramatic amounts of additional investment since the general election. What is interesting is that all the Conservative Members are praising something that was never delivered by the previous Government; it was only announced. It is like so many parts of the DSIT budget that I discovered when I became a Minister. Theoretically, the previous Government had said that they were doing this, that and the other, but they had not actually set aside a single penny, because they had not done a proper comprehensive spending review for many, many years. That is precisely the black hole that we have had to fill.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Given the protectionist policies of US President Trump, can the Minister confirm how he will seize the opportunity to make the UK the best place for pharmaceutical investment in the world?
Chris Bryant
Some of what I have already pointed out is really important. We have already said that we will have the lowest corporation tax rate in the G7, at 25%, and we are sticking with that. We have made sure that we are investing in our public services so that people can have a guarantee of proper public services in this country. One thing that affects many businesses in this country—I have heard it repeatedly—is that if we have 7 million people on NHS waiting lists, we will not get people back into work. I would argue that the public sector and the private sector both have a role to play in enabling each other to flourish. It is not a question of “private sector good, public sector bad,” or the other way around; the two have to work hand in hand.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
For all the virtues of AstraZeneca, let us not forget that thousands of people suffered serious injury or death as a result of having the AstraZeneca covid-19 vaccines. Why, then, are the Government continuing to waste taxpayers’ money on indemnifying AstraZeneca against claims for civil liability brought by those victims of AstraZeneca vaccines?
Chris Bryant
I think the hon. Gentleman needs to speak to the hon. Member who spoke earlier—oh, he’s left. I actually believe that the vaccines saved lives; I do not believe that they lost people their lives. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman and I will never be united on that front.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
A pattern is forming around this not so new Government’s ability to negotiate effectively, from their disastrous approach to Chagos to the terrible deal with train unions and this latest debacle with AstraZeneca. Is it fair to say that when this Labour Government negotiate, Britain loses out?
Chris Bryant
It is almost sad, sometimes. I just wish the hon. Member had been here for the last 14 years. I wish he had been here when we had endless strikes in every single part of every Department and we could not get the NHS waiting lists dealt with because we were not paying our nurses and our doctors properly. The first thing that we did was a deal to get them back to work. The hon. Member thinks that somehow or other that is buying off the trade unions. It is not. It is making sure that the people who work in our public services are properly rewarded, get back to work and get this country back on its feet.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The Minister said that the numbers no longer added up for AstraZeneca, but in response to the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), he said that employer national insurance contribution increases were not a factor. How can both those things be right? When I speak to the local science sector and to businesses like Labcorp in my constituency, they say that employer NICs have a massive impact. Can the Minister really say in all honesty that he does not think that this Government’s changes to employer NICs had an impact on the deal?
Chris Bryant
First, let me clear up a point about national insurance contributions. I know that the Conservative party likes to bang on about them, but many people do not know that 50% of businesses and organisations in the UK will pay either exactly the same amount of national insurance or less. That fact is not often, if ever, repeated by Conservative Members.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asks whether AstraZeneca had cited national insurance contributions as a reason for withdrawing. It has not, so far as I am aware. I would not tell the House anything that I did not believe to be true.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his answers, and I have a respectful question. The axiom “it takes money to make money” is a foundational policy for many businesses but, for some of us in this place, another phrase comes to mind: “penny wise and pound foolish.” Saving a little now may help a lot in the future, so will the Minister kindly and respectfully explain how the Government intend to encourage long-term, renewable investment so that businesses can rely on the Government to fulfil their obligations? How will the Minister ensure that companies throughout this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland feel that growth and investment will be supported and fostered?
Chris Bryant
I could read out the long list of investments made in the last few months, except I do not think that Mr Speaker would let me. I do not think we have time, and you would get bored with me, Mr Speaker. The hon. Member makes an important point. At the moment, I am engaged in negotiations on a significant possible investment.
We must ensure that we are delivering value for money for the British taxpayer, and that we are not throwing money away unnecessarily. Of course, there comes a moment when we have to make a judgment, and we made a judgment that came remarkably close to the £90 million offered by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, despite the fact that AstraZeneca’s R&D contribution had gone down from £150 million to £90 million. We made a significant offer, but for whatever reason, it did not get it over the line.
Obviously, we always want to get deals over the line if we possibly can, and there are competing demands for different kinds of investment, but I assure the hon. Member that our aim is always to try to make sure that we are at the forefront of all the nations seeking such investment, especially in this kind of technology.
The hon. Member is right about Northern Ireland. I, as a Welshman, bang the drum for Wales, and he bangs the drum for Northern Ireland—and quite rightly so.
School Accountability and Intervention
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on this Government’s plans to reform school accountability.
Before I begin, I want to say that I am devastated to hear that a boy has died after a stabbing at a school in Sheffield. My heart goes out to his family, friends and the entire school community at this very distressing time. We are in contact with the school and the council to offer support, and investigations are under way. Nothing is more important than the safety of our children.
This Government are clear about the need to secure the very best education for our young people, and we are determined that our schools are reformed to deliver that ambition to enable every child to achieve and thrive. That reform begins at the very start of a child’s journey, with an early years system that sets up our children for the best start in life. That means brilliant schools, with excellent, qualified staff, driving high and rising standards in all parts of our country. It reflects our determination to ensure that we break, in the generations ahead, the unfair link between background and opportunity.
Like so many in this House, I know the value of a brilliant school because I went to one in the west end of Newcastle, in the north-east. My school set high standards for all its pupils. It nurtured my talents and love of learning, and it propelled me forward to university and a career in law. So I know full well that the system can work and that a good school can be an incredible force for good. My school set high standards and expected us all to aim high. High standards and high expectations are this Government’s vision for every child and every school in our country. We will set no ceiling on what children can achieve.
We must recognise that Members from all parts of the House, including David Blunkett and Michael Gove, have driven forward great educational reform. Reform has also been driven by the dedication and determination of teachers across the country. I benefited from the first statutory national curriculum, introduced by Lord Baker in 1988. The arrival of Ofsted and the common inspection framework brought far greater rigour to school inspections. Numeracy hour and literacy hour brought a clear focus to the impact and importance of high-quality teaching, in and of itself. Performance tables brought new transparency for parents, and SATs showed children’s attainment across key stages for the first time.
The sponsored academy programme, started by Labour and expanded by the Conservatives, has been instrumental in raising standards in many schools. Multi-academy trusts brought diversity, innovation and a drive for improvement to our schools. The focus on evidence and pragmatism was embodied in the Education Endowment Foundation. There was a switch to phonics in the wake of the Rose review, and a focus on a curriculum rich in knowledge. All of those reforms brought changes to our system, transforming the life chances of millions of children.
We understand, better than any previous generation, what works to drive up standards for children. We know, more clearly than ever before, that a great education for every child is not an impossible promise, but one that Governments can and must deliver. We are determined, more fiercely than ever before, to use that understanding and knowledge to take our schools forward. However, in the past decade, the ambition for excellence which had powered Governments from the left and the right, and the appetite for reforms that delivered better life chances for our children, have faded, and the system has drifted.
Conservative Members may not like hearing that, so let me remind them about this Government’s inheritance in July, which tells a less happy story: a third of children are finishing primary school without the reading, writing and maths skills they need; children with special educational needs are struggling to get the right support, after spending years in a system that is not serving them; the attainment gap, between those from well-off backgrounds and those who are less privileged, is shamefully wide; young people in London are 70% more likely to enter university compared with their peers in the north-east, where I went to school; and hundreds of thousands of children are in schools that are stuck, receiving poor Ofsted judgments year on year.
This Government are impatient for our children’s success. They get only one childhood, so we will not rest from ensuring that they get the best education they can and we will not tolerate our children being let down. We will not sit back and await changes in schools from governance changes alone. This Labour Government will stop at nothing to improve schools and children’s life chances. We can and must build on the legacy of reform, reignite the ambition for excellence and drive the change our children need, to push once more for high and rising standards in every school, and to break down the barriers to opportunity for every child.
A key part of that change must be a reformed and improved approach to both inspection and accountability that champions good practice, encourages collaboration in schools and, crucially, shines a light on all areas of strength and weakness. Today, the Department for Education and Ofsted are together setting out plans for a new era of accountability, and a renewed ambition for every child and every school. Schools that are stuck but have the capacity to improve must be supported and pushed to do so. We will get our new RISE—regional improvement for standards and excellence—teams, whose members are expert school leaders, in early. We will use them to facilitate faster improvement, using knowledge, experience and the reports of reformed, high-quality inspections to turn schools around. We will work to chart a path to progress, and intervene in way that is effective, bespoke and proportionate, making a difference as early as possible. Today, we are announcing over £20 million for the new RISE teams over the next 15 months. Our first 20 advisers are already in place. They will work with schools across the country to drive improvement and share best practice, because when one school fails, we have all failed the children of that school.
This new era of accountability will come with a new era of inspection. Single headline grades pushed our system on and brought proper scrutiny to our schools, but the time for change has come. They had become high stakes for schools but inadequate to drive the change that our children need—too blunt, too rough and too vague, leaving too many schools without a proper diagnosis and not clear on how to improve. We need a more diagnostic approach that is targeted and focused, raising the bar on what we expect from schools, with the ingredients of a great education each given their own grade, new report cards identifying excellence and shining a light on performance, clarity for parents, and challenge backed by support for schools.
Those diagnostics will drive our approach to improvement. The worst performing schools, whether local authority maintained or academies, will be moved to a strong trust. We will never flinch from bringing in new leadership when children’s life chances demand it, but in this new era of accountability we want schools to support each other. We will foster a self-improving system, where all seek to raise their standards. A proposed new top grade of “exemplary” will signal educational practice that is simply too good for schools to keep to themselves. When a school is awarded “exemplary” in any area, what it is doing should be shared across the country so that others can learn from the very best. Our quest for high and rising standards is universal. We want good schools to become great, and great schools to become even better, sharing their excellence along the way.
Reformed accountability will underpin everything else that we do in education, whether that is delivering better special educational needs and disabilities provision in mainstream schools, or getting to the bottom of the attendance crisis. Inclusion and attendance will both be part of raising standards across our schools.
The changes that we are making to accountability will draw on the wisdom of the entire sector. Today, the Department and Ofsted launch 12-week consultations, seeking the views of those who know the school system best—teachers, school leaders and parents—on the principles needed for inspection, support and intervention. Ofsted has already drawn on the findings of its Big Listen initiative to inform its approach to future inspections, but further action is needed. Ofsted’s consultation will seek the views of parents, carers, professionals and learners on how Ofsted conducts inspections and the way it reports them. The consultation includes proposals for new inspection methodology, alongside the proposed inspection framework, toolkits and report cards, to change how inspections look and feel for schools. Consultation and parental involvement are essential. Neither the Government nor Ofsted can drive up standards for children alone. We have excellent schools and trusts across our country, which have come about thanks to the hard work of school leaders, teachers and others, and reforms passed in this House. They have raised standards down the decades.
The Government believe that the best way to celebrate success is to multiply it, because where someone is born, their family, their city and their parents’ income should not determine their access to the life-changing power of a good education. The measures for school accountability that I have outlined will support and challenge every school to do better for its pupils, share its successes, and bring high and rising standards to every corner of the country, so that every child can go to a good local school, and look forward to a bright future. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I am grateful to the Schools Minister for advance sight of her statement, and I echo her words: our thoughts and prayers are with the parents of the 15-year-old boy whose life was so tragically cut short, and with the teachers and pupils at All Saints Catholic high school.
We are promised today a better and faster approach to school improvement, but what we have in front of us is a proposed system that is slower and weaker. The Secretary of State repeatedly talked about a new era today. It is a new era: one of regression, confusion and poorly thought out policy. We have had that consistently with the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill over the last few months. The Education Secretary said that the Bill did not cut pay. It did. The Government said that the Bill would not reduce school choice, yet their own impact assessment says that it does. Now we have a speech that says that academisation is a key driver of rising standards, yet the Government are taking away automatic academy orders in the Bill.
Once again with the Secretary of State, there is a gap between her rhetoric and the reality. The reality is weaker accountability, weaker standards and a slower response. The Minister, whom I respect, has been sent out in the place of the Secretary of State, who is happy to give a speech to a think-tank but not to the House, to try to sell the nonsense that the proposal will mean faster school improvement, when the Secretary of State’s own document released today shows an 18-month delay in turning around schools. Instead of immediate new management in a failing school, which is what happens at the moment, the Secretary of State proposes to get a team of Department for Education bureaucrats to come in for 18 months. Only after they make no improvements will the Education Secretary consent to actually getting a new team in place to lead the school. What will that mean? More children in failing schools for longer.
As the Minister says, we know what works to turn around failing schools. A good academy trust taking over a failing school is the best intervention we can make to turn schools around. There is no evidence whatsoever that the approach proposed today, with a delay and with a RISE team going in, will be any better. Can the Minister confirm that she has no evidence that her approach of delaying the academy order will be better? Can she point to where her proposed approach has been trialled effectively? It is unconscionable to foist a new system into place that is not evidenced and that will make things worse, not better.
The loudest criticisms of ending the automatic conversion of failing schools into academies do not even come from the Opposition, but from the Children’s Commissioner, a former schools commissioner, school leaders and even Labour MPs. A Government Back Bencher has said,
“making that process discretionary would result in a large increase in judicial reviews, pressure on councils and prolonged uncertainty, which is in nobody’s interests.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 902.]
I agree.
We have consistently seen that where the academy order is not mandatory, there are endless legal delays. Just last week, the Secretary of State revoked an academy order after the school threatened legal action. That is exactly what those who have raised concerns said would happen—it is utterly shameful. I ask the Minister: how many cohorts of children have to pass through a failing school before the Secretary of State will take action? How many children will they fail before they do something?
Academisation works—even the Government’s own impact assessment of the Bill admits that. But what is Labour’s much-anticipated grand alternative? New regional school improvement teams. What is in the place of expert academy trusts with proven leadership taking over schools? The Minister talked of 20 advisers. To put that in context, the Harris academy trust alone has over 90 expert staff focused on school improvement. Does the Minister really think that 20 people is sufficient? How does that compare with the number of people in the Department’s communications team, for example? What is happening to all the schools due to receive structural intervention from the beginning of this year? Are we replacing new management with vague advice? All this is doing is creating a weaker system and uncertainty and delay, and it is children from the most deprived areas who will suffer the most.
On Ofsted, the Government claim that parents and teachers wanted clarity. In response, we have moved from four to five ratings, multiple different categories, including one more for safeguarding, and no overall score. The new system being proposed today is complicated and pleases nobody. The Association of School and College Leaders has said that the new grading system is “bewildering”. What is the Minister’s response?
Another day, another chaotic reset attempt from this Government. It is educational vandalism, however they try to dress it up. The Children’s Commissioner said last week that the schools Bill would leave children
“spending longer in failing schools”.
Minister, she is right, isn’t she?
Catherine McKinnell
Perhaps the right hon. Lady would recognise the legacy that her Government left behind: schools crumbling, standards falling, a lose-lose-lose special educational needs and disabilities system, and a generation missing from England’s schools. It is no wonder that a shadow Minister admitted that they should hang their heads in shame over their record.
In little over 100 days, this Labour Government have moved education back to the centre of national life, with breakfast clubs in primaries, savings for families on uniform costs, nurseries for families, schools being rebuilt across the country, better pay for teachers, school report cards, the development of a broader and richer curriculum, and a child poverty taskforce to clean up the Tories’ mess.
Labour is delivering a new era for school standards, overhauling school inspection and accountability, and driving high and rising standards for every child in every school. We will create a one-stop-shop for parents with our new digital school profiles, and we will challenge the 600 stuck schools that have received consecutive “poor” Ofsted judgments. That is the new front in the fight against low expectations, and our RISE teams will spearhead the stronger, faster system, prioritising those schools.
On top of those measures, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will improve standards by getting excellent qualified teachers in every classroom to teach a cutting-edge curriculum so that parents know their child will get an excellent core offer. As part of our plan for change, we are giving every child the best start in life. That is the difference that a Labour Government will make.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chair of the Education Committee.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement, and I associate myself with her remarks about the tragic incident in Sheffield.
The consultations that the Minister has announced are being launched in the context of considerable pressures in our education system, particularly the crisis in the SEND system, which has far-reaching consequences for every part of the sector, and the serious problems in the recruitment and retention of teachers. The Education Committee has heard from stakeholders that accountability pressures can encourage exclusionary practices to maintain academic performance. School leaders regularly raise concerns that the lack of resources to meet the needs of children with SEND makes it hard for them to meet the needs of every child. How does the Department plan to safeguard children with SEND to ensure that accountability pressures on schools do not lead to exclusionary practices but instead promote inclusive approaches that support the needs of students with SEND?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on that issue. Improving the SEND system is clearly a focal point for delivering on our opportunity mission to break the link between background and opportunity. We have made a clear commitment to inclusive mainstream education. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill includes measures to give local authorities more levers on admissions, and Ofsted has made it clear that inclusion will be a key feature of inspection—not instead of high and rising standards, but as well as. She will know that we are keeping this matter under review. Our reform plans are in progress, and we will make further announcements on them in due course.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
May I associate myself with the Minister’s comments about the tragic stabbing in Sheffield? At this difficult time, our thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of the boy who was stabbed to death.
Ensuring that every child has the opportunity of an excellent education so that they can thrive is one of the most important jobs that a Government can do. School inspection and improvement have long needed reform, and we Liberal Democrats have been clear in our calls for the single-word Ofsted judgment to go. Those judgments simply do not give parents the information that they need to make well-informed decisions about what is right for their child, and they have fostered an adversarial culture that has failed schools, teachers and, in turn, our children.
However, a move away from single-word to multiple-word judgments will do little to bring about change on its own. We need a culture shift so that Ofsted, teachers, school leaders and parents are partners, rather than adversaries, in the process of school improvement and assessment. Is the Minister confident that these proposals will achieve that culture shift so that the inspector is seen as a critical friend rather than someone to be feared?
The Minister has spoken a lot in recent months about the importance of mainstream inclusivity in tackling the SEND crisis. Although the report card will take into account inclusivity—in the broad sense of that word—there is no dedicated assessment of how a school’s environment and provision cater to children and young people with SEND. Given how many thousands are missing out on the support that they need, and the importance of that issue to schools, should that element not be assessed on its own merits?
Finally, I am utterly incredulous that we are getting these announcements today, when we are halfway through the Committee stage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which makes a significant change to the school improvement regime. It cannot be right that this House is being asked to legislate a new approach to school improvement—namely, repeal of the duty to make an academy order for failing schools—without knowing the outcome of these consultations by Ofsted and the Government. The cart seems to have been put before the horse. School accountability and improvement is too important for changes to be made in this vacuum. I honestly expected better from this Government, and it is disappointing that parliamentary scrutiny—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Lady will know that she has well exceeded the allotted two minutes.
Catherine McKinnell
Following the end of headline judgments in September, Ofsted undertook the big listen, and listened very carefully to feedback on the way it conducts inspections while also reviewing the format for reporting on those inspections. I note the hon. Lady’s comments in that regard. In the new system that has been designed, that work has paved the way for the roll-out of school report cards. Subject to consultations—both the Government and Ofsted are very open to the views of the profession—they will be rolled out in September.
Alongside a reformed Ofsted, we are creating the RISE teams, comprised of leaders with a proven track record of improving school standards. Those teams will draw on bespoke improvement plans for stuck schools, with significant investment. The previous Government made £6,000 available for stuck schools; under this Government, it will be more like £100,000 per school to drive that improvement.
The hon. Lady’s comments in relation to SEND are well made. As I said to the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), that is something that Ofsted will be judging, looking specifically at inclusion as well as—not instead of—high and rising attainment standards in schools. The reformed accountability and improvement systems very much build on the work of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which will: require teachers to have, or work towards, qualified teacher status; ensure that all schools teach a cutting-edge national curriculum, following the curriculum and assessment review; and restore teaching as an attractive profession through a floor, but no ceiling, for pay and conditions.
All those reforms combined will drive high and rising standards and break down the barriers to opportunity for every child.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I appreciate all the work that my hon. Friend is doing, but the governance structures of multi-academy trusts lack transparency, not least to the local community. In some areas, their executive boards are choosing members and trustees, without the rigour of accountability. Will my hon. Friend ensure that mechanisms are available to allow far more robust scrutiny of multi-academy trusts, as well as the option to return those schools to the local authority?
Catherine McKinnell
As part of its proposed reforms, Ofsted will be looking at the leadership of schools, including their governance, because good leadership is clearly the route map to children’s success within them. We are legislating for all schools to have a duty to co-operate with local authorities on place planning and admissions to ensure we have a whole schools system that works together. We encourage collaboration by outstanding, excellent, exemplary schools—trusts in particular—that can share their expertise across the board: a collaborative schools system that serves the community and, where possible, ensures that every child has access to a good local school within their community.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
In my experience, parents have a pretty good instinct for what is a good school, and the great generator of progress has been the academy programme, with headteachers responding to what parents want. We should be giving them more freedom, not less. Is there not a danger that if we create highly complex Ofsted reports with league tables across 40 different areas, we will replace headteachers concentrating on what parents want with a tick-box culture focused on appeasing the man in Whitehall? The solution is not endless auditing but delivering what parents want.
Catherine McKinnell
I find the notion that parents will not be able to understand more information about their child’s school a bit insulting to parents, who care deeply about their children and their education. Parents tell us they want more information, not less. A one-word judgment does not adequately sum up a school. The Ofsted proposal is to report on nine different areas, all of which are key ingredients of a child’s education. That may enable schools that perform in an exemplary or a very strong way on some measures to be given due credit—where they are tackling attendance or behaviour issues—so that they can share best practice. This will be a self-improving system and we will recognise good practice, but we will target—laser-focused—areas that need to improve.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
In spite of the broken state of SEND provision in my constituency and across the country, I have had the real privilege of meeting some schools that are going above and beyond to support pupils with additional need, but not all schools, whether it in their approach to admissions, provision or exclusions, are being held to the same standards. As well as this Government’s welcome investment in SEND reforms, how will our changes to accountability ensure that every school is held to the highest possible standards on inclusion?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight inclusion, and that is one of the great opportunities presented. The report card system will look at a range of practice across a school, and inclusion is a part of the proposals. We need to see a more inclusive mainstream system, and better co-operation and collaboration at a local level to ensure that every child, regardless of their special educational need or disability, has access to the excellent education that will set them up to thrive.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
There seem to be a lot of narrative resets around in Government at the moment, but I must say that I for one was thrilled and refreshed to hear the hon. Lady speaking about school standards with pride. I was thrilled to hear her speaking about the role of year 6 assessments, phonics and multi-academy trusts in driving improvement. It is perhaps a good thing the Government Dispatch Box does not have wing mirrors, because not all her colleagues looked quite as excited as I was. I admire her bravery, but I say to her that with words must come deeds if she is serious about this. One thing she could do is excise from the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill those large elements of part 2 that undermine the freedoms and flexibilities for academies and academy trusts that have enabled such improvements to take place. Will she do it?
Catherine McKinnell
Our Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is a whole package of measures that will not only deliver landmark reforms to child safeguarding, but unleash the ability of all schools to collaborate and work together in operating under this new accountability system to drive high and rising standards. This will ensure that every child has the offer of a national curriculum, a qualified teacher in every classroom, and high and rising standards in every school in England.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for her statement, particularly considering the awful news she had to convey to this House. As a former teacher, I saw at first hand the damage that high-stakes single-word Ofsted judgments had on teachers and headteachers not just in my constituency of Harlow, but across Essex. I welcome this Government’s focus on raising standards in our schools, but does she recognise that under the previous Government there was far too much focus on stick rather than carrot when it came to supporting teachers? Any change to the Ofsted framework needs to support our hard-working teachers, whose mental health and wellbeing are rock bottom at the moment.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I commend him for his experience in the classroom, which is clearly valuable. We always want to encourage more teachers. Indeed, the whole reasoning behind these reforms is to create an accountability system that recognises good practice and identifies where improvements can be made, but also diagnoses how such improvements can be made and ensures there is the ability to create a self-improving system among our schools, so that they can support one another to drive forward those improvements in the interests of everybody. It is not about punishing schools; it is about supporting schools to create those improvements, which we know that they want and we want to see for children.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
Headteachers in my constituency of South Devon have expressed some disappointment today at the reform in the Ofsted regime; they said it offered the opportunity for fundamental reform but they do not see that. For example, there are no details on how inclusion will be measured, which we know is absolutely crucial for addressing the SEND crisis. As this is such a key part of the new inspection process, can the Minister assure the House that details of how inclusion will be measured will be made available while there is still time for meaningful consultation?
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Lady raises an important point and we absolutely want to hear from schools about how issues like inclusion can be successfully measured and incentivised and held accountable as part of this system. Along with the document Ofsted has produced today it has produced toolkits that set out its inspection framework, and I urge the hon. Lady and those in her constituency who are making representations to take a look. If additional issues are outstanding, of course she should get in touch.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for her statement and her commitment to driving up standards in all our schools—and I gently invite those on the Conservative Benches who seem to think that multi-academy trusts are a panacea for everything to take a look at the experience of my constituents in Hastings and Rye, where we have been spectacularly failed by some particularly bad academy chains. Nowhere is this rise in school standards more urgently needed than my constituency, where over half of young people leave school without the equivalent of a grade C in GCSE maths and English. Three out of three secondary schools in Hastings are currently rated as requiring improvement and at one of them, Ark Alexandra, 123 children left last term because they did not feel that school was meeting their needs. Will my hon. Friend urgently meet me to discuss these issues and how we can drive up school standards in Hastings and Rye?
Catherine McKinnell
I will happily meet my hon. Friend. I know she is committed to securing better outcomes for the schools and children in her area. We are making these reforms so that we can go further to make improvement better and faster. We want to add to the tools in our box to help schools improve. We are not taking anything away; we are only adding to the ability to ensure we get the change within our school system that far too many children desperately need.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
How many structural interventions does the Minister expect schools to get each year—not RISE interventions but structural interventions?
Catherine McKinnell
We expect the range of structural interventions to continue as currently, at least for the next 12 months, because we will continue to intervene where schools are causing concern and to mandate structural change. We will also continue to mandate it where significant improvements are required in schools. We will, however, see a doubling of the number of schools that need significant improvement through the RISE system; so we are not reducing the number of interventions that the previous Government undertook, but doubling the number of schools being helped and supported to improve.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement. In Telford there are five stuck schools. The rise in investment from £6,000 to potentially £100,000 per stuck school means that up to £470,000 of extra investment is coming the way of Telford schools. From speaking to my wife, who is a primary school teacher in Telford, I know that it is about not just money, but peer support and tapping into excellence and expertise. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the money, which is game changing, will also be accompanied by that extra support?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend has correctly identified that we see the future of school improvement as very much driven by a whole school self-improving system, where schools will support one another to drive that improvement. We are putting the extra money in place and we really want to be laser-focused on those 600 schools that have been stuck on far too low a rating for far too long, to ensure that the more than 300,000 children in them are supported as quickly as possible with improved outcomes. As my hon. Friend says about peer support, it is important that we tap into knowledge and expertise from trusts that we know are doing an excellent job.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
I have spoken to a number of headteachers in Maidenhead today, who have told me that what Ofsted is proposing is incredibly overcomplicated, makes “exceptional” seem out of reach and will be a blunt tool that will not allow schools’ individual identities to be taken into account. They still do not believe that anybody can accurately judge a school’s strengths and areas for improvement within two days. What does the Minister have to say to those headteachers, and will she meet me and Maidenhead heads to discuss?
Catherine McKinnell
I encourage those headteachers to feed back to Ofsted as part of the consultation process. Obviously, it is Ofsted’s consultation process. It determines the mechanisms by which it will undertake the new inspections, and it sets the framework. As the Department for Education, we are responsible for implementing the findings of an Ofsted inspection, but we are interested in making sure that it achieves what we want it to achieve, which is to drive high and rising standards. We are confident that the new framework will do that. The Department for Education also has its consultation document out on how we see the reforms working in practice. If the hon. Gentleman would like to meet and discuss that, I would be happy to do so.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome what my hon. Friend has said today. I recently visited Mile Cross primary school in Norwich, which is a shining beacon of what a local school can provide to its residents. Will she join me in paying tribute to the staff and pupils at Mile Cross? She touched on this in her statement, but how can we ensure that lessons in good practice are shared from primary schools such as Mile Cross, not just across the county, but across the country?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend is right to celebrate the good work being done by schools in her local area. We recognise that many schools, both in the trust sector and in the maintained sector, are working tirelessly day in, day out to deliver excellent outcomes for their children. Report cards will clearly identify what needs to improve, and it is important that they do so, but they will also encourage schools to work together to identify the exemplary practices that should be spread more widely. She is right to highlight the many examples in her area and to look forward to schools working across the system to drive improvement across the board.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
How will the selection of colour-coded performance areas on the report card be determined by the views and needs of parents as much as by Ministers and the education establishment? How do the exceptional schools that the Minister has described differ from the beacon schools that the then Labour Government created in 1998 and abolished in 2004?
Catherine McKinnell
The determination of the report cards is within Ofsted’s remit. It has launched its consultation. The right hon. Gentleman is invited to contribute to the consultation, and I encourage anyone within his local area to do so, too. We are open to feedback. In terms of the retro question, we are very much looking forward to how these reforms can support the Department for Education in its work to target reform where we know it is needed. Our system is not working well, and we know it needs to change. That is why we have introduced the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. It is why we are designing a school system that supports and challenges every school to deliver for every child. Between our reforms and those that Ofsted is consulting on—we welcome feedback and are open to it—we are confident that together we can deliver those high and rising standards for every child.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement and refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have had various roles in voluntary governance, including as chair of a multi-academy trust, as well as in maintained schools, pupil referral units, a faith school and a free school—the list is quite comprehensive—and I would just comment that the argument about pushing schools into one direction or another, whether wholly maintained or wholly academised, is bogus. I congratulate the Minister on focusing on the provisions of the statement about accountability and improvement and not getting diverted by that argument. I have participated in many Ofsted inspections over the years as part of my voluntary governance roles and I can attest to the hard work of all staff across all our schools and academies, as well as the stress that often accompanies—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Member will have to perfect putting a short question to the Minister. Perhaps another sentence will do.
Gurinder Singh Josan
Does the Minister agree that the new school report cards will need to balance the important additional information needed by parents with the requirement for school improvements and protecting staff wellbeing? Will she listen to parents and the whole education sector—
Catherine McKinnell
I thank my hon. Friend for his service, which is hugely important. We often do not recognise enough the work that governors undertake and the important role they play in our school system. We thank all school governors for their service and encourage more people to sign up.
In response to my hon. Friend’s initial comment, he may be interested to know that between January 2022 and December 2024, 40% of schools in a category of concern took over a year to convert to sponsored academies. That is too long. We need to intervene more quickly, which is why we will use the opportunity of a more diagnostic Ofsted report card to identify where improvements need to happen so that we can get in there with RISE teams much earlier—as soon as a school has failed its inspection—and no longer focus solely on structural intervention, as he said, but on however school improvement can be best undertaken.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
One of the most common areas of casework in Mid Dorset and North Poole involves children with special needs. Parents often cite awful experiences of children being manipulated out of school by those schools being made truly hostile places for them and by failures, often at a trust level, to provide even low-cost or no-cost changes, with parents completely ignored in the process. I am interested in understanding why the Minister has not included full accountability and judgments at multi-academy trust level in the reforms, because parents simply have nowhere to go when they need to complain and the problem is with the trust.
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Lady is right to highlight the issue and what she says sounds very concerning. We are looking at multi-academy trust level accountability and how parents can engage in the relationship with schools, ensuring that the proper lines of accountability are available. I will continue to keep that under review and will report on it in due course.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
Like the Minister, I am the product of a state school in the north-east, and I am tremendously proud of that fact. During the election, many teachers in Throckley, Hexham, Ponteland, Prudhoe and elsewhere told me on the doorstep that they felt the one-word judgment did not allow sufficient room for subtlety and nuance in the evaluation of schools, and parents felt the same. Will the Minister assure me that this is simply the first step in delivering the high and rising standards that we all need and expect for children across the country?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend spoke to my heart as he referenced areas of his constituency that I represented in this place for 14 years from 2010. He went to an excellent school in the neighbouring constituency. He is right that this really is the first step on the journey of improving our schools and making sure that every child has the best start in life and the best education possible.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
It is quite right that we measure the performance of schools since we spend billions of pounds on them every year and they affect the life chances of millions of children across the country. Will the Minister explain why she is introducing these new measures to improve standards in schools at the same time as jettisoning the academy system, which was designed to improve standards and disseminate changes to improve schools? What are the implications for individual schools in gathering, holding and presenting the data required to give the information for the nine sections and five different levels? How will she make all that comprehensible to parents?
Catherine McKinnell
I will answer the right hon. Gentleman’s three questions in reverse order. On the first, I think parents are perfectly capable of understanding a more complex report card than one word. I also disagree with his characterisation of the changes. We are very much about harnessing all the great things that academies have achieved, including the great reforms, improvements and innovations that they have pioneered. We want to spread that right across our school system. The purpose of the report cards is to shine a light on all that great practice so that it can be spread more widely, and to shine a particular spotlight on where improvement is needed, to deliver it as quickly as possible. How Ofsted will deliver is a matter for Ofsted, and if he wishes to respond to its consultation, I am sure his views would be welcome.
Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her remarks, particularly about the funding for regional improvement teams in schools. Two weeks ago, my constituents in Shinfield and Whitley received the devastating news that their local secondary school, Oakbank, had received its worst ever Ofsted report. Parents and former staff at that school have asked me how the Anthem schools trust, which has failed not just schools in my constituency but several others in recent years, can be held to account. Will the Minister set out how the new accountability framework will put in place safeguards against failing multi-academy trusts?
Catherine McKinnell
I share my hon. Friend’s concerns. I do not know the details of the specific school, but a school judged by Ofsted to require special measures will still receive structural intervention. If it is a maintained school, it will become an academy. If it is already an academy, which I believe this school is, it will be transferred to a new and stronger trust. In the shorter term, while the RISE teams are focusing on stuck schools and on building their capacity, a school requiring significant improvement will, by default, continue to receive structural intervention. We propose that from September 2026 a school in that category will receive mandatory targeted intervention from RISE. Schools will be supported much more quickly to drive those improved outcomes for children, without having to wait for structural intervention.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
My teachers in Esher and Walton have greeted today’s announcement with a degree of cynicism, which is to be expected after feeling ignored for the last 10 years. One wrote to me saying, “Same system, different name.” Another said, “Same old thing, just different words.” Will the Minister reassure them that this is not just business as usual? Might she expand on the levels of collaboration that she talked of?
Catherine McKinnell
I encourage the teachers mentioned by the hon. Lady to feed into the consultation. Let me allay some of their concerns. Although how it conducts its consultations and reports on its inspections is for Ofsted, as a Department we are very focused on creating a self-improving system of collaboration, using the new report cards to identify exemplary practice and share that more widely. That will identify where support is required and encourage schools to work in collaboratively to deliver it. RISE teams will bolster that targeted approach, particularly for stuck schools, which we know have been ignored for far too long. I hope that the teachers she referenced will feel more confident about the system, and I encourage them to respond to the consultation.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
The laser focus on stuck schools will be incredibly important for the life chances of children who have been failed for too long. I am pleased that the Government are putting their money where their mouth is, with up to £100,000 for each school. Ofsted research makes the point that in some unstuck schools, the role of MATs in raising expectations and developing curriculum subject expertise has been critical, but in others that have remained stuck, the MATs have not been effective and are not providing the right quality support. Will the Minister say more about how RISE teams can work with MATs to improve the support that they offer?
Catherine McKinnell
Children get only one childhood, so it matters deeply that they get to go to a great school while they are still children, which is why we are determined to deliver faster improvement to the schools that need it. While academisation has been successful in many places, it can be a slow process, and not all schools can be matched up with strong trusts, which is why we will utilise the RISE teams to support schools to work together, drive improvement and create that whole-system reform that we know children need to see.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her answers and welcome the Government’s decision to uplift accountability and transparency in the schooling sector. Could the Minister clarify what help and support will be offered to struggling schools to ensure that this accountability also brings about the improvements that are undoubtedly and clearly essential? Further to the question my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) asked on academy sector education, has the Minister had any discussions with her counterparts in Northern Ireland on the impact of decisions made in Westminster on the academy sector back home?
Catherine McKinnell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming today’s statement. We are very much strengthening the tools we can use for faster and more effective school improvement with the introduction of the new RISE teams. In addition, as he points out, the greater transparency and diagnostic approach of Ofsted reports will enable us to identify both where great practice is and where there is room for improvement. I will take away his question about the impact on other parts of the UK.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
Parents of SEND children in Gloucester will welcome today’s statement and the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on SEND and inclusion in our schools. Will the Minister confirm that the measures set out by this Labour Government will drive up standards for all children in Gloucester, and will she meet me and parents in my city, who have for years battled the broken system left behind by the previous Conservative Government?
Catherine McKinnell
I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. We wish to see a change in the drive towards an inclusive mainstream as part of this new Ofsted accountability system, and the changes in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bills will obviously support those endeavours. The curriculum and assessment review will also look at how barriers to inclusion can be removed in the curriculum and assessment system, and at how we can get high standards and expectations of great progress for all children, including those with special educational needs and disabilities.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I associate myself with the Minister’s earlier comments about the tragic events in Sheffield, where another young life has sadly been lost to knife crime.
Does the Minister agree that these landmark reforms will not only drive high and rising standards, but help in the recruitment and retention of teachers? Will she also confirm that we will engage fully with parents and teachers on the development of plans for school report cards?
Catherine McKinnell
I absolutely agree. High-quality teaching is the most important in-school factor for improving outcomes for children. We absolutely need to drive recruitment, but our greatest tool for recruitment is retention—we need to hold on to the fantastic teachers who are in our schools. A more holistic and broader picture of schools will shine a light on the great practice going on, the hard work and the context in which schools operate, and will deliver on the desire, which I know every teacher has, to deliver high and rising standards for the children in their care.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
I have worked closely with schools in some of the most disadvantaged parts of our country, and I have seen academy trust after academy trust fail to turn around schools in some of the most challenging circumstances, leaving behind some of our most disadvantaged learners. I welcome the Government’s commitment to support the turnaround with cash, with £100,000 being made available as compared with the £6,000 that was previously provided. Does that not show the difference in the importance placed by Labour on turning around failing schools compared with the Tories?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend puts it very well. We absolutely need to be laser-focused on schools that have consistently underperformed but have not received the support, help or intervention they need to succeed. We will be laser-focused on supporting those schools to achieve the outcomes that we know they want to achieve for their children but just need the support to do so.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to overhauling Ofsted, and particularly the commitment to ensuring that SEND is at the heart of every school, because a truly outstanding school is one that has inclusivity at the heart of everything it does. Will the Minister commit to listening, through the consultation, to the parents and carers of SEND kids, to ensure that they are at the heart of the reforms the Government are delivering?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend advocates very powerfully for the families in his area who have been struggling with a SEND system that is clearly in need of reform. The changes that Ofsted and the Department are proposing are designed to create a more inclusive and effective schools system for all children, including those with special educational needs and disabilities. Indeed, we will continue to listen to their voices as we plan our reforms.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for her statement. I recently met headteachers in my community who detailed the challenges they face: SEND, recruitment and retention, and persistent absence. Will the Minister set out how the Government’s reforms will start to remedy those issues and break down the barriers to opportunity for children and young people in my constituency? Does she agree that the reforms are an important step in fixing the damage inflicted on our education system by the Conservative party over the past 14 years?
Catherine McKinnell
I absolutely recognise the challenges that my hon. Friend sets out. Many schools right across the system, whether local authority maintained or academies, face similar challenges. The report card system will be a really important reflection of a whole school’s experience, and will laser-focus on areas such as attendance and inclusion, creating toolkits to enable schools to know the standards they need to reach, but also enabling schools to work together collaboratively, supporting one another to achieve those outcomes for children. We are not in the game of punishing schools; we are in the game of supporting them to bring about the change that we know they want to see.
Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
I have visited more than a dozen schools in my constituency since being elected, and I am always overwhelmed by the passion of the teachers who have to work in really trying circumstances. They are often very under-resourced to deal with children who are ill-prepared for school and a growing caseload of children with special educational needs, so I really welcome the additional investment with the RISE teams. As the Minister will know, Conservative Members are fond of quoting our improvement in the PISA rankings, which is the legacy of the generation who experienced Sure Start—where children had a Sure Start centre nearby, that generation achieved 0.8 grades higher at GCSE. What will the Government do to ensure that we have more children coming to school who are prepared for school?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend has very much diagnosed the challenge. We have a persistently and stubbornly high disadvantage gap, where we know that children are leaving primary school without the fundamentals of reading, writing and maths. That goes on to impact their outcomes in secondary school, but we know that starts at the very earliest stage. That is why we are investing in the early years, speech and language therapy, and nursery provision. We are absolutely determined to improve the early learning development goal outcomes for children and give every child the best start in life.
Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement, but in my constituency GCSE results are among the lowest in the country and a quarter of pupils are classed as persistently absent. What message does the Minister have for children, parents and teachers about plans to drive high and rising standards to provide more and better opportunities in my constituency?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for the children in her area, and she is absolutely right to champion better outcomes. We know that the journey towards not achieving the grades that children should achieve starts at the earliest stage, which is why, as I have said, we are investing in the early years. The Ofsted report cards will shine a light on the issue of attendance—we know that children cannot get a great education if they are not at school to get it, and attendance must be a priority for schools—but we recognise the challenges, so we want to support schools to be able to achieve better attendance figures, and we will do so by diagnosing those challenges and putting in place the self-supporting schools system that can drive those better outcomes.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
The Harris Federation has just revealed that its chief executive’s pay is in excess of half a million pounds a year. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need much more transparency and accountability when it comes to the excessive pay of some multi-academy trust leaders?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I will take it away and look at it.
David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)
Under the last Government, most schools in my constituency suffered real-terms funding cuts and child poverty increased by more than 50%. Reform of the inspection system is needed and is welcome, but does the Minister agree that the key to children doing well and good outcomes being measured is investment and support for the families of children from pre-birth onwards, as well as fair funding for all our schools?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has not only diagnosed the problem, but recommended a solution. We have established a child poverty taskforce, chaired by the Secretary of State for Education along with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to take a fundamental look at the levers that we have in Government to support children so that they no longer grow up in poverty, which we know is affecting their outcomes both in education and in life.
Points of Order
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 30 July I wrote to the Treasury on behalf of a constituent. Despite having chased that up twice, I am still awaiting a response, 130 days later. Similarly, on 29 October I wrote to the Treasury about a budgetary matter, and was told on 30 January that my query was being transferred to the Department for Education—a delay of 65 working days. What advice can you give me on how to elicit a response from Ministers?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the right hon. Member for her point of order and for advance notice of it. It is, of course, disappointing to hear of these delays, which will have been noted by those on the Government Front Bench. If she requires further advice, I am sure that the Table Office will be happy to provide it.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), I am experiencing difficulties in getting responses from the Government. Back in November, along with other right hon. and hon. Members, I wrote to the Chancellor about budgetary measures, but we did not receive a reply. I raised that on 3 December —during Treasury questions—and again on 27 December, and I chased the Government further on 14 January, but we have still received no response. A food business in my constituency wanted some support with exporting last summer. We chased the Government on 5 August, 24 September, 12 November, and 6 and 28 January, but we have received no response.
Finally—this is my final example, rather than the final response that is missing; I could give many more examples—a constituent had a problem involving vehicle excise duty, so I wrote to the Government on 4 October. Again, despite that being repeatedly chased, there has been no response. What on earth can Members do? Either the Government do not know the answers, or they have complete disrespect for the House, its Members and my constituents in not providing them.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for her point of order. She will have heard me say earlier that this is not a matter for the Chair, but she has taken the correct steps by raising it during questions and on other occasions. Like the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), she could take advice from the Table Office, and those on the Government Front Bench will certainly have heard her concerns.
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill
Monday 3rd February 2025
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill 2024-26 View all Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
20:50 - The House divided: - Ayes: 343 / Noes: 87 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The reasoned amendment has not been selected.
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Liz Kendall)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill will help deliver the biggest ever crackdown on fraud against the public purse, which has now reached an astonishing £55 billion a year. That includes fraud against our public services, such as by those who abuse the tax system; fraud by dishonest companies that use deception to win public contracts and manipulate invoices; and benefit fraud by criminal gangs and individuals, which now stands at a staggering £7.4 billion a year.
There have always been people who commit fraud against the state—tragically, this is not a new problem—but at a time when families across the country are working so hard to pay their bills and put food on the table, when more than 7 million people are stuck in pain and discomfort on NHS waiting lists, and when a shameful 4.3 million children in Britain are growing up poor, it is simply unforgiveable that the Conservatives allowed fraud to spiral out of control. During their 14 long years in government, they failed to put in place a proper plan to crack down on fraud, and there is no better symbol of this than their failure to update the powers of the Department for Work and Pensions to properly crack down on benefit fraud. Just let that sink in for a moment.
Over the last decade, fraudsters have become increasingly sophisticated in the techniques that they use to steal people’s money, using data, technology and all manner of scams. In response, banks and other companies have transformed their ability to spot and stop fraud, and to protect their customers’ money, but the last Government completely failed to do the same for taxpayers. In all their time in power, and with all the developments in technology and the ability to share data and information, they failed to update the DWP’s powers. The Conservatives will no doubt claim that they did introduce measures, but, in truth, they put forward one poorly thought-through measure that was tagged on to another Bill at the tail end of the last Parliament, without any of the proper safeguards or oversight in place. Today, all that changes with our new fraud Bill.
This Bill is tough and it is fair. It is tough on the large companies and dodgy businessmen who try to defraud our public services, it is tough on the criminal gangs and individuals who cheat the benefit system, and it is fair to claimants who make genuine mistakes, by helping us to spot and prevent errors earlier. Taxpayers deserve to know that every single pound of their hard-earned money is being spent wisely and that benefits are there only for those who need them, not fraudsters who take advantage.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Ind)
The Secretary of State is absolutely correct to say that we need to pursue criminal gangs that are engaged in widespread organised theft. I put a written question to the Department for Work and Pensions to ask about the amount lost through personal independence payment fraud, and I was told that only 0.2% of such claims were fraudulent in 2022-23. Does the Secretary of State agree that as we pursue organised criminal gangs, it is really important that we make it clear that there cannot be a hostile approach to disabled people claiming PIP or disabled people more widely who are using the benefits system as they deserve to?
Liz Kendall
People who are genuinely entitled to claim benefits have nothing to worry about from this Bill, but we believe that the £7.4 billion wasted every year through benefit fraud must be cracked down on.
To the corrupt companies with their dodgy covid contracts, to the organised criminal gangs and to every single individual knowingly cheating the system, our message today is clear: we will find you, we will stop you and we will get our money back.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
No one denies that there are those who are blatantly cheating the system, as I referred to in my oral question to the Secretary of State earlier today. On her point about fair play, however, can she give an assurance to me and to the House? I am concerned that if officials in the Department seek out low-hanging fruit, people who have a genuine disability could be denied their rights. I am concerned about the anxiety, the depression and the physical effects that that might cause.
Liz Kendall
Actually, the Bill will do the precise opposite. Through the measures relating to the Public Sector Fraud Authority, we are saying to the large companies and corporations and to the individuals cheating, “We will treat you equally. We do not allow fraud against the public purse. We want to stop it and get our money back.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Liz Kendall
I will make a bit of progress.
I want to start by setting out the measures in the Bill that give the Public Sector Fraud Authority the powers that it needs—further to the point that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) rightly raised—to fight modern fraud across the public sector on behalf of Government Departments and public bodies.
Liz Kendall
I will set this out first. The Bill will provide the authority with new powers to obtain search warrants, to enter premises and seize evidence as part of fraud investigations, to compel businesses and individuals to provide information where there is a suspicion of fraud, and to enable it to better detect and prevent payments made as a result of fraud or error. It will also bring in new debt recovery powers, so that we can get public money back for taxpayers, and new financial penalties that the PSFA can use as an alternative to often lengthy criminal prosecutions.
What happened during the pandemic was completely unacceptable, with billions of pounds squandered by the Conservatives on dodgy deals with their covid cronies. This Bill will help us to get that money back. It will double from six to 12 years the time limit for civil claims to be brought in alleged cases of covid fraud, giving the PSFA and our new covid counter-fraud commissioner more time to investigate complex cases relating to those who exploited a national emergency for personal profit.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I have spent more than a decade studying fraud and error in the DWP. The Secretary of State is right that levels of fraud have been intransigently high, but my concern is about where there are errors. Quite often, they are made by the Department. My constituent received a £5,000 overpayment. Will the Secretary of State make it clear to the House that people in that situation will not have money taken out of their bank account, and that they will be treated properly if there is a small error on their side or a big error by the Department?
Liz Kendall
I will come on to that point in a moment, but I have the utmost respect for my hon. Friend. In fact, I think that the measures in the Bill will help us to spot such errors and prevent them from happening in the first place. People make genuine mistakes. We do not want them to build up errors and build up debt that they have to repay. I think that the Bill is part of solving that problem. I will say more about that in a moment.
I turn to fraud and error specifically in our welfare system. The Bill will modernise and extend the DWP’s anti-fraud powers, bringing it into line with other bodies such as His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, so that we can use technology and data to find and prevent fraud more quickly and effectively; so that our serious and organised counter-fraud investigators have the powers they need to search premises and seize evidence, including from criminal gangs, and bring offenders to justice; and so that we can ensure that when people owe us money and, crucially, when they can pay, we get that money back for taxpayers. That all comes with strong and new safeguards and with independent oversight on the face of the Bill, as I will set out in detail.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
As my right hon. Friend mentioned, the Conservatives did not do much on this issue except tagging on a Bill at the very end of their tenure. The Information Commissioner’s Office was very critical of the approach taken in that fraud Bill. Can she reassure the House that she has addressed those concerns?
Liz Kendall
I can indeed reassure the House. The Information Commissioner was rightly critical of the last measure introduced by the Conservatives—the third-party data measure. He has written to us today, and we will make sure that his letter is published. He says that he has reviewed our proposals and is very clear that the current measure more tightly scopes the type of information that can and cannot be shared; specifies much more clearly those in the power’s scope; requires a statutory code of practice before measures are taken; and includes a requirement for the Secretary of State to appoint an independent person to carry out reviews of these functions. I am more than happy to publish that and share it with the House, because I think it shows the changes this Government are making.
We are serious about getting these measures through. We understand people’s concerns, and we have addressed them. The Information Commissioner’s letter should reassure the House.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend has the House’s wholehearted support in pursuing the recovery of funds taken by fraud and error. The National Audit Office estimates that, in the last financial year, £39 billion of tax revenue was not received due to fraud and error, compared with £7 billion in overpaid benefits classed as fraud, which we want to pursue. Can she reassure the House that an appropriate level of resources will be targeted at recovering this large sum of money, which will bring better dividends back to the Treasury?
Liz Kendall
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue, which he knows the Chancellor and the Treasury team are looking at seriously. The clear message from this Government is, “If you are getting money to which you are not entitled or owe money to the taxpayer through either unpaid taxes or fraud, that is wrong.” We treat everything the same, large or small. We believe in our public services and our social security system, and we want people to know that every single penny of their money is wisely spent and goes to those in the greatest need.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
As a Member of the party that introduced the state pension, I am behind the Government on this Bill because we all want to cut down on tax fraud and evasion. But I am concerned that pensioners are included under this blanket of Government scrutiny, and it seems that the only thing they have done to deserve it is to get a bit old.
Liz Kendall
One of the new measures introduced by the Bill, the eligibility verification measure, explicitly excludes the state pension. I reassure the hon. Lady on that point.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
In places like Telford, it is a basic principle that people pay into the system and then take out of the system, or their neighbours do, when they are in need. The companies and individuals that are defrauding national benefits are often also defrauding local authority benefits and schemes. Will we extend these powers so that local government is able to work with national Government to pursue this fraud?
Liz Kendall
I reassure my hon. Friend that local authorities will be able to put examples to the Public Sector Fraud Authority for scrutiny. The new powers introduced by the Bill will enable the PSFA to crack down on precisely those issues.
Liz Kendall
I will crack on a little, and then I will be happy to take an intervention.
I will now spell out each of the Bill’s measures in turn. First, there are powers to investigate potential fraud. The Bill will mean that, for the first time, the DWP’s serious and organised crime investigators will be able to apply to a court for a warrant to enter and search the premises of suspected fraudsters and criminal gangs to seize items for evidence, such as computers and phones. At the moment, our investigators have to rely on the police to do this. The Bill will enable us to act much more quickly to gather evidence, to take control of and speed up investigations, while also freeing up police time. These powers will be used only when approved by the courts, and the police will continue to be responsible for arresting suspects.
Secondly, the Bill will update the DWP’s information-gathering powers for investigating fraud. At the moment, we have the power to require information from only a limited list of third parties. This does not include key organisations and sectors that could help to prove or disprove suspected fraud, such as airlines.
To add to that, there is limited ability to require responses to requests to be sent electronically. Instead, quite unbelievably, they have to be sent in writing or physically collected, which is time consuming and cumbersome, to say the least. That limitation on our powers completely underlines how the changes in the Bill are long overdue, and the lack of action by the previous Government. The Bill widens who the DWP can compel information from, and it will enable us to require the information to be provided digitally by default.
Thirdly, our new eligibility verification measure will enable us to require banks or other financial institutions to provide crucial data to help identify incorrect benefit payments people might be getting, including fraudulently, such as if someone has too much in savings, making them ineligible for a benefit, or if they are fraudulently claiming benefits abroad when they should be living in the UK. People should not be getting benefits they are not entitled to, and the alerts will make the process of identifying potential fraudsters much simpler, quicker and easier.
However, we know that people lead busy lives and sometimes genuine mistakes happen. The measure will help there too, by finding and putting errors right quickly, preventing people from building up large debts that they then need to repay. I am absolutely determined to reduce benefit mistakes by stopping them from happening in the first place and to avoid debts building up, with all the worry and distress that causes. That is why I have launched the independent investigation into the overpayment of carer’s allowance, in order to learn lessons about what went wrong and ensure that does not happen again.
I want to stress to the House that, under our eligibility verification measure, the DWP will not be able to access people’s bank accounts or look at what they are spending. We will not share any personal information with banks. Once an alert has been issued, any final decision about someone’s benefits will always be taken by a human being and the state pension will be excluded from the measure. There will also be independent oversight of the power on the face of the Bill, with the requirement to produce reports and lay them before Parliament, which I will say more about in a moment.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Minister is outlining the actions she intends to take to ensure that errors do not happen and that humans will conduct any reviews. However, once a decision has been made—whether the error was genuine or not, the person should not have received the money—the Bill sets out that the person is still subject to all the measures that would be imposed on people who have deliberately engaged in fraud. That is the real worry. Despite the Secretary of State’s assurances, errors will still be made. Judgments will have to be made about whether the money, given in error, is recoverable, and if it is recoverable, it will be treated as if that were fraud.
Liz Kendall
No, it will not be treated in the same way. There is much more we can do to use technology to prevent genuine mistakes and errors building up in the first place, but we also have to use all the technology and information-sharing abilities we have to crack down on fraudsters who will use anything they can to try to defraud the system. I will come to the wider safeguards in the Bill towards the end of my speech, but my hon. Friend the Minister for Transformation and I will be more than happy to talk to the right hon. Gentleman in more detail about any other concerns he may have.
Ben Maguire
I am interested to hear about the measures in the Bill relating to local authorities and public authorities. Has the Secretary of State considered expanding remit of the Public Sector Fraud Authority to investigate cases of serious mismanagement of funds by local authorities, such as the recent botched sale of Newquay airport by Conservative-controlled Cornwall council, which reportedly cost Cornish taxpayers over £1 million in consultancy fees and the like?
Liz Kendall
The hon. Gentleman has made his point simply and clearly. The Bill is about tackling fraud and people who have defrauded the public purse. I am sure his local newspaper will write his comments up very clearly.
The fourth chapter of part 2 of the Bill is about widening our ability to punish fraudsters using a financial penalty as an alternative to seeking prosecutions. At the moment, we can issue financial penalties only in cases of benefit fraud. The Bill extends our ability to use them in cases of fraud against any type of DWP payment—for example, if we had any future scheme like the kickstart employment scheme. That will ensure that more fraudsters committing a wider range of fraud can be dealt with swiftly without going to court.
Last but not least, the Bill gives the DWP more power to get back public money that someone owes in cases where they can repay it but repeatedly refuse to do so. This power does not cover people on benefits or in payrolled employment, because money can already be recovered through the social security or pay-as-you-earn systems, but for people who have moved off benefits and are not on PAYE—for example, because they are self-employed or now living off savings—the Bill will enable the DWP to request the bank statements of people we know owe us money but who have repeatedly refused to engage with us, to verify that they have sufficient funds to repay. We can then recover the money from their bank account through either a one-off lump sum or regular deductions. That will be done in a fair and manageable way, with time for the person to make any representations and the right to appeal.
As a last resort, if someone owes us more than £1,000 and continues to repeatedly refuse to engage with us and agree how they will pay the money back, we can go to court and get an order to disqualify that person from driving for up to two years. This is the same power that the Child Maintenance Service has been able to use for the last 25 years in cases where a parent repeatedly refuses to make payments to support their child. In considering a disqualification order, a court will always check whether the person needs a driving licence for work, because taking it away would be totally counterproductive if they do, and look at other reasons why a license may be essential, such as if the person is disabled or a carer. The measure is for people who have repeatedly refused to engage with the system. It is an important power that the DWP should have to bring people to the table for a discussion about how they will repay the money that they owe. We are clear that someone keeping public money to which they are not entitled is serious, and will result in serious consequences.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for outlining some of the Government’s thinking behind clause 91. Will she elaborate on whether the Government have considered the fact that such a disqualification would have a disproportionate impact on somebody living in a remote area, compared with those in more urban areas, where there is much greater access to public transport?
Liz Kendall
As I said, the court will always look at whether the person needs a car for their job, but we cannot say that people are allowed to get away with fraud in different parts of the country. This is about getting money back. The measure is for people who have repeatedly refused to engage with us, and who we know have the money to repay what they owe. We can bring them to the table and have a discussion about that repayment. I think that most members of the public would think that that is totally reasonable and fair, and that is the new power that we will have.
Let me turn to the strong new safeguarding measures in the Bill. First, as I have said, there will be independent oversight in the Bill for the eligibility verification measure, and new powers for the DWP and the Public Sector Fraud Authority to investigate fraud. I will appoint an independent person to oversee how the EVM is being used and its effectiveness. The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Queen’s Park and Maida Vale (Georgia Gould), will also appoint an independent person to review the use of the PSFA measures. Both will be required to provide reports to the Government, which will be published and laid before Parliament. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services will oversee the investigation powers of the DWP and the Public Sector Fraud Authority. Any complaints about the use of the new search and seizure powers in the Bill will be referred to the Independent Office for Police Conduct.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
This is a genuine question on the power to request information: will the DWP be able to request information from charitable organisations that are perhaps providing support to people, or from Members of Parliament, who may be providing support to constituents who come through our door?
Liz Kendall
The eligibility verification measure is for banks and financial institutions. It has been tightly defined, which is one of the reasons the Information Commissioner has written his response now. The last Conservative Government just referred to third-party data. That was not a serious proposal, narrowly defined with proper independent oversight. We want the legislation to pass and be used proportionately and effectively. That is why we have included the proposals as drafted.
The second important point is that there will be a statutory code of practice on how the powers can be applied, which we will consult on during the passage of the Bill, to clearly define the scope and limitations. Thirdly, there will always be vulnerability checks for each individual under the new debt recovery powers to ensure that people are not forced to pay back money that they cannot afford. Last, but by no means least, final decisions affecting benefit entitlement will always be made by a human being. Those decisions will sit alongside the right to reviews and appeals—no ifs, no buts. Put together, I believe that those new safeguards will provide the reassurance that the public and some Members of this House need that the Bill’s powers are proportionate, safe and fair.
The Bill delivers the biggest upgrade to the DWP’s anti-fraud powers in more than 14 years. It brings in new powers to tackle fraud right across the public sector by empowering the Public Sector Fraud Authority, and not before time. Our approach is tough but fair: tough on criminals who cheat the system and steal from taxpayers; tough on people who refuse to pay back money; fair on claimants, by spotting and stopping errors earlier, helping to avoid people getting into debt; fair on those who play by the rules and rely on the social security system; and fair on taxpayers, by ensuring that every pound is spent wisely, responsibly and effectively on those who need it. We were elected on a mandate for change, and that is what the Bill will deliver.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
A strongly held Conservative principle is that public money must not be wasted. We hold this view not because we are mean, but because the Government do not have money of their own. What they have, they raise through taxation from all of us. A tiny fraction of every penny that they spend is yours, mine and everyone else’s who pays in. Those who spend public money have a duty to spend it wisely, and ensure that it ends up only with those who should have it, for the purpose for which it was intended. In a big, complex system of government in a country of nearly 70 million people, from time to time that will not happen for a range of reasons—from a form that has been accidentally filled in with the wrong information, or a change of circumstance that someone forgot to notify the jobcentre about, to serious organised fraud—but however taxpayers have lost out, it is incumbent on the state to do all that it can to get their money back. That is what taxpayers rightly expect. It is part of the unwritten contract for collecting that money in the first place. Therefore, it will be no surprise to hear that, in principle, we support the Bill’s aim. In fact, much of the Bill continues work that we did in government, and legislation that was interrupted by the election.
It is important to put what we are discussing today in context. Before the pandemic, fraud and error across the DWP benefits and tax credit system was at a near record low, but then we had two national crises—first, the pandemic, then war in Ukraine—which piled huge cost of living pressures on families across the UK. During both, we acted rapidly. We set up never-seen-before systems of support in record time. We protected millions of people’s jobs. We paid half of everyone’s energy bills for a year. We got direct payments to the people who needed them the most. I am proud of what we did, and I think that history will look back kindly on how we supported people through those times, but the truth is that when we do something fast at a moment of crisis, that inevitably opens up new vulnerabilities in the system. Disappointingly, against a national spirit of getting through hard times together, some people saw it as a chance to make a quick buck, and we saw a material increase in the amount being lost to fraud within the system. Any and all of us could spell out better uses for that money. That is why, back in May 2022, we published our plan, “Fighting Fraud in the Welfare System”. We increased the number of frontline counter-fraud professionals in the DWP, created a new Public Sector Fraud Authority and started work on new legal powers to investigate and punish fraudsters. It was a good start. In 2022-23, fraud and error were cut by 10%. We saved £1 billion through the Department’s dedicated counter-fraud activities. The next year we upped that to £1.35 billion, exceeding the £1.3 billion target, yet we were still not satisfied.
In May last year, we published a second fraud plan to save £9 billion by 2027-28, which included hiring more staff to check claims for accuracy, modernising information-gathering powers, broadening the penalty system and investing £70 million in advanced data analytics. In April, we announced plans for a new fraud Bill to align DWP investigations with HMRC, treating benefit fraud like tax fraud and giving investigators new powers to make seizures and arrests. When the general election was called, the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill had already passed through the House of Commons. The Bill included the powers the Government are introducing today to require third parties, such as banks, to provide relevant information to the DWP. To the extent that this Bill continues that work, I do not envisage substantial disagreement—albeit we have questions on how the law will work in practice. I also have serious concerns about the powers that the Cabinet Office is giving itself.
Before I deal with those, let me say that I recognise the concerns that people have about the state getting too much information about their finances. Privacy should never be taken lightly. I do not want to live in a country where the Government can access our bank accounts and look at what we have been spending our money on, and I would not support a Bill that would allow the Government to do that, but I believe that it is right for the DWP to learn lessons from HMRC to recoup taxpayers’ money. The fact of the matter is that if someone receives money from the state, it is not unreasonable for the state to investigate if there are signs they are taking money that they should not be.
As I said, I have some questions about how the social security powers in the Bill will be put into practice, and I expect to probe those matters further as the Bill progresses. For instance, on the role of banks, how much testing has been done of the systems that they expect to use? The Horizon scandal is a recent reminder of how computer systems do not always get it right. What progress has been made on the code of conduct, and when will we see it? I also note that no impact assessment has been done on the cost to banks. Has the Minister met the sector and discussed what the changes mean for it? I know there are concerns within the sector about the lack of detail brought forward by the DWP. If the maximum level of scrutiny allowed under the Bill is demanded by the DWP, how would that work in practice for banks and what would it cost?
On the sanctions that can be meted out under the Bill, we support the Department for Work and Pensions being given further powers to pursue recovery outside of benefits and PAYE, but are the measures outlined in the Bill tough enough? Why is 40% the maximum amount of someone’s capital that can be reclaimed? Allowing for hardship, which the Bill does, why should someone potentially keep the majority of their ill-gotten gains?
It is not clear how the Bill intends to treat carer’s allowance overpayments, which I know from my time as Care Minister are complicated and often accidental, though unfortunately not always. None the less, they are a loss to the taxpayer that should be investigated. We would like to understand in more detail how the savings we are told to expect from the Bill will accrue. How many people does the Government think that will affect, and what proportion is it of the fraud currently being perpetrated? I was concerned the other day to see reports in the media of a number of artificial intelligence schemes being quietly shelved in the Department. It is noticeable that the plans rely heavily on human labour to root out fraud. While I know the Government have to create jobs somehow, I would be interested to hear what consideration has been given to automating some of the processes in future. That too will help ensure that taxpayers’ money does not go to waste.
I come to my main area of concern, which is the powers being given to Cabinet Office Ministers and the Public Sector Fraud Authority. I know what it is like to make legislation thinking that I, as a good person, would only use it wisely, but I also know what it is like to be wrongly investigated by a public authority on the grounds of a misleading newspaper article. Looking at the investigatory powers bestowed in chapter 2 of the Bill, how could one not be worried to see a Minister being given powers, with little oversight, to compel a person to release whatever information they wish, in any format demanded, within 10 days, along with the information of anyone connected to them, on any grounds that the Minister deems “reasonable”—and to disclose that information to whomever they think necessary, with the sole right of appeal being only to that Minister? It could be impossible for someone to comply within the timeframe given, yet the Bill includes fines set at £300 a day for missing the deadline.
Of course the Government should go after fraudsters, but I worry that some of that power could be abused and that, in its current form, it may breach laws on the state taking someone’s property without due process. I would be interested to hear if experts in the legal sector have been consulted on the legislation as drafted. Have Ministers engaged with the Law Society, the Bar Council or, for that matter, organisations like Liberty and Justice?
In the Department for Work and Pensions and the Cabinet Office, it is right to pursue fraudsters with the full might of the law, but the ends cannot justify all means and the process must always be fair, reasonable and proportionate. I look forward to further discussions on the detail of the Bill, and I am sure that colleagues in the other place will be preparing for that, too.
In the meantime, we must not let the Bill distract from the elephant in the room. For every penny the Bill will save—welcome though that is—it will do nothing about the billions of pounds that will be racked up in sickness benefits under this Labour Government. It is staggering that they did not come into office with a plan. They have done nothing to halt the tide in the seven months they have been in office, and I hear that they have shelved some of the work we handed over. We have heard not a murmur about what they will actually do, just briefing after briefing to the papers. Why not bring an actual plan to Parliament rather than talking to the papers? I suspect you, Madam Deputy Speaker, might agree with me on that point.
We had a plan—where is theirs? Every day the Government scramble about without a plan costs taxpayers millions. Fraud and error in the system is a problem, and I am pleased to pledge the Opposition’s support for tackling them, but let us not use this Bill as a distraction from the big issue. We all agree that the welfare system needs reform. Let us end the briefings and have some action.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I call the next speaker, I just want to make it clear that after the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), I will call the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling).
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
It is absolutely right that fraud against the taxpayer, whoever it is by, is detected, that money is recovered and that future fraud is prevented. We saw fraud during covid when, for example, the abuse of the bounce back loan scheme cost the taxpayer nearly £5.5 billion. There was also covid-related contract fraud, such as the purchasing of unusable personal protective equipment, which was outrageous.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) mentioned, the National Audit Office identified six areas of fraud risk against the public sector, estimated to cost the taxpayer between £55 billion and £85 billion. They are grant fraud, which is the misappropriation or misuse of grant money; service user fraud, which we have focused on today; procurement and commercial fraud; income evasion; internal fraud and corruption; and regulatory fraud.
In its 2023-24 annual report and accounts, the DWP estimated that it made overpayments—including fraud and error—of £9.7 billion out of the £269 billion that it spent. That is 6.7% of related expenditure. However, it also made underpayments of £4.2 billion—that is 1.6% of related expenditure—up from £3.5 billion the previous year, because of underpayments of disability living allowance. Within that, there were different levels of fraud for different benefit types. For universal credit, the level of overpayment for the same period is 13.2%. That is down from a peak of 21% in early 2020, during the covid pandemic, when some of the controls were suspended to speed up the application process. In fact, by value, two thirds of all overpayments are on universal credit—£6.5 billion out of £9.7 billion.
The DWP has tried to argue that the increase in fraud in the social security system reflects an increase in fraudulent behaviour in society. However, that does not explain why the overpayments are concentrated in universal credit accounts, or why, for example, there was a 10% reduction in fraud incidents reported in the crime survey for England and Wales between 2023 and 2024. The National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee agree. In its recent report on the DWP’s annual accounts, the PAC said that it was not convinced by the DWP’s claims, adding that that was a “dangerous mindset”. The Committee also produced the following context, which we should all consider:
“It is concerning that DWP is not providing a decent service to all its customers, who include some of the most vulnerable in society and some of those with the most complex needs. In particular, claimants of disability benefits, including Personal Independence Payment (PIP) and Employment and Support Allowance (ESA), are receiving an unacceptably poor service including processing times compared with those receiving Universal Credit (UC) and State Pension.”
I worry that many of those disabled claimants, made vulnerable by their circumstances, are receiving less than the DWP estimates that they are entitled to. I believe that there is a genuine commitment from Ministers to change the DWP’s culture and build trust with its service users, but the Bill will be seen by many as more evidence not to trust the DWP and not to engage. I am not alone in that; in evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee inquiry on safeguarding vulnerable claimants, Citizens Advice raised concerns that the failure to engage is the second largest category that the DWP classes as fraud, and that when the enhanced review team identifies a household as having potentially made a fraudulent claim, payments may be immediately suspended. Citizens Advice recommended that the detriment caused by such a suspension should not take place while the fraud review process is ongoing. Disability Rights UK, UK Finance and others have raised concerns about the lack of systemic safeguards in the Bill. To their credit, Ministers have accepted that and will look at it as a whole.
However, Ministers—particularly those from the last Conservative Government—will remember the housing benefit fraud allegations, in which more than 200,000 people were wrongly accused of and investigated for housing benefit fraud and error last June. An AI algorithm—which the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), just said we should be using more of—incorrectly identified people as potentially behaving fraudulently, and they were investigated. That is really serious. What level of investigation of innocent people do Ministers consider acceptable?
Policy in Practice has also raised concerns about underclaiming, barriers to accessing support, the lack of value for money of the DWP’s fraud detection, prevention and recovery system, which addresses less than 5% of the debt owed, and how the focus on fraudulent claims is
“spoiling the system for the 97% of ‘genuine’ benefit claims”,
fuelling beliefs about benefit cheats, and detracting from
“the millions of households that are rightfully and legitimately supported by a social safety net designed to be there for all of us when we need it.”
I have questions for the Ministers, some of which I have raised with them before. What risk assessments of the Bill have been undertaken? I know that there is an impact assessment and a human rights assessment. What are the risks, what mitigations have been put in place, and will the Government publish them? How are safeguarding concerns, including the Caldicott principles and the responsibilities of the Caldicott guardian—which the DWP has, to its credit, now put in place—addressed in the Bill? This Bill is too important for us to mess it up and for innocent people to become the victims.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) for laying out very concisely some of the challenges in ensuring that the Bill does the right thing without going too far and breaking the things that people want fixed.
Clearly, defrauding the benefits system is wrong. One need only reflect on the level of disinvestment in many of our public services by the previous Government to note how that can bleed the system dry. I reflect on my own Torbay constituency, where the hospital tower block has scaffolding around it not because it is under repair, but to prevent bits of concrete from falling and killing people. I reflect on the lack of investment in our schools; the challenges with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete mean that the necessary capital programme will not happen for the next six years. I reflect on the lack of investment in our police services, which means that the number of sworn officers has massively reduced. Those are serious issues that affect us following the lack of investment under the previous Government.
The Conservative Government were asleep at the wheel during the covid pandemic, as the Secretary of State alluded to in clear terms. Businesspeople in Torbay told me that they felt Rishi Sunak was—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we refer to Members not by name but by constituency. I think he was referring to the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton.
Steve Darling
My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. Those businesspeople felt that the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was filling carrier bags full of £50 notes and placing them around towns, expecting people just to pick them up, so low were the safeguards for a number of the covid support schemes.
I will move on to an item that has already been covered by a number of colleagues: the carers scandal. More than 136,000 people—equivalent to the population of West Bromwich—have been left with liabilities of £250 million that they are extremely worried about. The Government have quite rightly commissioned a review, but it is due to report not in the near future but next summer. I challenge the Minister: why not wait for that review’s findings before we push hard on these proposals, so that we can ensure that lessons are learned? We want fraud to be tackled, but we want it done in the right way. There have been just seven working days between this Bill’s First Reading and its Second Reading. Large tracts of the safeguards and the rails around it are out for consultation as we speak, which we need if we are to understand what safeguards there will be to protect our communities.
Colleagues have already mentioned AI, and they are right to have done so, because there are real concerns about a lack of transparency—[Interruption.] Sorry, Jennie is joining in; she is having a dream about rabbits. As Liberal Democrats have already highlighted, we do not know what safeguards there will be around the use of AI. How can we back the Bill until we know what safeguards will exist? I would like to reflect on how the Bill can contain those appropriate safeguards. Sadly, as the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth highlighted, the DWP is a broken Department.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Bearing in mind the money that has been claimed back from unpaid carers and our concerns about the DWP, does the hon. Member agree that this legislation would see more unpaid carers or their like come under far harder and harsher penalties?
Steve Darling
I welcome the hon. Member’s intervention; he has highlighted a serious issue, and he is spot on. One has only to reflect on the significant backlog, with 90,000 people waiting for their pension to be reviewed as part of the winter fuel allowance issues—that is a massive backlog.
Access to Work, which is meant to support people with disabilities into work, is sadly another broken system. Quite often, those wishing to receive support find that job offers are withdrawn because their work package has not been pulled together in time. An academic survey has highlighted that over three years, sadly, almost 600 people committed suicide around the management of their support from the DWP. I suggest to the Secretary of State that, while one understands the aspirations of this Bill, it is far too much of a Big Brother Bill. It is far too much of a snoopers charter, and I suggest to the Government that they withdraw it.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for introducing this important Bill. Fraud is a serious issue, and we simply cannot tolerate the level of fraud that the previous Government left us with. In the year 2023-24, we lost almost as much to fraud as we spent on defence.
We have all heard the stories of people fraudulently claiming covid support and benefits to which they were not entitled. People have been claiming from the safety net not for security in their time of need, but to feather their own nests on the backs of British taxpayers. I am glad that this Government are serious about protecting public money from fraudsters, and I have no time for the whataboutery of the Liberal Democrats.
This robust Bill closes loopholes, strengthens enforcement and prioritises financial accountability. It is a great step forward for the real change that we promised at the election. The message from me and my constituents is quite clear: those who defraud or attempt to defraud the British public in any way deserve to feel the full weight of the law. I believe in doing what is right to protect taxpayers and hard-working people in business, which is why I will not stand by while fraudsters take advantage of the system. The Bill says, “If you have defrauded the British taxpayer, we will come for you, and we will not mess about.” That is what people in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield want.
Turning specifically to the strengthening of measures on covid fraud, I am proud that one of the first actions taken by this Government was to appoint the covid corruption commissioner, and that the Bill bolsters the commissioner’s powers and doubles the time limit in which civil claims can be brought, among other measures. A typical example of rampant covid corruption was the bounce back loans, which have already been referred to by other Members. Those loans saw millions of pounds of public money shovelled out of the doors of the Treasury without proper oversight. We have all read the stories and heard about some of the heinous outcomes—huge amounts of public money gone to fake companies as well as people using stolen identities or providing products that were either defective or just plain did not exist. Meanwhile, I have had to explain to my constituents why basic public services have gone to the wall.
To put it into perspective, all in, the previous Government handed the equivalent of £20,000 of taxpayers’ cash to fraudsters every minute of the last Parliament, and now Conservative Members moan that there is no money for anything. If this Bill had become law earlier, much of that fraud could have been prevented by allowing stronger eligibility verification procedures, faster detection of fraudulent transactions and faster financial recovery powers for quicker action against fraudsters.
Moving on to benefit fraud and the Department for Work and Pensions, the same principle applies: those who defraud the British public will feel the full weight of the law, and will have nowhere to hide. We have a moral duty to recover every penny of public money that has been defrauded, and I am glad that the Bill full-throatedly says so. Benefit fraud has tripled since 2019, and since then we have lost almost £10 billion overall to fraud and error. As the now Leader of the Opposition said while in government, fraudsters were let “off the hook” by the Tories. People who work hard to pay their taxes deserve to know that every pound stolen is a pound that cannot be spent on public services, and they deserve to have that money returned. It is simply unforgivable that the previous Government allowed fraud in the benefit system to get to this level.
By voting in favour of the Bill, we will allow this Government crucial investigatory and search and seizure powers that are essential if we really want to tackle fraud in this country. I know that there will be concern from some quarters, but I am reassured that the Secretary of State has taken into consideration the necessary safeguards that will balance the need for effective fraud prevention and recovery. Indeed, if during the passage of the Bill she finds a way to be tougher and go further, she should do it; I am not sure whether two years is enough for a driving ban.
The powers we are extending to the Public Sector Fraud Authority have already proven effective. They are used by the DWP and by HMRC, and by expanding them, we will recover more funds and bring more fraudsters to justice. This is the first update to those powers in 20 years, as the Secretary of State said. Of course, DWP investigators should be given warrant powers, to save police time if nothing else.
The safeguards are in the Bill to make sure we tackle fraud effectively and, as importantly, protect people’s rights, as the Secretary of State has also said. To address a point raised a second ago by the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), decisions will be made by a human being in the final stages, as with any decision that affects somebody’s benefits. I think that is right, and clearly it is something that the Secretary of State has tried to stipulate.
People in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield expect their money to be used effectively, and they demand accountability, with fraudsters who exploit the system being held to account and locked up if necessary. As the Secretary of State said, the Bill is tough but fair, with measures designed to save an awful lot of money over the next five years. That is a promising step that I believe will restore public trust and tackle financial mismanagement. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for taking the issue so seriously—more power to her elbow.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
I would like to echo many of the points raised by the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). Like her, I am a conditional supporter of the Bill. While I welcome its intent, I would like to raise a few questions regarding its implementation and its true impact on reducing fraud and error in the system.
Conservative Members understand three core principles: the importance of promoting personal responsibility, the importance of law and order, and of course, the importance of reducing the burden of an overreaching state and ensuring that taxpayers’ money is spent efficiently. I am therefore pleased that by introducing this legislation, the Secretary of State appears to have accepted the long-standing arguments made by Conservative Members. The Bill, much like the previous Government’s policy paper, is both necessary and overdue. It is a scandal that fraud and error in the DWP benefits system has reached such levels. Since the pandemic, the UK taxpayer has overpaid £8 billion due to a lack of proper provision for the DWP to thoroughly investigate cases of fraud and error.
This Bill maintains the focus of the previous Government’s policy paper on fighting fraud in the system. Under the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), the DWP saw a 10% drop in fraud and error in the system, which led to savings of over £2 billion between 2022 and 2024. That was achieved through the Department recruiting over 2,000 review agents and hiring 1,400 counter-fraud professionals. Unfortunately, due to time constraints at the end of the last parliamentary Session, my right hon. Friend was unable to carry out the modernisation of information-gathering powers or to broaden the scope of cases that could lead to civil penalties. I have no doubt that, had those Conservative policies been fully implemented, fraud and error levels would be lower than they are now.
Turning to the Bill, although I support its principles, I seek clarification from the Secretary of State on several key points. First, can the Secretary of State guarantee that this Bill will not distract her and the Department from much-needed reforms to benefit conditionality, including work on health assessments and increasing incentives for people to find work?
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent contribution and I support what he is saying. We must get benefit fraud down and I support some of the measures in the Bill. On the point he has just raised, does he agree that this is only one side of the coin in dealing with benefits in this country? Of course, we must do everything we can to get benefit fraud down, but the other side of the coin is encouraging people to go back to work, because the best form of welfare is having a well-paid job.
Mr Bedford
I absolutely agree with all the sentiments my hon. Friend has expressed. Getting a job is the best route out of poverty, and it is the best route to ensuring that we have a more socially mobile society.
Secondly, my instinctive belief in personal liberty means that I believe provisions allowing access to individual bank accounts must be handled with caution. Can the Secretary of State therefore confirm that such measures will be used only as a last resort, and that the independent person appointed by the Cabinet Office will be given full oversight and will report transparently on the use of these powers?
Thirdly, the Bill proposes the restriction of driving licences for those committing fraud against the DWP, but what alternative deterrents does the Secretary of State propose for those who do not drive? His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Child Maintenance Service already have these powers. I would like to see the independent person assess whether these measures are as impactful at the DWP.
Fourthly, Gareth Davies, the Comptroller and Auditor General at the National Audit Office, wrote last year that the forecast
“shows that DWP no longer expects Universal Credit fraud and error to return to the levels seen before…the COVID-19 pandemic”.
In response, the DWP explained that this was because there has been an “increasing propensity” for deceit across British society. I do hope that the Secretary of State will push back against this defeatist culture in the DWP and that my constituents in Mid Leicestershire do not continue to foot an astronomical bill for people committing fraud in the Department.
Finally, to gauge the correct path when dealing with fraud and error in the system, will the independent person conduct a review to determine whether the provisions in this Bill are just as effective as the Conservative policies of the previous Government?
In conclusion, as a Conservative, I support the intent of this Bill. It is shocking that fraud and error are at current levels. However, I urge the Secretary of State to work collaboratively with Members across the House to ensure that individual freedoms are respected, that the Bill does not distract from wider welfare reforms and that its measures deliver a long-term reduction in the welfare bill.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
This Bill is crucial for delivering on this Government’s manifesto commitment to safeguard taxpayers’ money. As the Secretary of State has rightly stated, we must be
“turning off the tap to criminals who cheat the system and steal law-abiding taxpayers’ money.”
In Wales alone, the national fraud initiative found £7.1 million of fraud and payment errors in 2022-23, up by £0.6 million since the previous year. Figures such as this show just how much a blight on the economy fraud and error continue to be. I have heard at first hand from constituents about instances of benefit fraud that they are well aware of, such as individuals using past addresses to make claims to which they are not entitled. They know that this is not right, and they expect us to take action. It is also essential that we crack down on organised crime gangs and streamline the process through which DWP investigators can act to bring these serious offenders to justice more swiftly.
I welcome this Government’s crackdown on fraud, because every £1 lost to fraudulent claims is £1 that could be spent on vital public services—services that my constituents in Clwyd North rely on to strengthen our communities and improve lives. However, it is crucial that we make a clear distinction between intentional fraud and accidental individual error. Errors leading to overpayments may be the result not of deliberate wrongdoing, but of the inherent complexity of the social security system itself. Many of my constituents have shared their struggles with the complexity of applying for benefits, and knowing what to apply for and how. This causes significant stress, and it exemplifies the risks of penalising individuals who may simply have been unable to navigate the system, further entrenching the fear of making a mistake. The Bill must therefore go hand in hand with reforms to make this navigation far more straightforward.
A YouGov survey for Turn2us in 2024 found that 77% of respondents believed they would struggle when they needed to claim benefits if their circumstances changed. This highlights the real challenges that people face in navigating a system that is often confusing and difficult to understand. The Government must ensure that their powers to recover overpayments differentiate between fraudulent criminal activity and genuine mistakes. Without this distinction, there is a risk of penalising individuals who have simply struggled to navigate the system, and those people may already be in vulnerable situations.
Getting this Bill right, however, will mean that £1.5 billion of taxpayers’ money over five years will be saved. That money can be invested in the services that people in my constituency and across the country rely on, from public transport to local infrastructure. With fraud and error costing nearly £10 billion a year, we must act decisively to drive down this fraud and error and protect public funds. At a time when families are struggling and public services are under pressure, ensuring that taxpayers’ money is spent where it is truly needed is not just responsible, but essential.
This Bill must tackle fraud and error in a way that is fair and proportionate and does not punish those who have made an honest mistake. I know that the Government have worked hard to include measures that will ensure that these critical distinctions are made as the Bill progresses. However, it is crucial that we do not shy away from coming down on this issue, and that we ensure constituents see their hard-earned contributions going directly to the services that strengthen our communities.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
This Bill is, at heart, Conservative legislation left over from the most dark corner of the last Administration, and I have no qualms about opposing it. I will speak against giving it a Second Reading and, alongside my fellow Green Members, will vote against it later.
One of the changes that people wanted to see when they voted out the last Government was a welfare system that treats people with dignity and respect. Sadly, this Bill is instead based on blame and suspicion of people in need of help. It has a focus on fraud when a far bigger issue is unclaimed and under-claimed benefits due to a lack of awareness, complexity in the system and stigma. The people losing out are not helped by this legislation. The Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), set out the risk of damaging trust in and engagement with the DWP. We also have the risk of reigniting damaging and unfair stereotypes from some people involved in wider debates on these issues on social media, in newspapers and in broadcast media.
All in all, this Bill is deeply concerning and disappointing, and I had hoped better of this Government on this issue. I sincerely hope that Ministers will go back to the drawing board and come up with a new, fair and humane policy for dealing with what is a very small proportion of fraud in our benefit system.
I have had so much correspondence on this from constituents who are very concerned about the Bill’s sweeping powers to invade their privacy and treat them as suspects, not citizens. I am talking about pensioners who need pension credit, people who are permanently disabled and whose entitlement to employment and support allowance is clear and settled, people who are precariously underemployed or unemployed who need universal credit, family carers, and people who are simply on low wages and cannot make ends meet. These are citizens, not suspects.
The clauses about what appear to be routine and regular Government access to information from bank accounts for eligibility verification—not linked to serious crime—most concern me. I am also opposed to the clauses that increase powers of search and access to homes for more serious matters, and those that would remove driving licences from people who are having difficulty paying back to the DWP overpaid money due to what may simply be human error at a difficult time in their lives, not fraud at all.
I therefore suggest that the Government come back to this House with the parts relating to covid fraud and to contractors and businesses, and maybe add something on the much bigger problem of tax fraud. On the rest, I suggest that they start again with a process of genuine listening and co-production, with those who claim social security, about appropriate, fair, respectful and secure ways of ensuring that people in need of support can receive what they are entitled to, and to protect in a proportionate way against those who may seek to defraud the Government or local authorities.
This process would fit together very well with the recent proposal from the charity Mind in response to other upcoming changes to benefit processes, which asks for a new approach to the benefits system and a commission led by disabled people to redesign benefit assessments. Mind says that this kind of process would help to rebuild trust between disabled people and the DWP. I agree, and my personal view is that this Bill will do the absolute opposite.
In summary, I believe that this Bill should go no further, and I and my Green colleagues will be voting accordingly today, to stand up for our constituents’ rights and dignity and for social security based not on intrusion and suspicion, but on support.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
I wish to make a few points. First, it would have been impossible not to note the zeal of the Secretary of State when she was banging on the Dispatch Box and talking about fraud and loss to the taxpayer, and she is right to do that. We, on this side of the House at least, believe in public expenditure, and therefore there is a duty on us to ensure that every single penny is spent in an appropriate manner. So where it is wasted or stolen or fraud is going on, we should bear down on it.
However, although the Secretary of State started off with that zeal and passion in talking about the gangs and others, she talked most about benefit claimants. Although the Bill sets up powers for the fraud authority, it deals largely with the question of fraud in the benefit system. But the title of the Bill mentions both fraud and error, and not enough time has been spent in this debate on the nature of error, which is far bigger than can be easily acknowledged.
I looked at the figures for PIP. Between 2019 and 2024 some one in four cases for alleged fraud by PIP recipients were dropped before reaching appeal, indicating the decision had lapsed because the Department had decided in favour of the appellant. That indicates the scale of the error that this Bill also wants to address. I am going to refer to a couple of cases in a moment or two, but at the core of this Bill is the creation, effectively, of a partnership between the state and the private banks, and the Bill does not make clear what that partnership will look like. I hope that we get some clarity on that before the Bill reaches Committee.
The banks themselves have said that they are very worried about this Bill, because they have a statutory duty, imposed by this House, to make sure that they deal properly with vulnerable clients. The banks have said there is a contradiction between the contents of this Bill and the obligations that fall on them and their duty to treat people who are vulnerable in a proper way. I want to reflect on that briefly.
Let me give the House a case from my own constituency that is symptomatic of a wider problem. A couple were referred to my office. They both had learning difficulties, both were illiterate and innumerate, and they found it impossible on their own to fill in the dozens and dozens of questions which the forms require people to fill in to get access to the benefits. So they were helped to put the form together by people employed to look after such people. The DWP then decided, years later, that it had made an error and had overpaid the couple by a large amount. This error came to light as a result of a review of some kind in the Department. So here is a very poor and vulnerable couple who were unable to fill in the form on their own and who had been helped by professionals, and what did the state do? It sent them a bill for £20,000.
All Members will have a great deal of empathy—they would not be in this job otherwise—so we can imagine the state that couple were in when they received a bill from the state to repay £20,000. It was discovered after they came to my office that they had in fact filled in all the forms correctly; this was a computer error caused by someone failing to key in some of the information that had been provided to the DWP. Neither the council which was helping them nor their support workers spotted the fact they were being overpaid; nobody spotted it, so this went on for a number of years and the sum reached £20,000. A deeply vulnerable couple were left in that situation.
Eventually they encountered a local councillor in my constituency who referred them to me. We went through the whole thing and managed to make an appeal on their behalf. But this Bill gives people only 28 days once they have received an order to pay. It took us longer than 28 days to resolve this once it had got into my office. I just say to the Secretary of State that 28 days is not long enough in these complicated cases for people to produce the evidence to show they are a victim of error rather than they have committed a fraud. There was a presumption by the state that they had committed a fraud of £20,000, totally incorrectly, it turned out.
I worry that the Bill will put people like my constituents, and I imagine constituents of every Member in this House, in the same position. My constituents were fortunate to find an MP, but many people in that situation would not know how to find their way through the system.
That raises the question I have referred to about the banks. The banks have a statutory duty to protect vulnerable customers. How will they exercise that duty when they are being required to provide information to the DWP about the financial activities of various individuals banking with them?
On the subject of vulnerability, Disability Rights UK tells us that one third of all claimants of legacy benefits have mental health problems. I imagine that most of those people would be regarded as vulnerable by the banks and by every humane person in this House. One therefore wonders just exactly how we will reconcile the statutory duty on the banks with what they are required to do in relation to this Bill.
We are giving powers to this fraud authority. I personally am in favour of tackling fraud, as I have said—I am a Yorkshireman, and I do not like spending money. I do not like money being spent wastefully by the state either, and when I was the leader of Leeds city council, everyone knew I was strong on waste.
Finally on vulnerability, have the Government commissioned and received an equality impact assessment? If they have, can that be placed in the Commons Library, because the Bill will clearly have an impact on people who are extremely vulnerable? I think something somewhere in the Department will refer to that impact assessment.
I will make a couple of final points. It is suggested that the Bill will save £300 million a year by tackling benefit fraud. That is a large amount of money, but we can compare it with the £10 billion of fraud on personal protective equipment provided during covid, the £16 billion lost to the taxpayer in fraudulent covid schemes, the £5.5 billion a year of tax evasion, or the £6 billion of other illegal activities against HMRC. The £300 million is important, but it is not the largest amount of fraud that is taking place. The fraud authority is getting new powers and will be staffed up. How will it choose among the disproportionate amounts by which the state is being defrauded by various different agencies, by private individuals and, frankly, by some gangsters, too? Will the staffing be allocated according to the prejudices of politicians—whichever politicians are then in charge—or will it be allocated proportionately to the loss to the taxpayer incurred through different forms of fraud?
My final point is on the Information Commissioner. The Secretary of State suddenly announced that she received a letter today—it would be interesting to read it—but the Information Commissioner had been suggesting that the powers were disproportionate. We need to see the letter, and hopefully it will go into the Library or somewhere.
Clause 74, which empowers schedule 3 to the Bill, goes right to the kernel of the problems with this Bill, which could not be clearer. I am worried that it is not apparent how the intervention of banks will be invoked. Schedule 3 allows the banks to be invoked and then for action to take place. Will the bank account of every single citizen in the UK be looked at? That is the view of some campaign groups in society. If so, that is a massive incursion into the liberty that the British people hold dear. If not, how will the banks be asked to identify particular individuals? What process will be gone through? That is not clear, and the Bill does not explain it. I have read clause 74 two or three times, as have many other people.
Finally, can we be assured—not necessarily now, but as the Bill progresses through its various stages—exactly how that right of appeal will work? I have just referred to the 28-day cut-off, but will the Secretary of State look again at that? It seems to me that it is slightly too tight.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
It is an honour to follow such an excellent speech from the hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett). As a Welsh Liberal Democrat, I find myself concerned with the civil liberties aspects of this Bill, particularly the influence and power it gives to the big banks. I spent seven years working in data privacy as a data protection consultant, and reading this Bill created more questions than it answered. I worked on datasets involving different businesses, Governments and organisations from across the world. In particular, I want to speak to the points around the banks, because as we speak, customers from Lloyds and Halifax cannot access their bank accounts because of an outage. We should be concerned about making banks the judge, juries and executioners of social policy, particularly with something as important as welfare policy.
The UK has strong data protection laws that have been carefully negotiated over time and inherited from the European Union, and this Bill threatens to erode some of those protections and implicates treaties that we have already signed, such as the data adequacy agreement we have with the European Union. If the EU was to turn around and say that it was unhappy with the Government’s decision to monitor their subjects and citizens in this way, that would create many more problems for organisations across the UK. Citizens should have the right to object to automated decision making, and I struggle to see how asking banks to scan their datasets for potential fraud could not be regarded as decision making. Let us give citizens the right to be able to object to these decisions being made about them. If we do not, we might be violating the data privacy agreements that are already in place.
What do the Government expect the process to look like, when they are asking the banks to provide this information? The Secretary of State said that the information would be provided in a digital format, but what will that actually look like in practice? What could go wrong if, as has been mentioned, the banks are having to relay huge datasets to the Government and to the DWP in particular? That could create honeypots of data that might be easy for hackers to intercept and interfere with.
In data protection, if there is not data integrity, availability and confidentiality, essentially all of the agreements that exist with the data subject and the data processor can be said not to be valid. I therefore wonder what the Government see as the perfect framework for this data to be provided. Does it mean that the banks will have to export the names of everyone who has more than £16,000 in savings and send that to the Government to see whether they are in receipt of welfare payments?
One of the core principles of a free society is the right to privacy, yet in its current form, this Bill represents an intrusion by the state into the privacy of individual citizens. Under the Bill, the Government would be granted sweeping powers to access and monitor the personal financial records of citizens, even without any evidence of suspicious activity to justify such actions.
Many people are in receipt of welfare payments through no fault of their own, and this Bill could result in the mass surveillance of private financial information, potentially affecting 9.4 million citizens. The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of our justice system, yet the Bill would fundamentally alter that principle. Under the Bill, individuals could be presumed guilty until proven innocent, with their personal data shared, investigated and scrutinised without sufficient cause or due process. That sets a dangerous precedent, where the burden of proof falls on citizens, not the state. We have all seen the devastating impact of errors made by the Department for Work and Pensions on individuals. Such a system could lead to disastrous consequences, where it falsely flags someone as fraudulent due to simple administrative errors or unintentional mistakes. The hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth acknowledged that the banks had raised concerns about whether they are the right organisations to do this.
The Bill risks creating a two-tier society where certain groups are subjected to intrusive financial monitoring by the state while others are not, which would undermine the principles of equality and fairness that our society is built on. In the current climate where banks are closing branches left, right and centre—Lloyds bank has announced that it will close its branch in Pontardawe—the Government should not be asking banks to act as judge, jury and executioner in social welfare policy while granting themselves access to people’s bank accounts but not requiring those banks to ensure that citizens have access to their bank accounts. That does not sit well with the liberal society that I want to live in, and I do not believe that my citizens want to live in such a society, either. I call on the Government to rethink their proposals and to assure us that the Bill will not undermine our data protection adequacy agreement with the European Union.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
We have heard lots of statistics and detailed policy questions, but I want to start by sharing two stories. The first is of Antonia Foods in Wood Green, north London. From the outside, it looked like a normal neighbourhood corner shop selling fruit, veg and groceries, but from its back room Galina Nikolova and Gyunesh Ali ran a vast fraud operation, making use of transnational networks to file hundreds of illegal UC claims. By the time they were caught, they had defrauded the DWP of over £50 million. When the police finally raided their addresses, they found cases stuffed with cash. Nikolova and Ali received prison sentences, as did many of their associates, but the reality is that most of the money they claimed had long since disappeared, likely spirited out of the country. They had successfully stolen from us all.
The second story is of Yvonne, a disabled woman who was paid thousands of pounds more in benefits than she was entitled to over a number of years as a result of an innocent mistake and is now struggling to make ends meet as the DWP deducts overpayments from her current entitlement. Both those stories illustrate why we so desperately need the Bill.
The extent to which fraud against the public purse spread under the last Government is breathtaking. The proportions are simply staggering. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, public sector losses amounted to £55 billion last year—as much as the defence budget, and three times what we spend on police in England and Wales. That loss costs every man, woman and child £800 a year and is the equivalent of a third of the entire national VAT take.
This is not a victimless crime or some technical infringement. It robs every family in Britain, erodes our public services and takes money that could be used to help those most in need, depriving the most vulnerable of support. My constituents in Hendon and people across the country rightly expect it to be tackled. This is a crime that feeds on the most disadvantaged and weakens not only public services but the public’s faith in those services and their fairness. I say gently to those who have criticised the Bill that there is nothing progressive and nothing compassionate about allowing fraud to fester. It is a scourge that must be tackled. It is a scourge that grew out of control and was professionalised under the last Government.
Perhaps no area illustrates the challenge that we face, how it evolved and the last Government’s catastrophic failure to kerb fraud better than benefits. The DWP’s net bill for fraud and error, even after deducting underpayments, is £8.6 billion. That is £272 a second, £16,300 a minute and almost £1 million an hour. In the time that it will take for us to have the debate, the DWP will have lost more than £3 million. The bill for fraud and error is roughly the same as the Department’s entire programme budget. The DWP loses as much to fraud and error as it spends on every active programme it has to help the unemployed, the long term-sick, those with disabilities and the elderly. The picture is shocking, and it got much worse under the Conservative party.
The headline figures for fraud and error excluding underpayment tripled in cash terms between 2010 and 2024 from £3.3 billion to £9.7 billion. As bad as those figures are, they actually understate how badly things deteriorated under the Conservatives. Claimant error rose only slightly in cash terms, while official error remained flat. In contrast, fraud rose a stunning sevenfold in cash terms and more than fourfold as a proportion of the total benefits budget. That was not some act of God; it was the result of serial failures by the Conservatives, who failed to understand that fraud was evolving and failed to modernise the DWP’s powers to allow it to keep up in the arms race with the fraudsters. They also made truly terrible policy and design choices that actively fuelled the fraud crisis.
That can be seen nowhere better than in how the Conservatives set up universal credit. Because of their failures in properly establishing and policing its gateway, it became a magnet for fraud. Universal credit accounts for just 22% of benefit spending but contributes over 76% of all benefits fraud. Almost £1 in every £9 claimed through UC in the Conservatives’ last year in power was claimed fraudulently, compared with just £1 in £25 for housing benefit, £1 in £300 for PIP and just £1 in £1,000 for pensions.
The reality is that the Conservatives failed to take the threat of fraud seriously and failed to understand how it was being professionalised and industrialised, as my earlier story showed. They left us all to pick up the bill. They say that they acted, but the truth is they did nothing for years. Even when they finally got their act together at the end of their term in office, it was too little, too late. Once again, we are having to step in to clear up their mess. They owe everyone in the House and everyone in the country an apology. It is striking that in all their bluster during the debate, we have not heard the only word that they should be uttering: sorry.
Fraud exploded on the Conservatives’ watch because of their failings, but the pattern of fraud also tells us much about why the powers outlined in the Bill are so desperately needed. The DWP’s own statistics show that of the £7.4 billion lost to fraud last year, about £1 billion was lost to people who held too much capital to be eligible, £1.3 billion was lost to those who had failed to report their self-employment earnings, and a further £1.3 billion was lost to those who had failed to provide sufficient evidence. A further £250 million was lost to those who were abroad. Those frauds could have been caught with better data and better investigatory powers. It would have been possible for banks to spot people with too much capital to claim, or those with considerable earnings, yet today, because of the last Government’s failure to update their legislation, the DWP cannot compel information digitally.
Virtually all banking is now done online, and yet while fraud is propagated through digital channels and moving at lightning speed, the DWP is still forced to rely on analogue tools. In other fields, we already integrate information and get institutions to work together to prevent fraud. Banks regularly scan patterns that indicate fraud; benefits should be no different. We need digital tools and access to digital data to fight fraud. As with tax, investigators should have the powers they need to recover funds from those who are no longer on benefits. That is why the powers that the Secretary of State is proposing to take are so important as they will allow us to better identify those committing fraud and take more effective recovery action to get taxpayers’ money back.
That brings me back to my second story. Along with the measures that the Chancellor brought forward in the Budget, these measures will help us protect legitimate claimants by helping to pick up overpayments earlier. Last year, 480,000 people had deductions averaging £500 taken from their universal credit payments because of overpayments. Underpayments can be a source of huge anxiety and hardship. Preventing them and catching them earlier will help protect the most vulnerable claimants. That will be possible only because of the better data and the better processes that the Bill will help support.
As we heard from the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), some have voiced concerns about whether the powers proposed in the Bill will impinge on people’s rights. I am strongly reassured by the powerful raft of safeguards that the Secretary of State has included in the Bill. Those safeguards mean that new debt recovery powers will be focused not on those on benefits, but rather on those who are neither on benefits or PAYE, and the DWP will not have access to people’s bank accounts, contrary to what some have implied during the debate. Those safeguards will include independent oversight and options for appeal. I am pleased to hear that, on top of that, the ICO believes that the safeguards address the concerns that it had with the Conservative party’s proposals.
This is a fair and balanced package, which modernises our approach and gives us the digital tools to fight a digital scourge, and the enforcement powers to take on organised crime while protecting the vulnerable. This Government and this ministerial team are modernising our system to protect public money, help the vulnerable and, critically, get Britain working. I am proud to support the Bill.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
I want to comment on a number of speeches that have been made. As the Scottish National party tabled a reasoned amendment, which unfortunately did not get selected, it will not surprise anyone that we have a number of significant problems with the Bill.
Part 1 of the Bill relates to recovering the covid moneys and the services and goods that the Government received that were substandard, for which organisations need to pay the Government back. Since its scope does not extend to Scotland, I will not add many comments, except to note that I have a long track record of bringing up covid fraud, particularly PPE frauds, in this Chamber. I will support the Government’s work to recoup the money that was fraudulently taken in Government contracts that did not deliver.
I oppose the DWP elements of the Bill, which are not what social security should be about. As my friend, the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), said, the social security system should be built on dignity and respect. Very few Members have said that we should have a social security system that works. Members have talked about tightening up eligibility criteria. Last week, people talked about the number of scroungers that there are—people not in work who are claiming social security benefits—and how desperately we must get them back to work. People should have opportunities, but it is also important that we have a social security system that catches people and supports them when they are not able to access those opportunities, because they are struggling with their physical or mental health or have learning difficulties. We need a social security system that works.
I have asked the Minister on a couple of occasions about co-production, which an hon. Member also mentioned. Co-production is needed when it comes to changes to disability benefits. If the Government are to reduce the amount of money being paid out for disability and sickness benefits, they must work hand in hand with disabled people. They must not just say, “We are going to reduce it by this amount.” They need to sit round the table with disabled people to have those conversations and to make clear what changes they want.
In Scotland, we have reformed the previous PIP system to create the adult disability payment and child disability payment. I used to get a number of emails and people walking through my door who were terrified about their upcoming PIP assessment—having to fill in those forms again, and sit and write a long list of the normal things that their child cannot do, on an annual basis. We have changed that in Scotland. We do not have regular assessments. If someone has a longer-term condition, they do not have to go through that awful situation on an annual basis. The Government need to focus on dignity, respect and co-production. That should be way ahead of conversations around fraud.
It is important that the social security system, the procurement system and the tax system do not propagate fraud. As has been mentioned a number of times by Members from across the Chamber, the tax system creates a huge amount more fraud and a huge amount more could be recouped from that than from the social security system.
I have major concerns about how the Government are approaching the issue. Why are they introducing this Bill before the child poverty strategy? Why is this more of a priority than cancelling the two-child cap and taking kids out of poverty? Why are the Government talking about nearly £10 billion a year owed to the DWP? Just to be clear, that is not what they intend to recoup. According to the impact assessment, at least 30% will be written off, so £10 billion is a misleading figure. It might be the total amount of fraud and error, but it is not what the Government expect to get back. It does not take into account that they will spend £420 million over the next few years just to increase the number of staff or the costs of the eligibility criteria. It is also not a net figure—it is just the headline figure right now. All the work being done on the legislation is to recoup a fairly insignificant amount of money, but it will put people through absolute hell.
As has been said, the Bill will treat people as guilty rather than begin from the point of view that they are innocent. Potentially, it will put every person applying for benefits through an eligibility check through their bank. It will put them under surveillance in a way that is not compatible with the human rights that we should all expect. Let us remember that we are talking about people who, in some cases, are incredibly vulnerable, and may have their driving licence taken away.
The hon. Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) talked about two of his constituents who found themselves in a difficult situation and who did not have a huge amount of literacy. It is possible that one of those people could have had a driving licence. For disabled people, a car can be an lifeline—the most important thing. For people with mental health problems, opening letters can be really difficult. People might not engage with the DWP through no fault of their own, but because they are not getting the mental health support that they need.
That £10 billion or however much will be recouped will not fix mental health services to ensure that everyone is capable of getting up in the morning, having their breakfast, having a shower and opening the letters in scary, big writing that have come through the door. It will not ensure that people can engage in that system. It will not teach them to read and write—they may not be capable of that. I share the concerns of other Members that, for some individuals, the powers of recouping and of revoking a driving licence are entirely inappropriate. We have not had enough reassurances on that.
My concerns about the Information Commissioner are still extant. The Secretary of State said that she has had a letter from the Information Commissioner. I understand that it is probably not her fault, but I am really disappointed that we have not seen that letter in advance of today—[Interruption.] I am being told that it is being published.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
It is on the ICO website.
Kirsty Blackman
Unfortunately, I have not seen it because I was not aware of its publication until the Secretary of State stood on her feet. It would have been helpful for Members to have been given that information beforehand, so that we could have read the Information Commissioner’s comments in advance of Second Reading, given a number of us have mentioned the significant concerns of the Information Commissioner in relation to the previous Bill.
The Secretary of State said that the Bill is tough and fair. Another Member talked about tax and benefit fraud, and the issue with the DWP making overpayments. They suggested that this new system will ensure that overpayments are caught earlier. I suggest that that is a tad over-optimistic. The DWP makes mistakes and makes overpayments, and now we are giving it another place to make errors. The DWP can now see into people’s bank accounts and say, “You don’t meet the eligibility criteria, so you won’t be getting the social security payment.” Until we have built up much a higher level of trust, most people will assume that these powers will create more errors in the system, rather than reduce them.
Lastly, on a subject that I mentioned earlier, a massive number of disabled people have no trust in the social security system. They are massively concerned about the cuts coming down the line and concerned in particular that they will bear the brunt of those cuts, given the comments from so many politicians, using the word “scroungers” and talking about people fraudulently claiming benefits.
Despite the fact that the hon. Member for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) very helpfully laid out the figures on every pound claimed fraudulently, which I genuinely thought was very helpful, disabled people feel that they are being lumped in with the entire group of people claiming fraudulently—whether they can or cannot work, whether they are being paid universal credit or PIP to assist them with their work, and whether they have a helpful employer or have not been able to find one.
People feel they are being demonised by politicians simply for claiming social security, which they are entitled to. Until that trust is rebuilt, making the decision to look at their bank accounts, as in these measures, is the absolute wrong decision. The Government need to do what they can to put dignity and respect at the heart of the social security system and rebuild people’s trust in it before they introduce these sweeping, disproportionate powers.
The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion mentioned the fact that there are so many unclaimed benefits. Surely ensuring that people have the money they are entitled to, ensuring that they have enough to live on, reducing child poverty and ensuring that not one child grows up in poverty should be more of a priority for the Government than introducing eligibility criteria and demanding that banks provide financial information on social security claimants.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Ind)
I will focus on the powers in the Bill that force banks to trawl through our private financial data, scanning for indicators of fraud and error—indicators that are not publicly disclosed —and flag those individuals to the Government. These powers will allow the Department for Work and Pensions to seize money directly from bank accounts without due process, suspend driving licences and even search properties and personal devices. They are not the hallmarks of a free and democratic society but the tools of an Orwellian surveillance state.
Let me be clear: we all agree that genuine fraudsters should be held to account, especially multimillionaire tax avoiders, organised criminal gangs and the dodgy companies that exploited covid funding. However, the Bill goes far beyond that. It will subject millions of innocent people—disabled individuals, carers, jobseekers, pensioners and parents—to unwarranted financial surveillance, treating them as suspects by default, simply because they receive state support. It is deeply unjust. The Government already have extensive powers to investigate suspected fraud; under existing legislation, they can access bank accounts where there is reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. However, the Bill removes the need for suspicion altogether. Put simply, this is mass surveillance.
There are significant risks. We have already seen the devastating consequences of automated decision making in the Post Office Horizon scandal, where faulty software led to hundreds of wrongful prosecutions. The Bill risks repeating that injustice on an unprecedented scale, and we should not have to wait for an ITV drama to expose it in the future. The DWP has already made mistakes in accusing benefit claimants of debt. Last July, The Big Issue reported that a disabled woman had her disability benefits stopped and was accused of owing the Government £28,000, which the DWP later admitted was its mistake, while a single mother was accused of a £12,000 debt when the DWP actually owed her money. Algorithm-driven financial surveillance will inevitably result in errors that will disproportionately affect the most vulnerable in our society: the elderly, the disabled and those already struggling to make ends meet. Even a 1% error rate in the AI system used by banks could lead to thousands of benefit recipients being wrongly flagged, unfairly investigated and forced into lengthy appeals.
Moreover, the Government’s own impact assessment suggests that these measures would recover just £146 million annually, which is less than 2% of the estimated annual loss to fraud and error. In contrast, £23 billion in benefits and support goes unclaimed each year, while £3 billion in claims is underpaid. Yet the Bill does absolutely nothing to address those injustices or to build a security system based on dignity and respect; instead, it targets those who can least afford to be wrongly flagged as fraudsters.
This legislation represents a rushed process with little scrutiny. At 116 pages long, the Bill was scheduled for Second Reading just seven working days after First Reading. It is an attempt to push through mass surveillance powers with minimal debate, bypassing the necessary checks and balances that should apply to any policy, especially one that affects millions of people’s fundamental rights. The powers are also legally questionable, with privacy experts warning they could breach article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998.
The Bill risks creating a two-tier justice system—one for the very wealthy, who will never face this kind of intrusion, and another for those on benefits, who will be subject to constant scrutiny, automated checks and the threat of their money being seized, perpetuating harmful stereotypes about so-called benefits cheats. It will therefore also distract attention away from the millions of households that are legitimately supported by a social security system that exists to support every single one of us when we need it.
Civil society groups including Amnesty International, Big Brother Watch, Disability Rights UK and Age UK have all condemned the powers, warning they will entrench discrimination against the poorest and the most vulnerable. We cannot allow that to happen. We cannot allow the Government to turn our banks into agents of the state, spying on their customers and reporting back to Whitehall; we cannot allow the presumption of innocence to be eroded by a culture of suspicion and surveillance; and we cannot stand idly by while the most vulnerable in our communities bear the brunt of this overreach. This is not the change people voted for. I therefore urge the Government to remove clause 74 and schedule 3 from the Bill.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
None of us, I hope, has any empathy with fraudsters. I trust that it is the united view of this House that fraud, wherever it occurs, should be pursued with rigour. However, that does not mean that a Bill that proclaims itself to have that purpose should be simply nodded through. The fine print of this Bill deserves as rigorous an examination as any other.
There are a number of areas in this Bill that I find concerning. I find the equivalence in investigative powers and the initiation of those powers between investigating fraud and investigating overpayment troubling. There is a huge difference between a person who enriches themselves through fraudulent activity and someone who is innocent, but is the recipient of an overpayment—not because of a mistake they have made, but because of a mistake the Department has made. That is a huge distinction morally, and in every other way. Yet it seems to me that the Bill makes an equivalence between the powers of investigation in that regard, which is something I find discomforting and unfair.
I also find some of the detail we find in the Bill surprising. As our law presently stands, a person can be regarded as and held to be a fraudster, in the eyes of the law, only if they have been convicted of fraud beyond all reasonable doubt. That is the hallowed and long-standing criminal standard that has to be reached before someone is convicted as a fraudster. But no longer is that the standard. Indeed, no longer is it for the courts to decide whether someone is a fraudster. Now, under clause 50, the Minister can decide whether someone is a fraudster, and not on the criminal standard but on the balance of probabilities. Clause 50 states:
“The Minister may impose a penalty on a person if satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the person has carried out, or conspired to carry out, fraud”.
The Minister—not our courts, but the Minister—will decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether someone is a fraudster. How could that be right? How could that be fair?
It gets worse, because when we read clause 50 with clause 52, we discover that the penalty is measured not by what the fraud was in every case, but by what the fraud might have been. So a person can be penalised on the balance of probabilities; not by a court, but by a Minister; and not for having obtained anything fraudulently, but for what they might have obtained had the fraud been perfected. I say to the House that is taking us far too far. That needs to be re-examined.
Then we come to clause 91. Under this astounding, disconnected provision, a person can be disqualified from driving if they have failed to pay back £1,000, whether they got it by fraud or, as I read it, they were overpaid it. They can lose their driving licence not because they have been convicted of fraud, but because clause 91(2) states that the schedule that will now be amended will make
“provision for a liable person to be disqualified”.
What is a “liable person”? We have to go to clause 11 to discover that a “liable person” is somebody on whom the Minister has served a recovery notice. If the Minister serves a recovery notice on you, that makes you a liable person under clause 91, and under clause 91, if you still have not paid back £1,000, you can lose your driving licence. Really? I do think that with this measure we have hugely run away with ourselves in terms of what is proportionate and appropriate.
There is much in this Bill in the way of overreach, which the Government need to re-examine. Yes, let us go after fraudsters. Yes, let us recover the money that they should never have had. But let us do it in a way that respects the traditions of our legal system and of the decency in our society, instead of the overreach of some aspects—not all—of the Bill.
The Bill does not apply to the area I come from, Northern Ireland, but inevitably, because parity controls the welfare payments that are made in Northern Ireland, there will eventually be some parallel, reflective legislation. That will be needed, but I want to say a word—I want the Minister to take it on board—about the Northern Ireland Executive. Welfare payments in Northern Ireland are demand-led. They are administered by the Department for Communities in the Northern Ireland Executive, but they are demand-led. Therefore, in that sense, they are not coming out of the Northern Ireland block grant.
It seems to me that there is a tendency within the Northern Ireland Executive to be less rigorous than they ought to be on fraud, because they are not recovering money that has been misused from the block grant; they are recovering money that has been misused from the Treasury. That, for some of them, shamefully, does seem to create a disincentive to pursuing fraud recovery with the vigour that they should. I say that on the basis of figures released in a number of Northern Ireland Assembly answers. They show that in the last five years there have been only between 200 to 300 fraud pursuit cases in Northern Ireland, touching on only £4.5 million. There is a lot more fraud in the benefits system in Northern Ireland than £4.5 million.
Yes, let us pursue fraud with vigour, but let the Secretary of State put some pressure on the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that they are living up to their obligations to also save the Treasury the money that has been lost in fraud.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Bill sets out a clear agenda that this Government will be tough on fraud. It will ensure fairness for benefit claimants and offer confidence to the taxpayer. When it comes to taxpayers’ money, fraud and waste cannot and must not be tolerated. I am pleased that the Government are taking that approach, and I am proud to speak in favour of the Bill.
I was appalled, frankly, to learn that a total of £35 billion of taxpayers’ money has been lost to fraud and error since the pandemic. I think of my constituents in Doncaster Central, of how desperately our hospital needs refurbishing, of how many children live below the poverty line, and of how many of my constituents are stuck on NHS waiting lists. I am outraged at just how much money, which could have helped to solve those problems, was instead drained by fraudsters, sometimes on a large and organised scale, and by the careless errors of the previous Government. With these measures, this Government will protect claimants by preventing errors earlier, ensure that our benefits system works for those who claim benefits they so desperately need, and give taxpayers the right to see their hard-earned money spent well.
I welcome the fact that the Government are bringing the Department’s search and seizure powers in line with those of HMRC and the Child Maintenance Service, and I am pleased to see the Department’s commitment to ensuring strong safeguards on those powers, including the appointment of an independent body to conduct independent inspections of the Department’s investigations. We must ensure that the tough measures we introduce to recoup taxpayers’ money are met with equally tough scrutiny and safeguards. I hope that will remain a priority as the Bill passes through the stages of this House.
I have no doubt that some Opposition Members will claim that they introduced measures to crack down on benefit fraud. Indeed, they did—eventually. At the very tail end of the last Parliament, they tagged measures on to the end of another Bill, which never passed. It has fallen to us, as it has in many other areas, to take the necessary action. Whether it is benefit fraud or fraudulent covid contracts, these are not victimless crimes. It is public services and our constituents who lose out. We need to get on with this job. We cannot afford to lose more public money, which our constituents pay for with their taxes and should feel the benefit of.
Tough measures, tough sanctions and tough safeguards are the key to ensuring that our welfare system is fair for its genuine claimants and robust enough to ensure that taxpayer money goes where it is supposed to go: to the people and the services that need it most.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Let me, at the outset, make it clear for the record that I think it is important that the Government pursue fraud. I asked the Secretary of State about that this afternoon during DWP questions. There is a story in the newspaper today, and it may even have been in yesterday’s Sunday paper, about a gentleman who defrauded the system of about £800,000 and skipped off to, I think, Romania. There was no treaty whereby we could pursue him, but obviously the Government wish to ensure that all those moneys are recoverable. The point I am making is that there are clearly those who set out to defraud the system, and it is important for the Government to respond positively. I think they are doing that, but I have some concerns.
When we speak to constituents on the doorstep, none of them have an issue with people who need help from the state—who are ill, or out of work for other genuine reasons—but there is a definite feeling that people should not claim and work on the side, and I agree that we need to clamp down on those who are “doing the double”. That terminology may not be used very often, but its meaning is clear. The statistics suggest that there may well be an issue, although the scale referred to in Government documentation varies greatly. The National Audit Office puts the amount across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 2023-24 in the range between £5 billion and £30 billion. It is clear that we need to do something effective. Those who work hard and are barely making ends meet are crying out for fairness. However, I fear that we may open up powers that cannot be removed and that would turn us into a nanny state.
In my earlier intervention on the Secretary of State, I expressed concern about those who make genuine and honest mistakes. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) referred to that, in his polished and qualified way. People fill in forms and think they are doing it correctly, but perhaps they make a mistake and tick the wrong box. It happens all the time. I asked my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) whether he had dealt with many such cases over the years. I have dealt with about 30, perhaps 40, every one of them involving a genuine mistake when someone unfortunately ticked the wrong box and had to repay the money. I am concerned about those who are disabled, those who are anxious, those who are depressed, those who have emotional or mental issues. I do not want them to become the “low-hanging fruit” for Ministers and the Department to pursue, rather than pursuing those who are guilty of claiming benefits only just this side of £1 million, like the person I mentioned.
A girl in my office, a member of my staff, works full time on benefits, five days a week. Her diary is full from 9 am until 5 pm every day of the week. Disabled people come to my office, and they are the people whose cases are genuine. They are the people who have applied for benefits and are anxious and worried about the whole thing. I always say to them, and the girls in the office say it as well, “If you are going to get the benefit—and it is right that you do—put the facts on your application form, and the Department will make a decision.” Those are the people I fear for. They are the people I worry for. They are the people about whom I myself feel anxious on their behalf, worrying about what could happen to them.
When people apply for benefits genuinely, the DWP does sometimes make mistakes. Every one of the 30-odd people I mentioned earlier with whom I have been involved over the years was successful because there had been a genuine mistake. I have to say, “Guys, I respect this greatly, because I understand the principle of what you are trying to do, so you should never be in doubt about where I am coming from”—I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker; I should have referred to “hon. Members” rather than “guys.”
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim mentioned people having their driving licences removed if they have not repaid £1,000 when it is money that, perhaps, they should not be in receipt of. However, if their driving licences are taken away when they have simply made a mistake, and they are penalised and deemed to be guilty, they cannot go to their jobs because they have no cars, and cannot do the work that would enable to pay the money back, that is overkill.
I also want to say something about bank accounts. Everything I do in this House comes from Strangford, and it will not surprise anyone that the examples I will give are Strangford-based. I say that to help all the other Members here. I was contacted by a constituent whose brother has been diagnosed with paranoid psychosis and was living in a tent when she realised that he had been turned out of his apartment and his benefits had fallen by the wayside. She took control, got him on benefits and found him a private rented apartment. Because he does not trust banks, which is part of his health issue, all that is done through her accounts. Without her, he would be unable to pay rent or do anything, as he does not trust Government and she handles it all. Will her bank accounts be open to Government scrutiny? Will she hand over care to the social worker who ceased contact because her brother would not engage, and signed him off as too difficult to work with? That is all part of the paranoid psychosis—the health problems, the disabilities, the emotional and mental issues that such people face. I think of these people. I will always speak up for the wee man and the wee woman who are penalised through a system that tries hard to achieve the goals that it sets itself, but unfortunately—again—falls by the wayside.
Who will take care of the situation if this man’s sister objects to Government rifling through her accounts when she works hard and pays more than her share in tax? One hon. Gentleman—I cannot remember who it was—said that HMRC should be pursuing other moneys with the same zeal that they are showing in this case. What security will my constituent have to ensure that her privacy is not sacrificed because she is helping her brother? More importantly, how many others like her —friends and families of those suffering from mental ill health—will pull back because of that?
I ask the Minister for an assurance about such cases, and I think it important for each and every one of us who has a conscience—I am not saying that no one else has a conscience; perhaps I should say, those of us who have concerns on behalf of our constituents—to bear them in mind. A Government overreach for those who are caring for the mentally ill, and who already lead a life of stress owing to their caring duties, without recompense from the Government because they already work—could lead to more pressure from the state to fill the breach. I must respectfully say that I do not see how we have the capacity for this.
I never want to see a scenario in which genuinely disabled people are so concerned about the scope of Government regulation in respect of their moneys that they do not claim what they are entitled to. That would be terrible. The Government set a system—whether it is the personal independence payment, universal credit, disabled living allowance, pension credit or attendance allowance—and all those benefits are there for a purpose. When people come to me, I always say, “The Government have set this aside for you. It is yours if you qualify and the criteria are there.” I think of people who save for a holiday, or perhaps their partners work and take them on a holiday tailored to their needs; perhaps they will go to the hotel in Portrush, not far away, or perhaps they will take a plane to Jersey, with a wheelchair and an assistant to get them on and off the plane. I do not want such people penalised when their disability is such that they can only do that if there is someone with them. They may be afraid to go on that holiday because they fear being labelled a benefit cheat, while those who are doing the double, as it used to be known, should be unable to continue that life at the expense of the taxpayer. My question to the Minister is this: how do the Government intend to find the balance?
It is critical for us to get that balance right. I understand the urge to do this, and it is right to do it, but I do not want those who are justified in receiving a benefit to be penalised. I note that the Government believe they could reclaim some £54 million in 10 years. If that figure is right, this is worth pursuing, but how much will it cost to run over that period? How much will it cost the Government to chase all these moneys? How do we send a message to those who are concerned about their loss of freedom to a Government who can look into family bank accounts that this is a measure worth taking?
My final words to the Government are these: “Do. the job that you have set yourself, but make sure you do not chase the wee man and the wee woman”—the people whom I represent, the people whom the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) represents, the people whom we all represent on both sides of the House.” Those are the people I am speaking up for tonight, and I want to make sure that they are protected.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
I do not want to repeat what has been said by others, but I will share my perspective on the Bill. It is in two parts, and there is almost unanimity about the first part, which deals with how we tackle fraud carried out through contracts and so on. I thank the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for pointing out some of the elements of real concern in that part of the Bill, which, to be frank, I missed. The Bill has been published for only a week, and it has been difficult to go through it. I have been somewhat distracted by the Government trying to concrete over a quarter of my constituency with a third runway at Heathrow, and elements of the Bill need further examination. To be frank, I think it will face legal challenge in some form.
I cannot welcome the first half of the Bill enough, which deals with tackling overall fraud. I was the first MP to raise with the then Chancellor the corruption that was taking place with covid bounce back loans. I raised it a number of times in the House, and I wrote to him twice. I received a standard letter that was almost identical to the response I got from the banks, which said they were going through their usual investigatory process, and then we eventually discovered that fraudulent claims for bounce back loans amounted to at least £5 billion. I welcome the first half of the Bill, because we need to be ruthless on the corruption and fraud that takes place.
However, the second part of the Bill, particularly clause 74 and schedule 3, is where we are straining, to be frank. Some hon. Members have mentioned the context already. There is real fear out there among people who claim welfare benefits, particularly disabled people. It is a result of their being targeted, and of careless language in this place and elsewhere. That is then exaggerated even further by the media, and benefit claimants become targets.
I echo what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, because I have the same problem in my constituency. Sometimes it is about telling people to claim what they are entitled to, because they are terrified of the stigma around claiming benefits at the moment, particularly older people. The atmosphere that we now have is a climate of fear, and I am worried that this debate will add to that climate of fear.
The Secretary of State said that any proposal has to be proportionate, safe and fair, but there are real concerns about the proportionality of this Bill. As other Members have said, it is a mass surveillance exercise. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I fear that once we start down the path of surveillance in this way, others will come back with proposals for where we can go further. As Members have said time and again, there is an issue with safety. How many lessons do we have to learn about the way that computer systems and the use of algorithms have destroyed people’s lives? My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) said that the banks are gearing up, but they have expressed concern that the Bill is almost an exercise beyond their abilities. As a result, there will be errors, which will reinforce the climate of fear around benefits.
Jim Shannon
I apologise for omitting this issue from my speech. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Government have decided to penalise those who have been charged with alleged fraud? Does he feel that there should be a system in place so that they can appeal?
John McDonnell
That is why the code of practice is going to be interesting. The code of practice needs to be published as rapidly as possible to see what mechanisms will be available for us to protect our constituents.
I have one area of experience with regard to the flagging up of sums of money that raise concerns: in the debates that we had on tax avoidance, we talked about suspicious activity reports. There is a record of real faults and a high number of errors in that process. As a result, people have been not just penalised, but penalised unfairly and exposed unfairly. It is not that I am in any way a defender of tax avoidance or anything like that, but if we are to introduce a system, we need to make sure that it is secure and effective, and does not penalise people unfairly.
The Bill is supposed to be proportionate, safe and fair. The reason why people will feel that it is unfair is that it specifically targets people who are often in desperate need. If there was a group of people whose accounts we would want to monitor because there has been a history of fraud, and who have had to pay money back—some have gone to prison—it would be MPs. I was here during the expenses scandal. Following that experience, are we really not monitoring our accounts for undue payments and so on? Why is it always the poor who we target in this way?
As I said, I am really worried about the climate of fear, particularly among people with disabilities, which the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) mentioned. We know about 600 suicides that are related to DWP activity. We circulated John Pring’s book “The Department”, which looks at the DWP’s role in those deaths, to all MPs, and it was starkly obvious that it had made a significant contribution, if not caused them. I remember a case in Scotland in which a poet in Leith committed suicide but did not leave a suicide note; he just left a letter from the DWP beside him.
My view is that whatever steps we take in exercising the powers in the Bill, we have to be extremely careful. One of the things I want to raise—if I can crowbar it into this legislation through an amendment, I will—is that a number of us, on the basis of the work of Mo Stewart, who does research on poverty and welfare benefits, have said that we must give people assurances that they will be protected and that we will do everything we can to cause no harm, and certainly not cause any further suicides, but we must also learn the lessons of what has happened in the past.
One of Mo Stewart’s proposals is for an independent advisory panel for DWP-related deaths. We have exactly that system in place for deaths in custody. We have an advisory system at the moment for the DWP but, to be frank, it is not working. The minutes of the panel’s meetings are cursory, and it does not do detailed reports in the same way as the deaths in custody panel. If we are to reassure people out there that we really are looking after their interests, that is one small step that we could include in this legislation. I am not sure that we will be able to crowbar it into the title of the Bill, but I will do my best and would welcome other Members’ creative drafting to help me. Such a measure would send out the right message. The Secretary of State has tried to do that tonight with her assurances about the processes, but I am not sure whether that will be enough, given the climate of fear that we now have.
What are the next steps? I hope that there will be sufficient time in Committee for us all to get our head around the detail of the Bill. I hope that there will be more consultation; it would be better to delay Report to enable that. I also wish to raise the same issue as the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry): we were given assurances that the proposals would be implemented by co-production rather than announced from above.
It would be an example of good governance if there were a process of proper consultation. After the Ellen Clifford case, in which the High Court ruled against the previous Government on their consultation, the spirit of the Government’s response was that there would then be proper consultation, hopefully on the principle of “Nothing about us without us”. Consultation on the detail of the Bill throughout its passage would be the best example that this Government could give of that process working productively so that we get it right and we do not endanger any more people, as unfortunately has happened in the past.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
I am sure that I speak for all hon. Members when I say that putting a stop to fraud of any kind is welcome, especially at a time when public money is scarce. However, many of my Horsham constituents have contacted me to say that the powers outlined in the Bill are very far-reaching and, if abused, could have hugely detrimental effects on benefit claimants through no fault of their own.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) said, the carer’s allowance repayment scandal shows exactly what can go wrong when the state has high-level powers over debt recovery. Due to departmental error, not the claimants’ error, there were more than 250,000 cases of overpayment to carers in the last five years of the Conservative Government. That is an enormous number. What would have happened to those carers, who are paid very little for the huge service to society that they provide, if the powers in the Bill had been in place during those five years? They would probably have faced forced withdrawals from their bank account, the possible removal of their driving licence or even forced entry to their home by the DWP.
The Bill will give increased powers to access private bank accounts. This requires careful consideration from a civil liberties perspective. However, the DWP already has the power to compel third parties to share data where criminal activity is suspected. The new powers appear to reduce the need for prior evidence and simply grant access at will. Given that access to banking information is estimated to recover just 1.4% of the Government’s annual loss to fraud and error, do these powers of forced withdrawal represent a proportionate action? Before introducing new powers, it might make more sense for the Government to increase the efficacy of existing requirements on third parties to report suspicious activity, and for HMRC to share banking data on an annual basis.
The Government have asserted that the Bill will save the public purse £1.5 billion, but in the absence of an impact statement, how do we know? If the DWP is to have the power to take people’s money, suspend driving licences and enter homes, we should at least be very confident that it is worth it. In particular, we need to be sure that the savings predicted do not come from the blameless victims of departmental error, as happened with the carer’s allowance overpayment scandal. It is of huge importance that fraud be reduced, but until we are sure that we have learned the lessons of the past, we run the risk of damaging people’s lives for insufficient benefit. We are at risk of making the same mistakes again, but with fewer checks and balances.
The sentiment of the Bill is welcome, but there are risks attached. I am concerned that it builds a narrative that assumes that the claimant is the guilty party, when it could be the Department that is at fault. I therefore call on the Government to apply all possible care before launching new regulations that, at present, would amount to a matter of trial and error.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
I recognise that fraud exists across the public sector and that it is wholly right for any Government to track down the fraudsters, the criminal gangs and those who cheat the system at the bottom as well as the top—we have heard about the VIP fast lane—but I hold deep reservations about the unintended consequences of the Bill in its present form.
We have heard some very constructive contributions this evening from Members across the House. I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is always accessible and has been willing to listen to my concerns and those of my many constituents who have got in touch to express their views. Although she has allayed some of my fears, I did let her know that I would raise my concerns in the Chamber today.
First, the Bill needs to make a greater distinction between fraud and error. We cannot accept a situation in which our constituents are being accused of fraud on the back of genuine personal errors. I know at first hand from my experience as a constituency MP that the Department is more than capable of making glaring errors of its own, and people suffer greatly as a result. The welfare system is not an easy one to navigate; people should be supported when problems arise, rather than there being a natural presumption towards guilt. Many organisations that have been in touch with hon. Members share this fear, so it is essential that the Government address the point head on.
Other aspects of the Bill sit very uneasy with me. The Government already have the powers, under existing legislation, to investigate those who are suspected of fraud. That raises the question why the Bill is needed. It feels like a hammer to crack a nut.
After the second world war, the Attlee Government set about establishing a welfare state as a safety net for those who were genuinely in need. The Attlee Government took responsibility for looking after the wellbeing of all their citizens from the cradle to the grave. Worryingly, there now seems to be a determination to transform the British welfare state into a system of mass surveillance.
I will be grateful if the Minister responds to the following points. First, although I acknowledge that the Secretary of State spoke about this at the Dispatch Box, what provisions are being made in respect of proper oversight of these proposed new powers? How would any financial institution navigate data protection conflicts between the Government and its customers? How would data security risks be mitigated?
During an iteration of the Bill introduced by the last Government, the Equality and Human Rights Commission called for it to be scrapped. A legal opinion from Dan Squires KC and Aidan Wills found that the powers in the previous iteration were likely to breach UK article 8 privacy rights protected in the Human Rights Act. Can the Minister tell us what legal advice the Government have received on the proposals in the Bill?
I have serious concerns that assertions and decisions on individual cases, if automated, could lead to Horizon-style injustices if the necessary steps are not taken to put the right safeguards in place, alongside measures to guarantee some level of transparency and accountability when mistakes arise. We are looking at a hugely significant change to our welfare system, at a time when the Department is responsible for record underpayments. Surely that should be a Government priority, rather than further upheaval of a system that threatens to further stigmatise those who legitimately rely on the welfare state.
There are low levels of fraud in the benefits system. The latest Government figures put it at 2.8% of total benefit expenditure, which translates to overpayments due to fraud recorded at 3.7% in the financial year 2023-24. Although it is right and proper to look at ways to reduce that figure, politicians in this place have a responsibility to make it clear at every opportunity that any such move, especially one as far-reaching as this, is intended to target a small minority of criminals. The constituents I support often tell me that the services they interact with, and by extension the Department, tend to view them with suspicion and lack of empathy. The Bill must not be used to entrench such attitudes.
For the British public, whether they are in work or out of work, life is getting harder. Rampant inequality has broken our economic model, while the 1% continue to squeeze the rest. I very much hope that the Bill will not end up punishing the wrong people, making those inequalities even worse. I look forward to Government Front Benchers engaging with those who express legitimate concerns today and during the Bill’s parliamentary journey. I will not oppose its Second Reading, but I will work constructively with colleagues across the House to table amendments in Committee that alleviate my concerns and those of right hon. and hon. Members.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
In Bassetlaw, most people work hard all their lives, pay their dues and want to live comfortably. They keep themselves to themselves, whether in Worksop, Harworth, Retford or the villages, but what unites them in anger is the known benefit fraudster who lives down the street. I have lost count of the number of times I have heard the rage, the sense of injustice and grievance that benefit fraud is happening on their doorstep, and that nothing seems to be done about it.
With billions of pounds of public money lost last year, we welcome this Bill in Bassetlaw. At long last, it is the start of real action against the fraudsters and those milking the system, whether they are workshy or feeding the coffers of organised crime. This legislation will give the DWP new anti-fraud powers, for the first time since the Tony Blair years, bringing it into the digital age.
I welcome the new search and seizure powers, bringing the DWP into line with HMRC’s investigative powers—seizing luxury goods, bags of cash and mobile phones to use as evidence of fraud, and taking active control of investigations into the criminal gangs that are defrauding the taxpayer. If that means raids, let it crack on.
I welcome the new, stronger powers to pursue those who receive money that they are not entitled to. Where they refuse outright to repay, it is right that their driving licence should be removed. Banks and building societies flagging fraud, such as long-term trips abroad or wages going into an account while benefits are also being claimed, is also welcome.
Although the Government will at last be tough on fraud, the new powers will include strong safeguards to ensure that they are used appropriately, protecting the vulnerable and the sick. The message from today is that if you are living off the wages of fraud, we are coming to get you. If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.
That is why I back the Bill’s additional measure to pursue those who ripped us off during covid, including the previous Government’s greedy friends who grabbed the PPE contracts and the fake company owners who took the business loans. We will not allow time limitations to act as a barrier. We want our money back and the thieves jailed, and we want anyone who lined the pockets of their mates to feel the long arm of the law.
I cannot abide the thought of my constituents’ hard-earned money funding the luxury lifestyles of the fraudsters. Labour is the party of working people, and this Bill puts our values into action. This Bill is all about fraud. It is the start, not the end, of stamping out corruption, insider dealing and the defrauding of those who strive and save by working hard. This is the start of resetting broken Britain.
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Last, but I hope not least.
Before entering this place, I spent a lot of my career tackling fraud. One key trend in fraud is its increasing sophistication. Rather than the art of a local chancer, fraud is increasingly conducted by organised crime groups using elaborate mechanisms, deeply advanced technology and rapidly shifting modus operandi. That includes benefit fraud gangs. I am sorry to say this, but fraud in the benefit system has reached an industrial scale. Frankly, it is time the Government got a grip, which is why I welcome their swift action in introducing this Bill.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote an excellent op-ed today highlighting this exact point. This is the money of many hard-working Brits, and it has been stolen from right under their noses. The Tories presided over a system that allowed criminals to line their pockets at taxpayers’ expense.
Paula Barker
My hon. Friend is making a passionate speech, and he talks about benefit fraud on an industrial scale. Does he really believe that just over 2.5% is an industrial scale?
Mr Charters
As I will come to, it is about the advanced techniques that these fraud gangs are using. It is industrial-level criminal activity.
Last year, £7 billion was cheated out of taxpayers’ pockets, and we have been left to clean it up. If we had that cash, we could have funded extra police officers or vital repairs to some of our hospitals. Frankly, it would also have made it easier to fill the £22 billion black hole left by the Conservative party, wherever its Members are.
I now turn to a few concrete examples of why this Bill matters. First, on the economics, the Bill is expected to save £1.5 billion over the next few years. These are not insignificant sums of money. It is important to stress that the public purse is not an endless pot, and the contributions of millions of working people across the country, including many of my constituents in York Outer, help to fund it. They want to see taxpayers’ money being spent wisely. Stealing benefits is not just fraud; it is a slap in the face to the hard-working taxpayers who fund our public services. This Bill changes that.
The Bill is not just about keeping more taxpayers’ cash in the Treasury. As Brits, we embody the values of kindness, decency and fairness. Although we are rightly outraged about criminals circumventing our system, we all want a reliable welfare state for the people who truly need it. Every £1 stolen by benefit fraud gangs is £1 less for a low-income single parent looking for a job on universal credit, £1 less for a disabled person on the higher rate of PIP, and £1 less for someone on carer’s allowance. In many cases, these payments are a lifeline for people getting back to work. At the moment, this cash is going to criminals rather than carers.
I now turn to a few recent cases of organised benefit fraud to elucidate the scale of the challenge we face. All have been settled and are now in the public domain following prosecutions.
In May 2024, we saw the largest benefit fraud case in history. The operation saw five Bulgarian nationals forge thousands of documents to make thousands of fraudulent universal credit claims to the value of £50 million.
In October 2023, seven people were sentenced for falsely claiming employment support allowance. They used advanced techniques to hijack identities, resulting in the crime group stealing hundreds of thousands of pounds.
An investigation by City of London police in 2020 saw enforcement against a benefit fraud ring to the tune of hundreds of thousands of pounds. I take a brief moment to praise the excellent work of our law enforcement agencies, including City of London police, who I have met, for their collaboration. That is exactly how the last fraud ring was closed. This example shows the benefit of public-private partnerships, which this Bill seeks to catalyse, in tackling benefit fraud,
What do these cases have in common? The benefit fraud was actually a predicate to other illicit activities. They demonstrate the need to upgrade our response, and this Bill represents additional lines of defence in our rising to the challenges we need to fix. Some of the measures in this Bill will do exactly that: supporting covid-era fraud investigations; strengthening the PSFA by establishing it as a separate entity; giving the PSFA powers to compel evidence and enter premises with a warrant; extending the time limit to bring action against historical fraud to 12 years; and granting extra powers for recovering money.
I recently visited the national economic crime centre at the National Crime Agency, and I know the scale of the challenges we face when it comes to tackling fraudsters. I have no doubt that, with this Bill, the Government will smash the benefit fraud gangs, but we must also acknowledge that this Bill represents a significant shift for the financial industry. It is a step into a new dawn for those in the banks who work on tackling economic crime, as they will be spending more time tackling benefit fraud.
It is right that the Government are pursuing a growth-first strategy, which has to be carefully balanced with the economic crime plan. The Financial Conduct Authority’s new consumer duty was an important stride forward for the industry, and I was proud to play a small role in that, but, as scrutiny of the Bill continues, I warmly invite Ministers to engage with the FCA and report back to the House on how the new powers will carefully balance consumer vulnerability with the need to drive down benefit fraud.
Finally, there is an important scenario that must be considered more carefully as the Bill progresses in this place. A victim of domestic abuse—let us call her “Jane”—is quietly saving money to escape, but then an account information notice is issued. Based on three months of bank statements, a debt recovery notice follows. Jane has 28 days to appeal, but no access to legal advice. Worse still, her abuser intercepts the letter and her savings, which are her lifeline to escape, are seized. Her escape plan is exposed, putting her at risk. We must ensure that financial processes do not accidentally or invertedly work against victims of domestic abuse in those scenarios, as I am sure Ministers are aware.
To close, the Prime Minister said in a speech at a recent Labour party conference:
“If we want to maintain support for the welfare state, then we will legislate to stop benefit fraud”.
When it comes to tackling organised crime groups, not only is he right, but the Bill is proof he is delivering on his promise. The Bill is about smashing the benefit fraud gangs, treating taxpayers’ money fairly and ensuring we have a safety net left for the genuinely vulnerable people who need it. I refer time and again to a point I made in my maiden speech that rings as true today as it ever has done. I said:
“I want to ensure that there is no safe harbour for fraudsters, no compromise in our pursuit of their schemes and no escape from justice.”—[Official Report, 17 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 124.]
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to wind up this important debate on behalf of the official Opposition. It has been a really interesting debate, with some strong views expressed by Members from all parties, and the disagreements did not necessarily come from where we might have been expected. In fact, it seems the official Opposition and the Government are more in agreement than anybody else.
The hon. Members for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), for Torbay (Steve Darling), for Clwyd North (Gill German), for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) all spoke. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) made some very valid points. At the end of the debate, the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) made an interesting point about the connection between the Bill and violence against women and girls, which will be important to consider in Committee. Passionate views were raised by the hon. Members for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) and for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). It has been an interesting debate all round.
Before I start, I want to reflect on some of the comments made about covid. As has been made clear, the Bill is in two parts: one part is about the Cabinet Office and the increasing powers, and the other is about the benefit fraud challenges facing the DWP. The previous Government, particularly when my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) was Chancellor, saved a huge number of businesses through the bounce back loans and jobs through the furlough scheme, and provided initiatives like the kickstart programme. Without those, even more people would have needed to claim from the DWP. The National Audit Office has said that there is no evidence of ministerial involvement in improper procurement or contract decisions, so it is important to make that point for the record.
As we have heard, the measures in the Bill are a continuation of much that the previous Conservative Government were implementing before the election was called, but it also contains some concerning extensions to the powers of the new Government. A pattern is emerging: the Government pick up our previous work, quietly remove some of the more sensible plans, and add some ill thought out plans of their own. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) highlighted our record in government of tackling fraud in the welfare system and fighting public sector fraud. Members on the Government Benches seem to have forgotten that record but, in good faith, I will assume that is error rather than fraud on their part. It has been a few hours since my hon. Friend shared that record, so allow me to recap.
Before the pandemic, we worked hard to secure near record low levels of fraud and error across the DWP welfare and tax credit systems. We knew the stress and anxiety experienced by those who had been overpaid, we were hunting down those who were deliberately misappropriating the system, and our actions were making a difference. However, given the amount of Government support provided during the pandemic, it is not surprising that individuals and groups sought to exploit the emergency situation we all faced.
In response to that, we published our “Fighting fraud in the welfare system” paper in May 2022. That crackdown led to a 10% reduction in fraud and error, and £1 billion saved through dedicated counter-fraud activities. In addition, an estimated further £1.35 billion was saved between 2023 and 2024. Our ambition did not end there. Last May, we published a further paper, “Fighting fraud in the welfare system: going further”, which set out plans to save an additional £9 billion by 2027-28 by cracking down on benefit cheats. During the debate, we heard about the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, which was the precursor to part 2 of the Bill before us. Furthermore, our proposed fraud Bill would have aligned the Department for Work and Pensions with HMRC, enabling us to treat benefit fraud in the same way as tax fraud, giving investigators new powers to make seizures and arrests.
All that is before we look at our record of tackling public sector fraud, as additionally included in this new Bill. Our taxpayer protection taskforce secured about £1.2 billion, which was either blocked from being paid out or recovered through our compliance work. We set up the Public Sector Fraud Authority, whose powers are being extended in the Bill, to work across Government to reduce fraud against the public sector. Its first-year target was £180 million, which was smashed with savings of £311 million.
Our risk, threat and prevention service was the first in-house fraud squad of its kind in the world when set up in 2023. Working across Government, it set out to ensure the public purse was protected at key points, as new spending programmes or policies were announced. Why was that important? We know that between 2023 and 2024 alone, the Public Accounts Committee has found that nearly £1 in every £15 was either error or fraud. That is an eye-watering amount of taxpayer money, as the vast majority of Members would agree. The ambition of the Bill for a more powerful Public Sector Fraud Authority could lead to about £54 billion being recovered from public sector fraud in 10 years, which is a welcome figure.
However, the Government could be doing more. We have heard how the taxpayer simply cannot afford the Government to stop here—more action is essential. The new Government’s inaction to date in reforming health and sickness benefits is estimated to have cost the taxpayer approximately £1.8 billion since July 2024, which is around £266 million every month. Instead, the new Government have gone after pensioners, employers and farmers, actions they were ready and waiting to take without delay. Yet here we are, seven months into a new Parliament, with not a peep on how they will reform the benefit system, other than repeating that they will come up with a plan soon. Indeed, they had 14 years to come up with that plan. Every day Labour ducks the tough questions, the benefits bill continues to grow.
However, taking a step back, it is important to remember why we have a benefits or welfare system in the first place. I am sure that across the House we are agreed that it is morally right for the state to provide for the most vulnerable—those who, through no fault of their own, need financial support to provide for themselves or their family. In debating the Bill, it is easy to forget that, in the majority of cases, beneficiaries of additional support from the state claim it simply to get on with their lives, and they are not a cause for concern. However, as the title of the Bill suggests, there is a need to recover public money that has been claimed either in error or because of fraud—as a result of an innocent mistake or with deliberate intent. This is, after all, as we have heard multiple times, taxpayers’ money that has ended up in the wrong bank account. That needs rectifying, which is why, as we have already made clear, we support the Bill in principle.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent set out a number of questions, which I hope the Minister will address shortly in his summing up. Unsurprisingly, we remain concerned about the final details of the legislation and the huge absence of a plan to tackle the rapidly rising benefits bill. However, we look forward to debating the details of the Bill further in Committee shortly, and working cross-party to ensure that further progress is made. First and foremost, we must see money from the public purse fairly and squarely in the hands of those it is intended for, and not in the hands of the fraudsters working to line their own pockets.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
I hope that the House will bear with me; I have binned my original closing speech, given the number of contributions that we have heard, and some of the legitimate questions and concerns that colleagues have set out. I thank those colleagues who rightly highlighted the scale of the challenge, and why the Government must act to tackle fraud against the public sector. My hon. Friends the Members for Burnley (Oliver Ryan), for Clwyd North (Gill German), for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky), for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson), for Bassetlaw (Jo White) and for York Outer (Mr Charters) all set out the scale of the challenge, and the views of their constituents on this issue, in very robust terms.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer about the risk of unintended consequences, particularly on the issue of violence against women and girls. We are looking at that closely and will continue to do so. A number of Members referred to the alleged lack of an impact assessment, or the publication of one. An impact assessment has been published, alongside the view of the Regulatory Policy Committee, and is available for colleagues to view.
Let me turn to specific concerns about the Bill, starting with those of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). I welcome the tone of the Conservatives, and their broad support for a number of the principles in the Bill. She is correct that it is incumbent on the state to get its money back. It is part of the unwritten contract that she referred to. I felt there was a slightly tenuous justification for the escalation in benefit fraud that we have seen in recent years: the war in Ukraine. I know that we are happy to blame Putin for many things, but that was a new one on me. She rightly pointed to an escalation in benefit fraud and error as a result of covid, but that does not explain why the level of fraud and error in the Department for Work and Pensions was higher in 2023-24 than in any of the years from 2021-22 onwards—£9.7 billion last year, a record level. The issue is getting worse, not better, and that happened on the Conservatives’ watch.
The shadow Secretary of State suggested that the contents of the Conservatives’ fraud plan would have solved all these problems, and that we are copying much of what was in it. It is fair to say that the Conservative party legislated only on the third-party data measure in that plan. The Conservatives never mentioned debt recovery powers, and made no efforts to get a grip on public sector fraud with the new powers that we are introducing by putting the PSFA on a statutory footing. Overall, their appalling record hardly comes as a surprise.
The shadow Secretary of State went on to say that she was concerned about the amount of information being shared by banks. Just to be clear, we will not be sharing any information with banks. The information that will come back to us will have very strict criteria, and we are taking a specific power to fine banks for oversharing information that is out of scope. She asked what testing has been done on this; two trials have been undertaken, so we know that the proposal will work, as it pertains to the eligibility verification measure.
The shadow Secretary of State went on, with some audacity, in my view, to challenge whether the debt recovery powers go far enough—powers that the Conservative party refused to take, and never put forward when they were in government. She mentioned the number of AI schemes that have been set aside. Test and learn is perfectly normal in the AI space. I remind her that some of the schemes that had not been taken forward are now moving through under different names. She mentioned the PSFA, and raised concerns about the right to compel information. The powers have independent oversight to ensure that their use is proportionate, so although no organisations are exempt, all actions are considered within a robust legal framework.
We then heard from the Conservatives, astonishingly, that there is nothing in the Bill to get a grip on the benefits bill. What cheek, when the benefits bill spiralled by some £20 billion on their watch! As for their so-called plan, I remind the shadow Secretary of State that they made a hash of it and that we lost a judicial review on their failed plan just a few weeks ago, so we will take our time to bring forward the proposals and will consult on them, and we will get this right.
I am grateful for the support of the Conservatives, but I hope that it will manifest itself in the voting Lobby later because, with the exception of the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), who I believe is the Parliamentary Private Secretary, we have not had a full speech from a single Conservative Member—just one intervention. If that does not show the lack of seriousness with which they take this issue, the appalling record and position we have inherited should do just that.
I want to spend a little time on the comments of the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), who is a champion for vulnerable people. I particularly want to speak to the measures we are taking to assure ourselves of the appropriate support for vulnerable people, both within the scope of the Bill and more generally, because that is important and relates to a number of comments from Members. It is always the Department’s priority to set repayment plans that are affordable and sustainable; that we make use of the debt respite service, Breathing Space, which allows for a temporary protection from creditors; and that we provide additional support to help customers manage their money. We work with the Money and Pensions Service under its brand name “Moneyhelper”, which offers free, independent and impartial money and debt advice. Indebted customers are routinely offered a referral, with the majority who meet the criteria taking up that offer.
In addition, a DWP debt management vulnerability framework has recently been introduced to provide guidance for advisers on how to support customers at risk of becoming vulnerable, including signposting to specialist support. That is embedded across debt management, and part of that involves advisers undertaking annual refresher training on identifying and supporting customers experiencing vulnerability. Within the scope of the Bill, it is important to recognise that the power of debt recovery will not be used on benefit claimants. It extends only to those who receive their income through means other than benefits or through payrolled employment.
There are also important safeguards in the Bill that govern the process of debt recovery and the new enforcement powers. There will be repeated efforts at contact before any enforcement action is taken, and there will be affordability checks before any deductions are taken from bank accounts. There will be limits on the size of those deductions, a right to require deduction orders and a right to appeal deduction orders beyond that. Also, the DWP can vary or suspend the deduction order following a change in circumstances.
Kirsty Blackman
I appreciate that the Government have made changes around affordability, but they still do not assess either benefit clawbacks or the deductions on the basis of whether they are actually affordable for the people having to pay them back. Are the Government planning to put that in place at some point in future?
Andrew Western
The hon. Lady will forgive me if I have not understood her correctly, but there is specific provision in the Bill on the debt recovery powers to limit the amount that can be clawed back to 40% of anybody’s capital, but if I have misunderstood that, I am happy to have a conversation with her afterwards. I hope that I have set out some of the steps we are taking in the Bill and more broadly to ensure support for vulnerable people.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), was right to highlight the scale of covid fraud and the lack of safeguards in place to protect the public purse. He highlighted the carer’s allowance review, which will report this summer, not next, but we are already learning the lessons of that. Much like the proposals in the Bill, data is key, so we have secured funding to extend the verify earnings and pensions service system of alerts from HMRC to 100% of claims. We will ensure in this Bill that the eligibility verification measure information is processed quickly to reduce large overpayments, and to avoid a repeat of what happened on the last Government’s watch with carer’s allowance.
The hon. Member for Torbay raised the use of AI, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth. There will always be a human decision maker on each of these powers, so where decisions are made, a human—not AI—will make that call. For EVM, a flag would be passed to a human to establish benefit eligibility. For debt recovery, it would be passed to a human to assess vulnerability and the ability to pay. For information gathering, it would be passed to a human for investigation where there is a suspicion of fraud. For search and seizure, a warrant would be granted by a judge. At all times, a human is making those decisions, as is right and proper, given the powers that we are talking about.
According to the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire, there is no doubt that had the Conservatives had longer, their policies would have driven fraud down further and faster than our proposals will. Thankfully, we do not have the opportunity to test that theory. Given their appalling record—with fraud and error escalating every year since the pandemic and standing at £9.7 billion last year—I dread to think what they would have done when they turned their attention to these matters.
The hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire went on to ask whether the independent person would report on the use of powers. Yes, and those reports—on both the PSFA side and the DWP side—will be placed before Parliament annually. He asked about non-drivers and the point of suspending licences when not everybody drives. Well, short of taking the power to prevent somebody from walking, I fail to see how much further we could have gone in that regard. However, I recognise—as I hope he does—that that is only one of a suite of measures that we are considering to move us forward in the powers available to us.
Of course, it is important to recognise that the introduction of an independent person was not considered necessary by the Conservative Government in the third-party data measures that they proposed under their Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. We are introducing that measure not just for the PSFA powers or the eligibility verification measures, but for information-gathering powers and powers of search and seizure.
I understand that the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) is concerned, but I fundamentally disagree with the idea that it is conservative to want to tackle benefit fraud, and that we should ignore the £7.4 billion-worth of welfare fraud last year. I certainly do not think that it is conservative to go after public sector fraud; in fact, if it were slightly more conservative, we might not be in the terrible position we are in now.
My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) raised a number of important questions. Time prevents me from running through them all now, but I would be delighted to meet him to discuss them further. I was especially concerned by the case that he raised. One potential benefit of the eligibility verification measure is that it will allow us to detect overpayments earlier, but clearly we want to ensure that the DWP is handling such issues correctly first time. The ICO was mentioned by a number of Members, including my hon. Friend. Just to clear that up, it was not a letter received into the Department; the ICO published on its website today its findings and thoughts on the Bill at this stage. It recognises the steps that we have taken on proportionality, and I welcome those comments.
The hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) has concerns about banks and the potential erosion of data protection powers—that is not my view. The Bill will involve very limited data sharing. The Department for Work and Pensions is not monitoring accounts, and we will fine banks if they overshare in that space.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) made an important contribution. To clarify, the Bill is not predicated on saving £10 billion in welfare fraud; it sets out to save £1.5 billion over five years, but it is part of overall measures to save £8.6 billion over that period, because we do not accept the level of fraud in the system at present.
The hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) suggested that the Bill subjects millions of people to unwarranted financial surveillance. To give Members absolute clarity, we will not receive transactional information from banks, we will not look in bank accounts directly, and we will not ask banks to take decisions on whether somebody has committed fraud.
The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) raised the question of clause 50 on the PSFA side of the Bill and asked what constitutes fraud. For clarity, it is standard for powers to be taken by the Secretary of State—or a Minister in this case—but in practice, qualified and experienced decision makers will consider cases as authorised officers.
The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to raise clause 91 and the removal of driving licences. I would gently say to him that this is an existing power held by the Child Maintenance Service. The question of liable persons and whether removal is proportionate would be a matter for a judge; it would only happen after repeated attempts to secure repayment, and before any disqualification occurs, an individual will always be given the opportunity to agree a repayment plan. This is a power of last resort, but I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that if he has specific concerns about the pursuit of fraud in Northern Ireland, I am happy to follow them up.
As always, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke from the heart about the plight of his constituents and the challenges they face. I want to assure him that this is not a Bill that is intended to focus on the low-hanging fruit of vulnerable people; that is why it includes some of the protections I set out earlier, and it is why we are putting in place independent oversight for the debt recovery and eligibility verification measures. He asked about the right of appeal, and I can confirm that the rights of review and of appeal against a ruling in the debt recovery space are written into the Bill.
The important question of appointees is one that I want to address directly, given the point that the hon. Gentleman raised about his constituent’s sister. To be very clear, that is something we had significant concerns about after the previous introduction of the third-party data measure, and the system will remove appointees. There may be circumstances in which those bank accounts need to be checked if the appointee receives benefits themselves, but if they do not, they will be screened out.
Kirsty Blackman
The individuals who are going to do the independent assessment will be appointed by the Secretary of State. Would it not be better for Parliament to agree the appointment of those individuals, so that we can be assured that they are actually independent?
Andrew Western
Clearly, we will inform Parliament as to who that will be, but we will go through a proper recruitment process. If the hon. Lady is talking about the independent person to be appointed for the eligibility verification measures, we will go through a thorough recruitment process to ensure they have the expertise needed. They will report every year to Parliament, and it is right and appropriate that they do so.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for his support for part 1 of the Bill, but I understand his concerns about the powers as they pertain to the Department for Work and Pensions. One of his principal concerns was about banks perhaps being unable to exercise those powers appropriately; what we are proposing is not intended as a decision-making action, but as a data push. Banks will not make decisions—a human within the DWP will carry out that investigation. He has raised concerns about potential errors in the system, and to be clear, we acknowledge that this is a new power. We intend to scale it up in a “test and learn” phase, doing so gradually so that we can get it right, but we simply cannot ignore the problem and not look to take these powers when we had a £7.4 billion problem with fraud in the DWP last year.
Turning to the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne), I think I have already dealt with the issue of carer’s allowance overpayments and how we are starting to put that right. To clarify again, we are not accessing bank accounts; banks will be doing that for us, but they will not be taking decisions as to somebody’s benefit eligibility. The hon. Gentleman said that we should look at the efficacy of existing powers to request information. We are doing that through the updating of information-gathering powers and the right to compel information digitally. We will be moving to a list of excluded organisations, rather than a list of organisations from which we are able to compel information.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker) raised a series of concerns, which I know come from a good place. I am very happy to meet her to discuss some of these powers—it is important that we get this right—but on the particular question of the legal advice and article 8, although she is correct that Big Brother Watch did commission some legal opinion, we are confident that the powers in the Bill are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. They are different powers, distinct from the third-party data powers put forward as part of the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill, and we do think that they are compatible with the ECHR, including the right to a private life under article 8. That is specifically because the third-party data elements are now narrower, and because we have included the safeguards that I have set out. We think the measures are justified in accordance with the law and are proportionate.
The final speech was from the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith). Again, I felt it was constructive, if slightly fantastical at points, and I may disagree about the extent to which the Conservatives had more sensible plans that have since been abandoned by this Government. On the question of public sector fraud, I note that she pointed to action to be taken to try to claw back public money. Can I suggest to her that they seek to put that in a press release? If they are not enough of a laughing stock because of their previous behaviour, they would be after seeking to claim that they had a positive story to tell in that space.
I will finish by reiterating the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State: whoever you are—big businesses, covid fraudsters, organised criminal gangs seeking to defraud the system or individuals knowingly cheating on their benefits—it is not acceptable. We have a major problem, and we are taking the powers needed to act.
Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Programme)
Monday 3rd February 2025
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill 2024-26 View all Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Money)
Monday 3rd February 2025
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill 2024-26 View all Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text
Business without Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With the leave of the House, I will bundle together motions 6 and 7.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Companies
That the draft Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) (Amendment) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 6 December 2024, be approved.
Environmental Protection
That the draft Separation of Waste (England) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 3 December 2024, be approved. —(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Question agreed to.
Adjournment (February, Easter, May Day and Whitsun recesses)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 25), That this House, at its rising on Thursday 13 February, do adjourn until Monday 24 February; at its rising on Tuesday 8 April, do adjourn until Tuesday 22 April; at its rising on Thursday 1 May, do adjourn until Tuesday 6 May; and at its rising on Thursday 22 May, do adjourn until Monday 2 June.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)
Question agreed to.
Energy Development Proposals: Mid Buckinghamshire
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I rise to register my outrage at the unacceptable situation that all my constituents in Mid Buckinghamshire are facing: a tidal wave of energy infrastructure driven by hype, speculation and a closed-minded approach to energy security. As we have seen with countless other large-scale infrastructure projects, be they road, rail or housing, it is rural areas that are thrown under the bus with no thought for the huge impact that both the construction and the operation of those projects has on communities. I therefore strongly encourage the Government to take note of what I believe is a ticking time bomb that risks permanently devastating not just my constituency but countless others across the United Kingdom.
I am sadly no stranger to the problem of big infrastructure. From the moment I was first elected, I have taken every opportunity to put on record the terrible destruction that High Speed 2 has brought on my constituency, from the shameless turfing out of farmers, who have often been left without compensation for years on end, to the sorry state of the roads used by heavy goods vehicles and the sheer size of the compounds that litter the Buckinghamshire countryside—literally industrial waste—for there is no justification for spending £200 billion of taxpayers’ money on a railway that has effectively already become obsolete.
The same is true of ground-based energy infrastructure, which is the least efficient form of energy production. Put simply, the enormous loss of agricultural land required to double the share of national energy consumption generated by solar, which will amount to less than 10% even with the proposed increase, is not worth it.
Greg Smith
It would not be an Adjournment debate without the hon. Gentleman. I am interested to see how he will get Mid Buckinghamshire into his intervention. I am all ears.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I remind you, Mr Shannon, that this debate is about energy development proposals in Mid Buckinghamshire. We are ready for your intervention.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the importance of land. The priority for agricultural land is to provide the food to feed this nation, not for solar energy projects that clog and take away the land. My constituency is similar to his, and my interest is to ensure that that good land is kept for the production of food, as it should be.
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman is always on point on these matters. I will come to the important matter of food security later, but he is right. The inefficiency of some energy projects coming forward in Mid Buckinghamshire, as well as in communities in Strangford, I dare say, is a huge challenge not just to food security but to the rural way of life that those in our communities enjoy.
It takes 2,000 acres of solar panels to generate enough electricity to power 50,000 homes on current usage—before everyone has two Teslas on the drive—yet a small modular reactor requires just two football pitches to produce enough power for a million homes on current usage. It cannot be right that the Government are pursuing this technology. I put it to the Minister and to right hon. and hon. Members across the House that nuclear is the answer, but fingers seem to be in ears whenever it is raised. I assume that that is obvious to the Government, as is the vital importance of food security, which is directly compromised by taking land out of food production and giving it over to solar.
The Government seem content with ploughing on. Last week’s revelation in The Daily Telegraph of intentions to convert a tenth of our farmland to use for net zero gives a blank cheque to those intent on destroying rather than preserving our countryside. The countryside is for farming. It is not a building site for solar panels, power plants, battery storage sites or wind turbines. It is for growing food. It is for the local communities and businesses that rely on it.
Attempts to take land away from food production in my constituency are simply unjustifiable. An unjustifiable 3,000 acres of land are already lost or at risk of being subsumed by solar panels. Those 3,000 acres are taken out of food production, no longer farmed by families who have farmed them for generations but are now turfed out, with little to no compensation, and the land unlikely ever to return to food production. Let us bear in mind that that is just for the projects that have been proposed or consented to.
Rosefield is a monster project of immense scale. For this monstrosity alone, over 2,000 acres of land—much of it arable grade 3a and 3b—have been sold off to EDF Renewables for the construction of vast swathes of solar panels right in the heart of the Claydons. That land produces a 10-tonne-a-hectare wheat harvest. Many farmers would bite your right hand off to get that, but it is cast aside by the consultants and proposers of the site as low-grade land. It simply is not. As the name suggests, the area is rich in clay soil, which is incredibly valuable to farmers as it retains rich levels of both nutrients and water. It allows us in Buckinghamshire to produce immense quantities of wheat, barley, beans, oilseed rape and much more.
We are facing a clear trade-off between food security and what is considered today to be energy security. Members will know that I have consistently questioned the suitability and sustainability of solar as a renewable source of electricity. There is nothing renewable about land left to rot underneath solar panels, or the huge amount of emissions from the construction of these vast sites.
We in Buckinghamshire face an equal if not greater threat from battery energy storage sites. These shipping container-sized units use hundreds of lithium ion batteries to store surplus energy, which is later sold back to the grid to meet demand when required. Not only are the battery storage sites noisy and unsightly, but they displace water run-off because of their concrete bases, create light pollution, are a target for vandalism and are a huge fire risk, as I will discuss shortly.
On top of that, such sites are not a sustainable form of energy production. In fact, they do nothing more than hold surplus energy, no matter how or where that energy has been generated. In fact, with less than 5% of today’s energy consumption coming from solar, the chances are that the energy stored by these sites has not come from the site next door. It is utterly shameful of BESS promoters to label their projects as “sustainable” and “part of the solution”. It is, I am afraid to say, simply a matter of profiteering off the taxpayer while doing little to nothing—that is, for those who do not enjoy a chemically fuelled bonfire. It has been proven time and again, with tragic results, how dangerous battery energy storage sites can be. In September 2020, for example, a fire at a BESS site in Liverpool took 59 hours to extinguish. While the promoters may spout about new technology guarding us against fire today, it does not and cannot justify placing such sites in rural areas. That is because—surprise, surprise—it takes far longer for fire crews to respond in rural areas, especially ones that are prone to flooding, such as the Claydons, in my constituency, where three BESS applications have been lodged in just one year.
It is not surprising that pouring concrete on to farmland exacerbates flooding, or that hundreds of shipping containers ruin the view for miles around.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
The proposed energy developments will create a strain on our valuable farmland in Mid Buckinghamshire and across Buckinghamshire more widely. Many parts of the county are on a floodplain, which will already be under additional strain because of these different energy developments. Will the Minister look again at these proposals? We already have infrastructure demands because HS2 and housing, as well as energy development, are all going into a very constrained area in Mid Buckinghamshire.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and fellow Buckinghamshire Member of Parliament for that intervention. She is absolutely right that the strain being put on our small, rural county from so many projects—the cumulative impact of the energy proposals that are the subject of my speech, HS2, East West Rail, mega-prisons and so much more—makes the attack on our countryside and the risk, to go to her point on flooding, all the worse.
I just listed a number of things that should not be surprising. However, they seem surprising to promoters, who seem totally oblivious to the idea that farming gives us food, gives people jobs and a livelihood, and gives communities an identity and a vital source of income. However, that does not seem to have stopped them flooding the planning system in Mid Buckinghamshire with these BESS applications. What makes it all the more confusing is that, according to the Government’s newly formed national energy systems operator:
“The number of speculative connection applications has substantially risen over the past few years resulting in an excessively high volume of contracted parties when in reality only about a third of the volume of projects will make it to Completion.”
What we are actually seeing—what is very visible in Mid Buckinghamshire—is a number of these so-called zombie projects that are clogging up the system and causing incredible concern and outrage to local communities, but that may actually never happen. That is simply absurd.
My constituents are constantly being told that the projects are needed for a transition to net zero, yet the vast majority will not even be completed. That goes to show how misguided the Government’s so-called energy security policy really is: unable to deliver and throwing my constituents under the bus. It should therefore not be a surprise that the misguided and highly speculative nature of the BESS projects has led to countless rejections by local planning authorities.
Less than six weeks ago, when presented with its first BESS application—a 500 MW site in the Claydons—Buckinghamshire council resoundingly rejected it on the grounds of fire risk, lack of access and an inappropriate site location. Our local paper even described the plan as a “terrorists’ dream”. The same goes for York council, which rejected a 100 MW site in the village of Osbaldwick on fire grounds. The same reason led East Renfrewshire council to reject a 40 MW site in the village of Eaglesham in Scotland and Dorset Council to reject a 60 MW facility in the village of Chickerell. I trust the Minister will have taken note not just of those rejections but of the many others which are, if anything, increasing by the week. This, I hope, demonstrates the clear, strong opposition from local communities to BESS facilities.
It is not just about battery storage, solar farms, substations or whatever else forms part of the Government’s flawed approach to energy security. For constituencies such as mine, it is about the cumulative impact of all that and more, over which, time and time again, the local community has had little, if any, say. For my constituents in the Claydons, nearly every major project has been Government-sanctioned with little to no thought as to how, when we combine one of the UK’s largest solar installations, three battery storage sites, two major new railways, a new substation and several new housing developments, a collection of small villages in the middle of the countryside is meant to cope. The short answer is: it has not.
Initially faced with both East West Rail and HS2 construction, the latter ongoing for many years to come, my constituents in that part of Buckinghamshire now face a raft of new energy infrastructure, as well as yet more housing and a new prison. The cumulative impact is devastating, made worse by the fact there is no mechanism—no mechanism—within the planning system that allows the cumulative impact of multiple major infrastructure projects in the same area to be accounted for when local authorities are presented with them. It seems logical, yet the Minister must recognise that there is no circumstance that necessitates the flattening of an area that serves no benefit to local residents and leaves them in a near permanent state of disruption and misery.
The latest example of that glaring omission is the application and subsequent rejection of Statera’s plan, which I spoke about a moment ago, to build a 500 MW BESS facility in the Claydons. It turns out that the promoters did not check that they could even get a grid connection on completion, as confirmed by National Grid when pressed on that substation expansion plan before Christmas. This is yet more evidence of the speculative nature of Government-backed infrastructure projects. Just as well, with Statera’s plans having now been rejected.
Elsewhere in my constituency, yet another solar installation, at Callie’s farm near Ilmer, was recently granted planning permission, joining two other nearby sites at Bumpers farm and Whirlbush farm in Kingsey. As a result, when someone enters Buckinghamshire on the train from neighbouring Oxfordshire, they are met not with farmland but with acres upon acres of solar panels. Further south, and directly affecting my constituents in Little Missenden, we find yet another potential BESS site at Mop End, which if built would require infrastructure reaching 6 metres in height right in the heart of the Chilterns.
In Long Crendon and the surrounding villages, I and the local community are fighting against Acorn Bioenergy’s proposed anaerobic digester, which once again cannot be justified in the middle of the countryside, not when there are 140 lorry movements a day during construction and then operation through villages—I declare an interest as they include my own village of Chearsley—that simply cannot cope and cannot be expected to cope. These are small rural villages with small rural roads, and often the front doors to people’s homes, and the entrances to primary schools and children’s playgrounds, are off those very same roads.
Joy Morrissey
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about the shocking amount of development that is happening, and it is not just about energy; he is also making an excellent point about the lack of local consent. It is shocking that the Government are not honouring the opinions of local people.
Greg Smith
My hon. Friend has made exactly the point that I want to make, with, perhaps, more succinctness than I have been able to manage. This is indeed about local consent. It is about communities giving their views and actually being listened to when it comes to these projects. Far too often, the desktop exercise that is done in London or Birmingham or Leeds or Manchester, or any of our great cities, is done largely by those who have little or no understanding of rural life—of the way our rural roads actually operate, the way our farmland is actually farmed, and the way our countryside actually works. If local people were listened to a little more often, we might not have some of the problems that these energy infrastructure projects, or projects such as HS2 or East West Rail, throw up on the land that any local will tell you floods three or four times a year.
Those doing the desktop exercise say, “Oh, that is nothing. It is nowhere near a floodplain. That land will not flood.” I have stood on many of these sites in my own wellington boots a number of times, on the land that the consultants in the city say will not flood, with the water lapping up at the top of my boots, and have gone home with wet socks. That is a reality that local people often understand in a way these consultants and desktop exercises never would.
I gently invite the Minister to acknowledge that no matter how sustainable such projects claim to be, the hard truth is that whether it be during the construction or operation of these sites, the transportation of materials effectively offsets any benefit and does permanent damage to a local area, exactly as it has with HS2. Only this week I objected to yet another BESS application in the Claydons, in which the developer has not even bothered to include a battery safety management plan. It is utterly disgraceful, and a reflection of just how speculative these applications are becoming.
Despite this speculation on solar and battery storage, wherever we go in Buckinghamshire there are few if any warehouse roofs with solar panels. That is a real shame, given the amount of unused roof space that could generate 15 GW of solar-derived energy without damaging a blade of grass or any crop growing in any field. That is equivalent to 46 million solar panels. Why, then, are the Government not actively incentivising the use of large-scale roof-mounted solar, particularly on industrial buildings—the distribution centres and warehouses and factories that we see popping up all around us, certainly near my area when we go out towards Bicester or up towards Milton Keynes? That is a question that is rightly being asked by farmers across my constituency who stand to lose everything when a solar developer comes along, or indeed someone involved in any energy project, with little or no compensation provided.
This is, I am afraid, fairly typical in relation to infrastructure, especially in rural areas where a farm is not just a source of income but someone’s livelihood, and the very shape and beauty of the landscape in rural communities. When it comes to a project the size of Rosefield, which primarily affects tenant farmers, the loss of income not just for individual farmers but for the whole area is devastating. That is because, unlike a freeholder—in this case, the Claydon estate—tenant farmers do not have ownership rights and are therefore not entitled to proper compensation, although this and other sizeable projects are spearheaded by large multinational energy companies for which compensation is normally just a rounding error.
However, it is not just farmers who are affected. Unpaid parish councillors across my constituency are spending ever more time fighting this infrastructure tidal wave. I dare say many have become rather good at it following years of doing battle with HS2, but that by no means justifies thousands of hours each year being spent by countless individuals—countless heroes—sometimes combined with significant sums of money, fighting projects that local residents do not want and did not ask for. They, along with farmers and local business owners, are paying the price for this nonsensical approach to energy security.
For projects that are given the go-ahead, there is little chance of promoters paying up for the damage that they will invariably do to our local road network. That is the sad reality for infrastructure projects, as we have seen with the countless others that I have referenced, although I am proud of the work that I and Buckinghamshire council did to push East West Rail to pay up for the damage it caused. There is no such prospect with energy infrastructure, but the fact is that, with so many sites in one area, the impact on our roads from all the construction traffic would be far worse than any promoter is prepared to admit. Just as we have seen with the railways and the highways works clash, it will delay all projects in the area, ultimately costing the taxpayer and prolonging the misery for my constituents.
This is the reality. If something is not done, we will lose our ability to produce food and we will see the continued erosion of rural communities, and all while doing little to source our energy sustainably. Energy infrastructure does not belong on farmland. It does not belong in Mid Buckinghamshire. Let us drop this nonsense and go for nuclear instead.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this evening’s Adjournment debate. It has certainly not been lacking in hyperbole, and I look forward to responding to his specific points. Phrases such as “ticking time bomb”, “intent on destroying” and “thrown under the bus” suggest that we have taken a rational view on some of these decisions, although I will say that his comment about “two Teslas on the drive” suggests that our constituencies are quite different. Perhaps that will come forward in my remarks.
I will pick up on the general thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s speech before turning to some of the specifics. He put forward a case that wrongly asserts that the only options are either a clean power system with renewables at its heart, or nuclear. I will come to his point about SMRs shortly, but I agree with him that there is a rational case for balance. We see nuclear as playing a critical role in our energy system in the future, but we also understand that building out a clean power system requires building renewables as well, because they are cheaper to operate and they deliver home-grown energy security in a way that gas plants do not. I will come back to the clean power action plan’s pathway in due course.
The truth is that the hon. Gentleman spent the past 20 minutes outlining—in fact, he was quite open and honest about this—that he wants no infrastructure built in his constituency at all, yet I assume that his constituents still want to be able to rely on that infrastructure in their daily lives, including railways, hospitals, schools, energy and prisons. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues certainly want us to use prisons much more, but he does not want us to build prisons anywhere in his constituency. I am always very careful about the arguments on nimbyism, but at the heart of this issue is a real question about the fact that, at some point, we have to acknowledge that if we are to build infrastructure in this country, it has to be hosted somewhere.
As someone who has one of Europe’s biggest onshore wind farms just outside my window in my constituency, I recognise that some constituencies will have to host important infrastructure on behalf of the country, and we all need to play a part in that. The reality is that delivering energy security requires us to build much more infrastructure, even if that includes small modular reactors. However, it is estimated that demand for electricity in this country will double by 2050, so the need of all our constituents, including the hon. Gentleman’s, for electricity and the jobs of the future will mean building much more infrastructure.
The hon. Gentleman made an important point about the cumulative impact of infrastructure, which the Government have tried to wrestle with. That is partly why we launched the strategic spatial energy plan, so that we have a holistic approach to planning the energy system in the long term—the work should have been started a long time ago, but it was not undertaken by the previous Government. Alongside that, colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have launched the land use framework for the same reason: to try to plan the long-term future for land across our country. Given that food security is incredibly important, how do we protect land for food, and how do we identify pieces of land where we will build nationally important infrastructure? That is incredibly important.
I repeat the point that we need to build infrastructure in this country. I am afraid that we have buried our head in the sand for far too long with respect to the infrastructure that is necessary, and the grid is struggling as a result. It is really important that we find a way to build that infrastructure in a holistic way that recognises the cumulative impact on communities. I want the hon. Gentleman to appreciate that I recognise that point.
The hon. Gentleman noted that several projects are in the queue to connect to the grid—I think there is some 746 GW in the queue at the moment. I say gently that the reason it has got quite so out of control is that the previous Government did not manage the queue properly. There was not sufficient reform to manage it, so there are, as he says, several zombie projects that will never be developed but are taking up space in the connections queue. We have announced that we want significant reform to ensure that we are prioritising the projects that will actually be delivered, that are important for our energy security and, crucially, that will free up space for demand projects to be connected to the grid, which is important for our economic growth. More on that will be announced by NESO and Ofgem in due course.
The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I cannot give an answer to some of his specific points, because for legal reasons I have to be careful not to comment. However, Rosefield, the solar farm that he mentioned, is at the pre-application stage. The application for development consent is expected to be submitted in, I think, Q3 or Q4 of this year. At this point, it is developer-led.
On a number of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised, I should say that the Government do not go out and identify these projects; developers identify the projects and then have a conversation with landowners.
Greg Smith
The problem with the argument that the Minister is trying to construct is that every time a developer comes along with a proposal, and the community pushes back with “Why are you doing this?”, the answer—every single time—is “Because the Government are asking us to.” That is what frustrates communities and frustrates me every single time. If the Minister accepts that that is the developers’ excuse, he can either correct them and say, “No, the Government are not asking you to do this,” or find a way to challenge those presumptions and the cumulative impacts, which I am grateful that he says he wants to address.
Michael Shanks
I take the point, but although the Government absolutely do say, “We need to build a clean power system and therefore these projects are important,” what we do not say is, “Please build a solar wind farm in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.” These are developer-led projects; it is developers who identify the site.
On the question of land ownership, the Government are not in the business of appropriating land for energy projects. The landowners have made a decision to sell their land for these projects, and that is a relationship that they have with the developer. It is a developer-led process. I know that the hon. Gentleman will continue to provide his views as the process continues. If the Rosefield application is accepted by the Planning Inspectorate, he and all his constituents will be able to engage with the planning process and register as interested parties.
I reiterate that although the Government think that the planning system could be considerably more efficient, that is not about removing the robustness of the system so that communities no longer have a voice. We want communities to have a voice in the process, but we do not want them to be hanging around for years until decisions are made. We want the process to be more efficient, but communities should absolutely still have a voice. That is incredibly important.
If the application comes to the Secretary of State, it is the duty of the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the pre-application consultation process has been carried out properly and adequately, in compliance with the Planning Act 2008. I know that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, given my Department’s quasi-judicial role in these applications, I cannot comment on anything more specific.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of points on batteries. Battery storage is incredibly important. To build the clean power system we need, we need a mix of both short-duration storage, which batteries provide, and long-duration storage, which we have not built in this country for an extremely long time. We have announced that we will build new long-duration storage, but we know there is an important role for batteries to play in short-duration storage so that we can store the clean power generated from wind and solar for when we need it.
Of course, these projects will go through the planning process too. I am aware that East Claydon has been rejected by the local council. Of course, the applicant has a right to appeal. Again, I hope the hon. Gentleman understands that it would be wrong for me to comment on that particular case at this point.
More generally, batteries are important both for maintaining storage and for reducing people’s bills by storing clean power, which we know is much cheaper in the long run. This minimises the investment in new generation, so if we get the mix of batteries right alongside other renewable technologies, we can help to minimise the need to build more infrastructure by storing power for when we need it. Batteries play an important role in balancing the electricity system.
We outlined in the clean power action plan that between 23 GW and 27 GW of grid-scale batteries could be required to meet our decarbonisation goal by 2030. Not far from my constituency, one of Europe’s largest battery plants was announced recently, so this infrastructure is being shared across the UK.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman on rooftop solar, which is a real opportunity. He rightly talks about warehouses, and we have a lot of multi-storey car parks, a lot of factories and a huge number of roofs in this country that I am happy to see covered in solar panels. It is not an either/or. There is certainly a role for rooftop solar, and we have announced that we want to see a rooftop revolution in solar. We have been working on bringing forward new building standards so that new build houses and commercial buildings have this as a key part of their design. There is also a critical role for ground-mounted solar, and we can meet our ambitions if we combine the two.
The previous Government launched a solar taskforce to build out as much capacity in rooftop solar as possible, while also increasing the number of ground- mounted solar projects, and we have reconvened it to address not just the roll-out but how communities can benefit much better from hosting that infrastructure. We look forward to publishing that soon.
The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members spoke about food security, and I make it clear that we take the view that food security is national security. It is critically important that we maintain food security across the country. Even if we built out all the solar that we currently expect to build, it would still take up less than 1% of the UK’s agricultural land, so we do not see food production and renewable energy as competing priorities. The two can co-exist.
We all want to see a resilient and healthy food system. The hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) and for Mid Buckinghamshire both mentioned floodplains. Tackling climate change will be one of the most important ways to reduce the frequency of floods in such areas, which is crucial for maintaining arable farmland. We have to tackle the climate crisis if we are to maintain our food security, but we also want a balanced approach to land use.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the land use framework, which was announced last week. Unsurprisingly perhaps—far be it from me to say this—The Daily Telegraph misleadingly suggested that all of this farmland will be reused for renewable energy projects. That is not what the framework says. It says there are a number of uses for that land in relation to sustainability, such as where there are peatlands or particular environmental schemes that could help to lock in carbon, support biodiversity and wildlife, and help us to meet our climate obligations. It is not that the land will be used to build energy projects, as the article wrongly said.
We are determined to bring communities with us. We want communities to have a voice and for communities that host infrastructure to benefit from it, so we will deliver a package of community benefits.
On small modular reactors, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, we do not see energy as coming from one source or another. Nuclear will play a critical role in our energy mix far beyond 2030. It provides a critical amount of baseload, as well as skilled and well-paid jobs across the country. We want to see the SMR programme rolled out. We inherited much of that from the previous Government, but it had not really been progressed and none of it had been built during those 14 years. We now want to move at pace to deliver it. We see nuclear as important, alongside a balanced renewables system.
I conclude by again thanking the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire for securing the debate. He and I will not agree on everything, but I hope we can find a way to ensure that we build a resilient energy system that balances the needs of different communities. On his point about the cumulative impact, I hope we can find a way through that, so that all communities benefit from infrastructure, but some will have to host it as well.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Andrew Gwynne)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond.
I am grateful for the opportunity to debate these important amendments, which represent the most significant reform of UK clinical trials regulation in more than 20 years. Clinical research is the single most important way in which we improve our healthcare, by identifying the best way to prevent, diagnose and treat conditions.
Clinical trials are vital for patients with limited available treatment options, such as the estimated 3.5 million people living with rare diseases in the UK, together with the 17.5 million living with long-term conditions. This draft legislation will play a vital role in supporting the development of new treatments for those who so desperately need them by transforming the environment for clinical trials in the UK.
The changes respond to the sector’s need for a more efficient and adaptable regulatory framework, while safeguarding the wellbeing of trial participants. The reforms will establish a proportionate, flexible and effective clinical research environment, placing patients at the heart of the process. The changes have been carefully designed in response to calls for reform, aligning with the direction set in our manifesto promise to build an NHS fit for the future and maximising the UK’s potential to lead the world in clinical trials.
The reforms are further underpinned by the findings of Lord Darzi’s independent investigation of the NHS in England and the recommendations of Lord O’Shaughnessy’s review into commercial UK clinical trials. These changes to modernise the regulatory framework will cement the UK as a destination for clinical trials that is innovative, inclusive and international and will, most importantly, help to get life-changing medicines to the people who need them sooner.
Let me explain to the Committee why Government believe change is needed. It is necessary and timely. The existing legislation is based on the now repealed and replaced European Union clinical trials directive. It no longer reflects the rapid advancements in medicine and technology. We have the opportunity to reform our national regulations to deliver a world-class regulatory environment for clinical trials, supporting the safe development of innovative treatments benefiting patients and public health alike.
I will now briefly summarise the key aspects of the reforms. Of the key changes, the first is risk-proportionate regulation. Regulatory requirements will align with the risk level of a clinical trial, empowering researchers to adopt appropriate approaches. Low-risk clinical trials will benefit from faster approval processes through automatic authorisation, without compromising patient safety.
Secondly, there is future-proofing: the draft legislation is a purposeful move away from a one-size-fits-all approach, which does not reflect modern, innovative clinical trial methods. We have removed granular and duplicative legal requirements in favour of specific, tailored guidance, which will provide flexibility and adaptability for future advancements.
Thirdly, there is international alignment: the United Kingdom will remain aligned with international standards to ensure that data from UK trials is accepted globally. That will help to secure the UK’s place as a preferred site for multinational clinical trials, including those conducted across the European Union.
Fourthly, this new framework will cement the UK as a destination for international clinical trials. Streamlined and efficient processes will be introduced to simplify clinical trial applications. The legislation will include a combined regulatory and research ethics review, ensuring that approval timelines are internationally competitive.
Finally, there is increased transparency. We want to ensure that trusted information about clinical trials is publicly available for the benefit of all. The changes will, for the first time, introduce a legal requirement to register a clinical trial and to publish a summary of the results. Participants will be offered an easy-to-understand summary of what the research has found out. These new transparency requirements will build public trust in research, and ensure that participants, and the wider public, have access to information about ongoing research and can use research findings to help to make informed decisions.
I will now turn to the benefits of this new framework in more detail. Patients will have greater access to life-changing treatments, which will improve outcomes and save lives. These reforms ensure that UK patients will be among the first to benefit from cutting-edge therapies. The transparency requirements will ensure that trusted information about clinical trials is publicly available for the benefit of all, improving public trust and confidence in the innovative clinical trials taking place in our country.
Evidence also shows that hospitals that undertake research have better patient care outcomes and improved staff retention, and that it benefits the whole health and care system. Clinical trials are part of the solution for reducing the strain on our National Health Service. Improved efficiency in conducting clinical trials will enhance research efforts and foster innovation in prevention, diagnosis and treatment across various conditions.
Additionally, we are broadening the categories of healthcare professionals who can be accepted as investigators, encouraging more researchers to carry out clinical trials in their specialist areas. Innovators and industry will run clinical trials within a streamlined, risk-proportionate regulatory framework, with reduced delays and administrative burdens, which will support industry growth and bolster the UK’s life sciences sector—something that I am sure Members on both sides of the House support.
The impact on businesses has been evaluated; as the projected costs and benefits to businesses was below £5 million in any single financial year, a full impact assessment was not required, as originally stated in the accompanying explanatory notes. Instead, a de minimis assessment was produced and is published alongside this instrument.
To summarise, this new framework uses effective regulation to accelerate the development of medicines, turning tomorrow’s emerging medicines into today’s reality for patients. By modernising our approach, we can solidify the United Kingdom’s position as a global leader in clinical research, fostering innovation while upholding the highest safety standards.
I want to end on a critical point: participant safety remains paramount. This new legislation, while streamlining processes and removing unnecessary barriers to innovation, prioritises robust oversight of clinical trials, ensuring that the safety of those participating in a trial is never compromised. I therefore commend these draft regulations to the Committee, and I hope that hon. Members will join me in supporting these transformative changes.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. The Minister said that 17.5 million people in the United Kingdom are living with a long-term health condition. Every time the news comes on of an evening, they will hope that it brings some hope of a new treatment that promises the cure or effective treatment of their condition, or the condition of one whom they love. Unfortunately, the news today tells them that AstraZeneca has cancelled its investment in the UK, which is a big loss for life sciences and cures for people in this country.
Never the less, these regulations are a positive change. This instrument will reform the UK’s clinical trial regulatory regime with the aim of delivering a more
“proportionate, streamlined and effective clinical research environment”
by amending the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004. These draft regulations are a response to a public consultation launched under the Conservatives in 2022, which asked for feedback on how the regulation of clinical trials could be improved and strengthened in the UK.
I agree with the Minister that we have an opportunity, now we have left the European Union, to design a world-class, sovereign regulatory environment for clinical trials that supports the development of innovative medicines and ensures that the UK retains and grows its reputation as a world-leading base for life sciences, generating opportunities for skilled jobs in the UK. As Conservatives, we welcome innovation and want to support UK patients getting early access to new and innovative treatments. For those reasons, we welcome the changes.
Among the many changes this instrument would make, it would legislate for a notification scheme to enable lower-risk clinical trials to be automatically approved by the licensing authority, where the risk is similar to that of standard medical care. A favourable opinion from an ethics committee would still be required to safeguard people taking part in the trial. The impact assessment estimates that around 20% of initial clinical trial applications would qualify for the notification scheme.
When asked about eligibility criteria for the scheme, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency explained that an application would be eligible if the medicine being investigated is used in line with its authorised use or established practice, supported by evidence; a previous similar clinical trial of a product has been approved in the last two years; or the same trial has been approved in the United States or a European economic area country.
While the clinical trial sponsor is responsible for determining whether the application meets the criteria for notification, the MHRA stated that a verification process would ensure their determination is correct. The notification scheme currently exists on an opt-in basis. The MHRA says that that has reduced the time required to initiate lower-risk clinical trials by more than 50% without compromising patient safety. That will clearly help people to get the new treatments quicker, and is to be welcomed.
We consider that the draft regulations will simultaneously remove obstacles to sponsors’ carrying out clinical trials, while ensuring the focus remains on protection of those participating in the trials. It will remove the aspects of legislation that are more prescriptive, in favour of introducing greater flexibility and more risk proportionality, to reflect that trial design and operation is evolving with innovations in the products that trials investigate. Ultimately, these proposed new requirements will ensure that trial participants and their safety are at the heart of legislation.
One thing I would like the Minister to clarify is that on the one hand he was saying that this change in regulation will be revolutionary for people getting trials and drugs more quickly, whereas on the other hand he gave a de minimis amount in terms of the financial benefit. Could he explain that contradiction?
Andrew Gwynne
I thank the shadow Minister for her support for this piece of secondary legislation, which marks the most substantial update to UK clinical trial regulations in more than two decades. This is an important step forward to deliver a more efficient and adaptable regulatory framework, all while ensuring the safety of the trial participants. The reforms will deliver a proportionate, flexible and efficient clinical research environment, with patients at the very heart of the process.
The shadow Minister raised the issue of AstraZeneca and the support for life sciences in the UK. Without straying too much from the measures before us, Sir Desmond, I want to reassure the Committee that this Government are fully committed to supporting the UK’s life sciences sector. Today we have heard about how vital clinical trials are in driving the health and wealth of the UK. The sector has experienced strong growth in recent years; between 2022 and 2023, the number of UK industry-led clinical trials increased by 3.7%. The UK has also gone up in the global rankings for phase 2 trials, moving from sixth to fourth place.
That progress is a testament to our thriving research ecosystem, something that was developed under the previous Government and that we want to build on, which is what this set of regulations is all about. They are about making sure that our country is at the cutting edge of the latest developments in medical science and that British patients are able to access those treatments as early as possible, through clinical trials and then through the early adoption of those medicines once they are brought to market.
The shadow Minister asked about the de minimis assessment. An assessment of the updated legislation has been produced, which estimates that there will be a total transition cost of approximately £720,000 to business for organisations to familiarise themselves with and operationalise the changes. It is expected that the annual total benefit to businesses will be £1 million, primarily due to the changes in the approval processes. I sought to correct the record in my opening remarks because it had originally been anticipated that we would need to have the full assessment, but on closer scrutiny that is not necessary because of the reasons that I have just set out.
Dr Johnson
When the Minister talks about £1 million, is that the benefit to businesses in the current level of trials? Or is that his estimate of the rise in the number of trials as a result of the changes?
Andrew Gwynne
That is my understanding—I look for inspiration if I am wrong—of the situation today. If that is not correct, I will ensure that the hon. Lady and members of the Committee are informed in writing. The impact on businesses is the impact on business as it stands now, but we want to grow the business and ensure that the ecosystem grows and that the life sciences sector is booming in this country, for all the reasons that I set out in my opening speech.
In conclusion, by modernising our regulatory framework we will ensure that lifesaving treatments are accelerated by streamlined, efficient processes without compromising safety standards. The reforms will strengthen the UK’s position as a global leader in innovative clinical trials and help to get lifesaving, life-changing medicines to the people who most need them sooner. I am grateful to the shadow Minister for her support and to Members for considering the regulations today; I hope they will all join me in supporting them.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Space Industry (Licence Exemption for Military Activities of Allies) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 13 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 Space Industry (Licence Exemption for Military Activities of Allies) Regulations 2025.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. The first duty of Government is to keep the country safe. National security is the underpinning of the Government’s plan for change. As the Secretary of State has made clear, the threat to the UK is increasing, with growing instability around the globe and growing Russian aggression. Missile defence is a critical thread in our tapestry of national security.
We test and train regularly with our allies, and our next missile defence testing and training exercise, code-named Exercise Formidable Shield, is in May 2025. Formidable Shield is a US-led exercise and will be hosted by the UK Government at the Ministry of Defence’s Outer Hebrides air weapon range on behalf of NATO and our defence partners. It is one of the most advanced and comprehensive missile defence training exercises in the world. It involves the UK and allied forces conducting live fire drills, missile defence tests and real-world, scenario-based training.
These activities are critical to the defence and security of the UK and the strength of our military alliances. First, they enhance interoperability. Exercise Formidable Shield will bring together 10 nations, each with distinct systems, targets and technologies. It will allow us to align these different systems and work in concert effectively in real-world operations, so the UK and our allies can respond quickly and cohesively to any threats.
Secondly, Formidable Shield improves our collective missile defence capabilities and our ability to adapt to evolving ballistic missile and other threats. With global tensions rising and missile technology advancing, it is essential to refine and improve our strategies continually to protect the nation. This is why the live fire element of Exercise Formidable Shield is particularly valuable.
Thirdly, Exercise Formidable Shield reinforces strategic deterrence, which is vital in maintaining stability and preventing conflicts from escalating. The exercise sends a strong message to our adversaries that the UK and NATO and its allies are prepared to defend ourselves and our territories against any form of aggression.
To replicate operational conditions for these exercises, the UK and allied nations need to operate ever-more sophisticated defensive missile systems capable of climbing above the stratosphere. That would bring them within the scope of the licensing regime in the Space Industry Act 2018 and its associated secondary legislation. The 2018 Act was never intended to regulate military activity. It was passed into law to ensure the safety and appropriate governance of the commercial spaceflight industry, and is regulated by the Civil Aviation Authority.
The Government seek a licensing exemption under the 2018 Act and its associated secondary legislation for allied armed forces activities. This exemption is very narrow. It only allows allied armed forces, their operatives and international military organisations such as NATO to fire sub-orbital—in other words, non-orbiting—uncrewed rockets from MOD sites or platforms with MOD permission and under the control of the MOD’s regulator.
The exemption will bring multinational exercises in line with sovereign ones. Similar stratospheric tests conducted solely by the MOD are not affected by the 2018 Act and its accompanying licensing regime on the basis that, as a matter of statutory interpretation, the Act does not bind the Crown.
Exercises above the stratosphere that are exempt under this instrument will be under the expert supervision of the defence regulator that has monitored military activities for decades, including MOD rocket launches above the stratosphere. Unlike the civilian authorities, the defence regulator has the infrastructure and expertise to oversee the safety of these exercises properly. The regulations will therefore avoid putting increased bureaucracy or a new burden on the civil authorities.
This instrument will apply to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is subject to the affirmative procedure as set out under section 68(6) of the 2018 Act.
The UK’s missile defence capability is a critical component of national and global security, but as with all defence capabilities, to be effective, it must be constantly maintained, updated, exercised and tested. Exercise Formidable Shield, which is planned for May 2025, is the next essential opportunity to conduct live fire drills, missile defence tests and real-world, scenario-based training.
An enormous amount of military planning has gone into the exercise from all nations involved, and the Government seek appropriate regulatory certainty by the end of February to get the maximum value from it. Approving this exemption in a timely manner will send a clear signal that the UK Parliament is united in defence of our national security, united against our adversaries and united in its support for NATO.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Furniss. It is rare to volunteer for a Delegated Legislation Committee, but as my constituency is home to the Westcott space cluster and the national space propulsion test facility, actual rocket science is the backbone of our local economy, so my ears always prick up at any mention of space and its regulatory framework.
I thank the Minister for his remarks. Clearly, regulations should be adjusted accordingly where matters pose challenges to the Ministry of Defence, particularly in relation to testing and our allies. If the licensing process were to have an adverse impact on our allies’ ability to use the UK’s MOD ranges as locations of choice, that would unquestionably disadvantage our national defence interests. As such, it is essential that we and our allies can use the UK’s locations and expertise to launch such projects.
With the CAA’s backing on safety, it seems sensible for the Government to introduce these regulations. I therefore confirm that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition will not seek to divide the Committee; indeed, we support the regulations. As the Minister said, we must remain as united as possible on national security and national defence issues.
I will, however, pose a couple of specific questions to the Minister regarding the longevity of these regulations. The Government’s explanatory memorandum highlights that these exemptions are intended to remove defence-related barriers in the short term. Although it is welcome that short-term barriers are being lifted, is the Minister aware of any work being undertaken to resolve some of the issues more permanently and provide a long-term solution?
The CAA also reported on the broader regulatory regime. It acknowledged that the historical safety record of the MOD at its sites is something to be rightly proud of and that the changes in these regulations are appropriate. It noted that there are no immediate problems, but it identified some areas of potential risk in the future. What work are the Minister, his Department and other Government Departments doing to mitigate that risk and ensure that we have a secure and safe spaceflight regime for the foreseeable future?
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I rise to speak in support of these regulations, but I ask the Government to err on the side of caution when implementing them. The Liberal Democrats are, of course, fully supportive of the Ministry of Defence’s vital work, and we wholeheartedly support our armed forces. We recognise that they often work hand in glove with our allies and, consequently, these regulations are a welcome step to further that co-operation.
The regulations, however, require some caution. Over the last few years, we have seen other countries influenced by foreign powers via the manipulation of social media and other inappropriate actions. We therefore call on the Secretary of State to be careful in how these regulations are implemented. The strongest safeguards should be put in place to prevent any manipulation of the regulations.
Al Carns
I thank the Committee for its thoughtful considerations of these regulations. It is worth covering some of the points made by the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire, and keeping track of the Westcott space cluster in his constituency.
Safety, safety, safety—that is the line to take on this issue. The Military Aviation Authority and the Civil Aviation Authority have long been in discussion about it, and have actually conducted a complete review of how their two systems differ. They have come together to say that it will not bring any increase in risk from a safety perspective. We will continue to work with both organisations to ensure that continues in the medium and longer term.
My overarching view is that these regulations bring to a close the unnecessary burden on our allies for testing and trialling the advanced missile systems that need to be integrated into our wider defence ecosystem as a whole. Allowing this exemption will brings allies on board, so we can have a collective defence of our homeland, airspace and waters. I will come back to the hon. Member on how the future risks have been interpreted and make sure that he is made aware of them.
These regulations are a great thing for defence. They will enable our defences to outpace the malign ambition of our adversaries. I hope that the Committee has found the debate informative and will join me in supporting the regulations as we move forward.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Ellen Badger Hospital in-patient beds
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Career Breaks: Parents of Seriously Ill Children
(1 day, 13 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
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 638449 relating to career breaks for parents of seriously ill children.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. No parent should have to go through the upset and anguish of seeing their child diagnosed or suffering with a serious illness. Sadly, it is not within our power to prevent these terrible situations, but what is within our power as legislators is to provide support and reassurance to parents who end up in those traumatic situations. We can help ease not only the process, but the parents’ return to work at the end of their child’s treatment, or throughout the child’s treatment, should the individual circumstances permit.
We should remember that the workplace and being in work is often about more than just money, although of course money is very important. Work gives us a sense of purpose, belonging and normality. It can therefore be a terrible situation for a parent if they rather unexpectedly find themselves in the position of not only losing their job, but fearing for their child’s health. Sometimes, with care treatment plans being longer than expected, additional complexities may arise if the child is particularly unwell. Depending on the child’s illness, they may need to attend regular appointments at the hospital, sometimes more often than was originally envisaged, or there may be a dedicated treatment centre that is further than one may have initially realised. Therefore, the treatment and care that has to be provided by the parent is sometimes not known at the outset and can be particularly onerous.
Some children may need around-the-clock care and attention, with no other family member or friend to provide that additional care, or the parent may simply be the only person the child has to care for them. At the end of the treatment, whether it is successful or not, it can sometimes be incredibly difficult for the parent to return to the workplace. Indeed, the job may not be waiting for them at the end, ready for them to return to. The parent may struggle to get back into the jobs market at a cost to them, their children and the state.
Let us take the situation of Christina Harris, who started this petition and who, I am honoured to say, is with us in the Public Gallery. Indeed, I was honoured to meet Christina before the debate, and it is great to see her, her friends and her child, Skye, here. Skye was diagnosed during a Christmas period, and on the first day back to work, Christina was told that she would not be paid and was shocked to discover that she had no statutory protection to fall back on. Skye’s treatment, once diagnosed, was to take approximately two years. Although Christina’s employer could not provide her wages during the time that Christina was caring for Skye, her employer at least kept the role open to Christina while she was initially absent from work.
Six months in, Christina was asked to attend a meeting with her employer in which she felt that she was put in a very difficult position, and her employer was completely unwilling at the start to discuss the flexible working options. After another six months, Christina’s employment contract was terminated, despite her having provided 19 years’ of service to the same company, and obviously she still had to deal with Skye’s care. It is great to see that Skye is on the mend and returning to a good state of health. After a year of uncertainty, Christina was left taking part-time work to make ends meet while struggling with providing the care for Skye.
This situation is unlike any other regarding parenthood and work. Let us take the example of a parent having an accident; parents have access to bereavement leave. One of the better parts of the Employment Rights Bill that is going through this House includes a right to neonatal leave and pay, easing this exact issue for newborns, but not for older children. Even in the classic case of unplanned pregnancy affecting a career, parents still have nine months to prepare, but a child can become ill at a moment’s notice and through no fault of the parents or the child. Despite that, however, the options for support are incredibly limited, which is why the petition is before the House.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
The hon. Member pointed out some of the increased employment rights that we should see under the Employment Rights Bill. In the previous Parliament, there was no employment rights Bill, but private Members’ Bills did improve the situation in part: the Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Act 2023 on flexible, working promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), and my Carer’s Leave Act 2023. That suggests we need more support for parents—paid carer’s leave—so that people like Christina do not suffer in the way that the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) has outlined.
Robbie Moore
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. That absolutely highlights the importance of why the petition needs to be considered by the Government and the Minister of the day. The Employment Rights Bill that is working its way through the House includes some positive measures. Potentially, this petition is an additional thought that the Minister should consider, given the strength of feeling shown through the number of people who have signed it.
In the vast majority of cases, these situations are completely unexpected. As I said, who knows when a child is going to become seriously ill? A diagnosis for a child can come out of the blue and a parent has to deal with it.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
The hon. Member has brought to mind the occasion when my youngest son, after playing rugby, was diagnosed with a suspected brain tumour. As I live in the middle of nowhere, in Somerset and Devon, the flashing-blue ambulance took two and a half hours to get to the nearest children’s specialist unit. This is not just about losing a job or the wages; it is the enormous stress and anxiety it puts on parents, particularly in rural areas such as mine. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?
Robbie Moore
Absolutely. That highlights the associated challenges for parents, and not only the financial ones that can unexpectedly be put on them, but the emotional challenges and anxiety-related issues. Whether the scenario involves a short-term care plan being put in place or something much longer, that anxiety is absolutely there and needs to be recognised.
As I was saying, a diagnosis for a child can come out of the blue, and a parent, of course, has to deal with it. They have no other choice but to make the situation work, and that can be incredibly difficult. Complexities will arise in the care programme of the child, no doubt, and it will be emotionally draining for all involved, but the parent has to get on with it. This injustice certainly resonates across the country.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
My hon. Friend is speaking very well about the challenges and issues. It was great to meet Christina and Skye before the debate started. Does my hon. Friend recognise that many employers follow good practice, paying parents during a time of care and keeping jobs open, but the petitioner and I are concerned about those employers who are not following good practice? That, I hope, is what the Government will address.
Robbie Moore
Absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Not all employers sing from the same hymn sheet by providing that good level of support and care to their employees while they are going through very traumatic situations. Some employers are very good, but not all carry out the same level of care for their employees during such difficult situations.
That is why Christina’s petition has been so well recognised in the amount of support that it gained, gathering 102,316 signatures. In my Keighley and Ilkley constituency, I have received many pieces of correspondence on this issue, and it can be harrowing—as a Member of Parliament, as I am sure all of us have done this—listening to some of the very real challenges that parents face in such situations, including the financial, support and emotional challenges.
In support, the Petitions Committee carried out its survey on the back of Christina’s petition, asking people who had signed it how the severe illness of children affects them as parents. I am thankful to the 9,609 people who submitted a response to the Petitions Committee as part of our review of the petition. The huge response rate to not only the petition, but the follow-up demonstrates just how much of an issue this is, and I hope that the Government will respond accordingly to some of the concerns that have been raised. The survey suggests that the majority of parents affected do manage to cope with the challenge, but crucially, this is only possible for those who have understanding and accommodating employers, as has been mentioned.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I recently spoke to my constituent Kat from Hassocks, whose son Teddy has battled life-threatening neuroblastoma since July 2022. Kat told me that although her employer went above and beyond to support her, she is the exception and not the rule. With many employers either not able or not willing to do so, does the hon. Member agree that it is unacceptable for there to be—in Kat’s words—“a total lottery” regarding whether parents of seriously ill children receive employment support?
Robbie Moore
The hon. Member’s intervention gets to the nub of the why this petition is so important: not all employers are doing the right thing by their employees. That parent may be a single parent or have no support around them, and they can end up in a very difficult situation, having to deal quite immediately with the challenge that they face. A lack of reassurance in the workplace can add to their anxiety.
Wendy Chamberlain
I am grateful to the hon. Member for allowing me to intervene a second time. It is right that we acknowledge employers who are doing this well. I declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a vice-president of Carers UK. That organisation runs an important network that shares good practice among employers, and I urge any constituents who have signed the petition to get their employers linked in with it.
Robbie Moore
The hon. Member must have read my speech, because I will come later to the importance of all employers and employees being aware of the rights that already exist. There are a number of protection measures out there. The challenge is that employers and employees do not necessarily know what support is available.
Through the survey conducted by the Petitions Committee, we can see, as in Christina’s case, that when an employer is less flexible—or outright unhelpful, as we have seen in certain circumstances—things quickly get worse. Some 99% of respondents believed that employers should be required to provide career breaks for parents of terminally ill children. What Christina and thousands of other people are calling out for is statutory reassurance that, as soon as they are able to go back to work, the job will be available for them, at least for a limited period.
That reassurance—that as soon as treatment is complete, life can go back to normal—is hugely important for the parents’ mental health and to help them plan their future financial situation. Many families can afford to take a short-term hit to care for their child, although not all can, and they cannot do so without a guaranteed time period within which they can get back into the workplace at the end of that employment break. That is why I reiterate the importance of the petition.
The key point about reassurance was raised with me by It’s Never You, a charity run by two individuals who care deeply about the issue because they suffered the tragic loss of their own child from the terrible illness of cancer in 2021. When I met them, they passionately explained that getting support in place from day one is a major issue. For the first 90 days after a child has been diagnosed with a terrible illness, parents have to go through an incredible amount of restructuring in their life, so having their employer’s support from day one is vital. As employers themselves, those individuals are all too aware of the burden that a statutory requirement for a career break would have on smaller businesses, but they correctly highlighted to me that the lack of any Government-directed standard or benchmark is a recipe for chaos—and, as has already been indicated, many employers and employees do not necessarily know what level of support is available when a child is diagnosed with a serious illness.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
We have heard so many stories of individuals who lost their jobs as a result of taking time off due to having seriously ill children, adding stress to an already unbearable situation. We have heard stories of good employers and not-so-good employers. Does the hon. Member agree that it is vital that we understand the extent of the situation, and that the Government should commission research into the number of families impacted each year? If we had more information, that would help us to determine the best solution.
Robbie Moore
I always agree that it is fine in this place for us to be designing guidance, regulations or indeed other legislation, but unless it practically works and has the positive impact it was designed to have, it benefits no one. More datasets and data collected and available to Government to help them make the right decisions is always welcome. I endorse the hon. Lady’s point.
Employers and their employees often struggle to come to an acceptable arrangement, as the group It’s Never You has indicated, so it is important that the Government outline the support that is already available to those employees and employers, whether that is a break or flexible working. We should also be encouraging businesses to think outside the box, as highlighted to me by the Rainbow Trust and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development when I was preparing for this debate. They told me that flexible working is vital; for the parent of a sick child with complex needs, it is so important that flexible working, or part-time work, can be put in place. But, as many employers said to me during my preparation for this debate, although good employers do as much as they can to facilitate the needs of a parent with a seriously ill child, not every job environment allows flexible working to take place. That has to be recognised.
One problem that was raised by all the parties I spoke to about this issue was just how long it can take for support, such as carer’s allowance, to kick in. Again, we come back to the crucial first 90 days, a period that is in part defined by how long it takes state aid to arrive. In those 90 days, parents can feel completely lost when it comes to knowing their rights and how they can use those rights to ease their situation. Businesses may be just as ignorant of the rights and support mechanisms actually available, and time spent researching that, once a challenge has been put to them by a parent with a seriously ill child, can delay support being put in place. I therefore urge the Government to ensure that, through the best means possible, employers are well equipped with the right amount of support, and that their rights and those of employees are laid out.
My first question, which I hope the Minister will be able to answer today, is: how will the Government ensure that employees are aware of their rights before a crisis is put before them; and how often are employers made aware of the obligations on them? Secondly, what work are the Government undertaking to ensure that support such as carer’s allowance is delivered as quickly as possible? For many families, their income can drop to zero overnight, and reaching the end of the first month can be the greatest challenge. With a doctor’s note or an employment record, it should not be difficult to determine the truth of an applicant’s status.
Finally, the key point, which has been reiterated throughout the evidence given to me in preparation for this debate, is that the most important change is about giving certainty to struggling families, to allow them to get through and recover quickly from these terrible ordeals. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that the Government are looking at providing some clarity through statutory requirements for the provision of career breaks for parents of seriously ill children. We know from the work undertaken on neonatal complications that the Government are open to the concept, so what logical reason can there be for this support to end with an arbitrary cut-off, based on the age of the child?
I hope the Minister will listen carefully to the contributions that are made in this debate. I thank Christina and the more than 100,000 signatories who have provided support for this debate to happen in this House. I also thank everyone who contributed to the work of the Petitions Committee in preparation for this debate and those who responded to the survey undertaken by the Petitions Committee. I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ contributions to this debate.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Thank you for calling me to speak in this important debate, Ms Vaz. I look forward to serving under your chairmanship this afternoon. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), for so ably introducing the debate and for doing it in such an empathetic manner. He mentioned that the Petitions Committee initiated a survey to gather further data on the extent of this situation, and I commend the Committee for its initiative in doing this. I will refer to some of the findings from that survey shortly.
We are here today to debate e-petition 638449, which calls for career breaks for parents of seriously ill children. Let me give the House some background to what led us here this afternoon. I am proud that the originator of this petition, Christina Harris, is my constituent. She emailed me back in early summer 2023, explaining the circumstances that she faced in trying to care for her lovely daughter, Skye, who was undergoing a course of serious medical treatment, about which her employer, a local estate agent, seemed quite unsympathetic. Having read her email, I invited her to come to one of my regular twice-monthly constituency advice surgeries, and she duly arrived there in July 2023, by which time the number of responses to her petition was already into five figures.
When we met, Christina and I discussed at some length the background to Skye’s condition and the pressure that it had put on Christina as she tried to juggle work and family responsibilities in caring for her daughter as any loving parent would want to do. Christina seemed to me to be very focused on what she was trying to achieve. She had what the military call “a very clear sense of mission”, and she told me she was determined to achieve the 100,000 signature threshold in order to provoke a debate in Parliament. I must confess that, while I was sympathetic to what she was trying to achieve, I did explain that gathering 100,000 signatures was no mean feat, and it could prove to be quite a challenging endeavour.
I am pleased to report to the House that Christina was completely undeterred and assured me of her absolute determination to press on. Importantly, she said, she was doing this not just for her daughter, but on behalf of other families who find themselves in similar, very difficult circumstances; she was doing it for them too. By the autumn, Christina had made dramatic progress and her petition had breached the 100,000 signature threshold. This resulted in the two of us visiting 10 Downing Street to deposit a hard copy of the petition as an aid to her campaign. This subsequently generated a degree of positive publicity, including from the BBC and our local newspaper back in south Essex, the Echo, which has been very supportive.
Given her tremendous efforts in this regard, I am delighted to report that Christina is present in the gallery this afternoon to witness the debate, and that she has brought Skye with her so that she can appreciate her mother’s efforts for herself. Very importantly—and with Skye’s permission—I am delighted to report that she has rung the bell and is now in remission. May God grant that that remains so. As well as congratulating Christina and Skye, I place on record the fact that of the top 10 constituencies which have generated signatures in support of this petition, four of them are in Essex: Basildon and Billericay, with 1,034 signatures; Castle Point, with 1,304 signatures; Maldon, with 1,324 signatures; and my own constituency of Rayleigh and Wickford, which—I say this with a certain degree of pride—topped the league with 2,096 signatures, although the credit for that goes entirely to Christina and her supporters, not to me.
Unfortunately, as has already been mentioned, we do not have firm statistics on how many families find themselves in this predicament, but it may be instructive that some 9,609 respondents to the Petitions Committee survey left comments or suggestions in their reply, and of that number, 12%, or 1,153 respondents, declared that they were parents or guardians in those circumstances. It would therefore be wrong to dismiss this problem as affecting only a handful of families this year; it appears to be wider than that.
Although Skye was fortunate to receive treatment at Great Ormond Street hospital, which is a world-class institution for the care of sick children, it nevertheless placed a great deal of strain on Christina and her family. Unfortunately, Christina was ultimately dismissed by her employer because she had prioritised the care of her child over her career. For the record, Christina attempted to negotiate with her employer over a period of time to come up with some kind of flexible working arrangement, but ultimately her employer was unsympathetic.
In response to this petition, a number of parents and guardians replied with their own experiences of being in that situation. Some of their accounts, hanks to benign employers, were positive. For instance, one wrote:
“My husband and I have two separate careers in two separate fields. When our daughter was diagnosed with leukaemia at 7 months old, both of our employers supported us. We were both able to take leave and be paid for the entire duration of my daughter’s terminal illness... Our employers support to us, in what was literally a nightmare, was the reason we were able to stay by our daughter’s side at all times. She was never alone.”
Similarly, another respondent reported:
“The impact of my employer’s support greatly affected my ability to support my child. If my employer had not been so supportive and accommodating, the consequences of my child's diagnosis would have been far reaching in our lives and I am incredibly grateful.”
Overall, 58% of those who responded said that their employer was either supportive or very supportive when their child was seriously ill. A similar proportion, 54%, reported being granted flexible working arrangements to help them to care for their child. Conversely, however, 30% of respondents who were parents or guardians said that they became unemployed or stopped working during or after the period when their child was ill. One of those respondents reported:
“I was the sole earner, but we had young children at home, as well as our sick child. I was on unpaid leave for 6 months, with no financial support except from charitable help. It has taken years to climb out of the debt we were left in."
The testimony of a nurse working with families in such situations is both instructive and moving. This nurse reported:
“I have supported so many families as a children’s palliative care nurse who have had to go to work while their child was dying due to concerns of losing their job. Some of these families then lost their job during their child’s journey.”
In practice, so much of this issue seems to come down to how supportive and understanding—or not—individual employers are prepared to be in these very difficult circumstances. Such circumstances can be even more challenging for those who are self-employed and risk receiving little income or no income at all if they choose to stop work to care for their child. It is important to restate that 99% of the respondents to the survey agreed with the proposition that career breaks should be granted to the parents of seriously ill children.
In advance of this debate, I asked the House of Commons Library if it could provide some specialist advice on this issue and on what assistance is currently available to parents in what was Christina’s situation. As the Library reports, the Carer’s Leave Act 2023 introduced the right for employees to take up to one week’s unpaid leave each year to care for a dependant. That is helpful, but it in no way addresses the scale of the challenge in Christina and Skye’s circumstances.
I also asked for the Library’s advice on whether the Employment Rights Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, would help to alleviate the problem. For the record, I have some reservations about the overall effect of the Bill on the jobs market and the Government’s growth objectives, but I wanted to know, in a non-partisan way, whether any measures in the Bill would assist parents in Christina’s situation. The Library’s conclusion was as follows:
“Clauses 11 to 15 of the of the Employment Rights Bill would make some reforms to family related leave provisions. This is primarily around removing the qualifying periods for unpaid parental leave (sometimes called ‘ordinary’ parental leave and paternity leave), making them day one rights for all employees. Employees can take up to 18 weeks in total of unpaid parental leave up to their child’s 18th birthday, with a maximum of four weeks per year, for any reason related to their parental responsibilities, which could for example, include caring for a seriously ill child”.
However, the Library pointed out that there is no specific provision in the new legislation to allow for a career break for a parent with a seriously ill child. As the Library puts it,
“You ask whether the Employment Rights Bill 2024/25 includes measures to require employers to offer career breaks for parents with a seriously ill child. In short, the Bill does not include such a provision.”
I say again to the Minister that this is not meant to be a partisan point; it is just an attempt to summarise where we are in legal terms regarding what a parent in such terrible circumstances might be entitled to.
When I previously discussed this matter with Christina, including at my surgery, she was well aware of the pressure on the public finances; she appreciates that any help that could be given in these circumstances would need to be finely targeted to protect the interests of the taxpayer. Nevertheless, given the relatively small number of families who find themselves in this situation each year—compared, for instance, with the number of families who might qualify for parental leave following the birth of a child—the public expenditure implications of any ameliorative action should be relatively modest. Moreover, Christina’s proposal is that a career break could even be unpaid, if that was the only way that the employer could afford to keep the job open. The employer might employ someone else to fill the role in the intervening period, but Christina is not suggesting that the employer would necessarily have to pay both the person who was filling in and the person having the career break.
Given all that, I am genuinely interested in hearing from the Minister what proposals, if any, the Government are looking at to assist Christina’s family and other families in similar situations. Specifically, given that Christina has gone to all this time and trouble, what is the Government’s attitude towards her suggestion—and that of the signatories to the petition and respondents to the survey—that career breaks should be provided for the parents of seriously ill children?
I place on the record my admiration for my constituent Christina Harris and her daughter Skye in bringing this important issue to Parliament. When I first met Christina two years ago, she told me that she was determined to achieve 100,000 signatures or more for her petition. I commend her for having succeeded, and for coming along with her daughter to witness these proceedings for herself, and thus seeing the results of her efforts. I emphasise again that each year a relatively small number of families find themselves in these very challenging circumstances and therefore that the public expenditure implications of any very targeted relief to aid parents whose seriously ill children make it very difficult for them to work, should be relatively modest. Indeed, Christina has suggested that granting a career break should even be unpaid if that is the only way of an employer keeping the job open.
I hope that the Minister can provide some comfort to Christina and hold out hope for a solution to her and Skye, as well as other families who may find themselves in similarly challenging circumstances. I thank the more than 2,000 of my constituents in Rayleigh and Wickford, plus all others across Essex and indeed the United Kingdom, who took the time and trouble to add their names to the petition that has led to the debate today. It is a very good example of people power in action and I hope it will yet lead to a positive outcome, not just for Christina but for other families in a serious situation.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for introducing the debate and pay tribute to Christina for starting the petition that allowed the issue to be brought to this Chamber. I also wish Skye continuing good health.
No parent should have to choose between work and supporting a sick child through a terminal illness, life-limiting illness or serious illness that leads to an extended stay within a hospital facility. As was mentioned by the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley, the charity It’s Never You, founded by Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis, has petitioned for Hugh’s law. From its research, it has estimated that this issue affects up to 4,000 children per year across the UK who are spending 60 days or more in hospital. That is a rough estimate, but although 4,000 sick children may seem small compared to what our health service supports, that is 4,000 families who experience the likes of the challenge faced by Christina and Skye’s family.
I will deviate slightly now, because it is personal experience that so often shapes debate around here and how we bring forward progress. Our youngest son, Evan, was diagnosed pre-birth with a congenital heart defect. He had a single kidney and atresia of the bowel. We were told before Evan’s birth that we could expect an extended stay in hospital to support him through his initial stages of life. He celebrated his first birthday in hospital; he spent the first 13 months of his life in the Barbour ward of the Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children. I pay tribute, as I am sure many parents would, to the workers on children’s wards who take on additional caring responsibility given the additional strains put on family life.
Although today’s petition looks at the financial implications of having a child in hospital over an extended period, many families also face emotional challenges in how they try to find not just a work-life balance, but a family-life balance as well. Many have other children at home who need support. I value the strength of today’s petition, because it is what this place should be about. We need to support families and individuals on a very local, specific, individual basis. Surely, if we have been elected to this place, that is what we should be about. I thank the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) for encouraging this debate and the petition, because subsequent surveys have indicated just how crucial this issue is.
I look forward to the Minister’s response. There is an expectation on Government that surely we could do something for the families and children who find themselves in these circumstances. Unfortunately, as a Government, as politicians and as a health service, we leave the work to be carried out by charities and families. I speak from experience. When I was Health Minister in Northern Ireland dealing with these circumstances, we had the Northern Ireland Children’s Health Coalition, which was 13 local charities that came together to look for a young patients fund to support parents in this situation financially. If the best we can really do is to look to charities to carry that work forward, there is a failing in what we and this Government want to be about.
It was estimated that the financial cost to a family was £351 per day. There is a suggestion that even unpaid leave would be welcome, but we also have to look to what the call is from Hugh’s law in regard to supplying financial support. In response to the petition, we surely have to consider how we can support families and children so that we take part of the financial stress away. That would also alleviate the emotional stress put on the parents and families who support the children who have extended stays in hospital.
In closing, I thank the Petitions Committee for granting this debate. I thank the contributors and I especially thank Christina for starting this initiative and getting the debate to this place.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I extend my thanks to the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for opening the debate so eloquently.
Like so many others in this debate, I want to start by acknowledging Christina’s heartbreaking story. Receiving my cancer diagnosis was hard; it changed my life and the lives of family members. Although it was happening to me, it had an equal or greater effect on my two teenage daughters. I just cannot imagine having those roles reversed—that must be very, very difficult. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I send our sincerest hopes and best wishes for a full recovery to Skye. I am so pleased that she has had the opportunity to ring the bell.
The emotional turmoil that Christina and her wider family must have gone through in those first few hours, weeks and months is unimaginable. Yet through all that she has campaigned to correct an injustice and ensure that people receive better support than she did. That is selfless and brave. She has identified a real problem that exists in our society, which is that families of chronically ill children are not adequately supported by the Government. Families are forced to stop focusing exclusively on their child and instead stress about finances from day one.
A cancer diagnosis introduces new, unavoidable costs, from transport and energy to food and accommodation, which Young Lives vs Cancer predicts costs an average extra £700 a month on top of household incomes falling by an average of £6,000 a year. Although there are options such as taking sick leave, compassionate leave or reducing working hours, those eventually become exhausted, and not everybody can take them up. Those provisions are not intended to be used when someone has an unwell child. The losses in income and steps taken to try to juggle work and caring come despite there being a social security system. It is a distinctly difficult experience to navigate, and the existing support available is just not enough.
There are numerous problems with the existing system that categorically mean that it does not work. The three-month qualifying period that young cancer patients go through leaves families waiting for support after diagnosis, incurring an average of £2,000 in additional cancer-related costs and losing an average of £1,500 to £2,500 of household income before they can even apply for any support. Some families have to remortgage their house because the costs have been overwhelming. Research from Young Lives vs Cancer also highlights that nearly half of parents could not access flexible working arrangements, and three in five parents felt they had to go back to work before they were ready. Many will have found that extremely stressful, and that is why I support the campaign for Hugh’s law. There needs to be some form of day-one financial support for parents, instead of them having to battle through bureaucracy and impossible choices.
There is a precedent for providing that support. When a child is born, parents who stop working to care for newborns receive financial support through maternity leave. The Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023 provides parents of sick newborns with up to 12 weeks’ paid leave in addition to maternity or paternity leave. Why should it be different for those parents who need to stay with their seriously ill child who is no longer a small baby? I call on the Government to look further into the proposals set forward in the petition and to refer them back to the House so that their full merits can be debated.
Throughout this debate, Members have said that the United Kingdom needs to thoroughly modernise its employment rights and improve workplace protections that would benefit parents of seriously ill children. The Liberal Democrats have led the way on that debate—not this particular one, but the overall debate. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) introduced the Carer’s Leave Act 2023, which created an entitlement for employees to be absent from work on unpaid leave to provide or arrange care for a dependant with a long-term care need.
Unpaid carers are the backbone of our society. Millions of people care for loved ones, doing everything involved in day-to-day physical caring, including washing, dressing and feeding, yet far too many unpaid carers go without adequate support and struggle to balance caring responsibilities and work. Many people across the country have made the difficult decision to leave their jobs because they simply cannot make it work. I am proud that the Carer’s Leave Act provided greater support and the flexibility that people need. Let us also be clear that those changes benefit employers as well, leading to reduced recruitment costs and improved retention and wellbeing.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for introducing this debate. Demelza hospice in my constituency of Sittingbourne and Sheppey has come to me a lot on this issue. When it comes to employers, the interactions between employment and health and wellbeing are complicated and multifaceted. Some of the things that parents, or any worker, get from their employment include structure, relationships, support in the workplace and a sense of wellbeing. How does the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) envisage juggling those dynamics, so that people do not lose all the benefits they get from employment and employers? They include not just the financial benefits, but the wider package—where people sit in society and how they operate in their day-to-day lives. Some of these conditions last a long time, so there is obviously a danger of them losing those connections with the workplace, as well as their acuity in the work space.
Clive Jones
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Where somebody is off work for quite a long time, they will need the support of their employer. Very often, they could have been working for that for quite some time, so they have built up a history with them, and 99.9% of the time it will be a good history. They should be supported, but the Government have to help with that; it cannot just fall on the employer, especially over an extended period.
I would like to know what steps the Government are taking to encourage employers to do the right thing and offer career breaks. Will the Government review the proposal in the petition and come back to the House with a debate to discuss its merits? What additional support are they considering offering the families of seriously ill children?
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Thank you for calling me to speak, Ms Vaz.
This debate on the petition has highlighted an unimaginably difficult situation when one’s child is seriously ill. In a series of important speeches and interventions, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), and the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) have highlighted specific examples of the very difficult situation that arises when one’s child is sick, not only in one’s own family, but with one’s employment.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford highlighted, his constituent Christina Harris has campaigned on behalf of this cause after experiencing a very difficult situation when her daughter Skye fell ill. The reality of this situation has really hit home across the country.
One is immediately prompted to think, “What employer would not be incredibly supportive of an employee who finds themselves in this hopefully rare situation?” However, as we have heard in today’s debate, not every employer is necessarily supportive, there is inconsistent support, and many employers do not know the law in this area. For the benefit of the record, I will set out the statutory support that parents currently receive.
Through the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999, after one year’s qualifying service, all employees are given the right to take unpaid parental leave. This entitlement is for up to 18 weeks in total at any point in the child’s first 18 years of life, with up to a maximum of four weeks in any individual year. This leave can be taken for any purpose connected with looking after a child, which would of course include caring for a seriously ill child.
I understand that this provision is set to change with the Government’s Employment Rights Bill, which will give parents a right from day one of their employment to start taking 18 weeks of unpaid leave to care for their child until the child turns 18. However, it is important to note that although the Bill will provide a day one right, it will not address the circumstances outlined in the petition, which calls for a career break specifically for parents of seriously ill children.
Also, although some measures in the Employment Rights Bill are well-intentioned, the Bill as a whole is problematic because it increases the already heightened pressure that employers and businesses are facing, further to Labour’s Budget of broken promises. Through the national insurance jobs tax, the hike in business rates and the incoming employment regulations, the Labour Government are sharply hiking up the cost of doing business and employing staff. Indeed, the Bill alone is set to cost £156 per employee.
But hon. Members do not have to listen to me; the chairman of the CBI has also stated that the new employment regulations would hamper growth and cause job losses. The Government’s own impact assessment of its workers’ rights package estimates that it will cost business £5 billion a year. Furthermore, I think that employers will not only not employ new people; they will also let people go. There could be quite an ugly rush before some of these measures come into force—arguably, we have begun to see some of that in the recent employment statistics, which have been disappointing.
The previous Government supported legislation that provides support for parents, including those caring for ill children or facing other difficult circumstances. To summarise some of the measures that the previous Government took, first they supported the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023, which gained Royal Assent in May of that year. In January 2025, the Government announced that, from April 2025, parents with babies in neonatal care would receive a day one right to additional time off. The regulations build on the work of the previous Government, and we welcome this Government continuing it. The previous Government also supported the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023, which was passed in July of that year. The Act increases the number of requests for flexible working that an employee can make in a year, reduces the time an employer has to administer a request, and requires an employer to consult with the employee if they are going to reject the request.
The previous Government also supported the Carer’s Leave Act 2023. Since it came into force, all employees are entitled to up to one week’s unpaid carer’s leave every year to provide or arrange care for any dependants with care needs due to a disability, old age, physical or mental illness, or injury expected to last at least three months. That could give some parents of seriously ill children an additional week’s leave each year on top of their unpaid parental leave entitlement. That is a summary of things as they currently stand.
The petition was submitted during the previous Parliament, and the previous Government replied:
“The Government understands the difficulties, worry and challenges faced by parents with seriously ill children. While the Government is very sympathetic, it is not practical to provide a specific right”
for them to take a career break. They continued:
“Nonetheless, we would encourage employers to go further and consider what compassionate leave policies, flexible working arrangements and supportive work environment they may be able to offer beyond that required by legislation alone.”
We left it there at the time of the election, and so I leave it to the new Minister to outline what his Government plan to do.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on securing today’s debate, and on the thoughtful way in which he presented the issues.
I thank Christina Harris, who started the petition and did an incredible job in getting 100,000 signatures. We have all now heard the story of why she had to stop work to care for Skye. It is great to see both of them in the Gallery, and it was good to hear the positive news about Skye’s condition. As we heard, 19 years with an employer was not rewarded with the loyalty that she had shown that company. Obviously we cannot rewrite history, but we can discuss what support is available and what we might be able to do in the future.
We all understand the unimaginable difficulty of having a seriously ill child and all the consequences that come with it. Hon. Members have spoken well about the difficulties that families face in those situations—the contributions have been heartfelt and serious. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley said that work is about more than just money—my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) also mentioned that in his intervention. That is absolutely right. There are benefits to working that go beyond simply financial reward, although of course we do not want to underplay that.
The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley also talked about the anxiety that having a seriously ill child can bring. Clearly, nobody wants to add to that anxiety with uncertainty about employment prospects. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) spoke eloquently, as the constituency Member for Christina, about the campaign that she has run. He also highlighted some interesting survey results, which encouragingly indicated that a majority of employers do the right thing, but also that, unfortunately, a sizeable minority do not.
I thank the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann), who spoke powerfully about his own personal experiences. He set out the emotional challenges for not just the individual in the employment relationship but the whole family when a child is seriously ill. I am grateful to him for highlighting the work of the charity sector, which supports so many families in this difficult situation. Of course, he was right that, in an ideal world, we would not want people to have to rely on charity in these difficult situations.
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), spoke about the financial impact of this issue and the delays in the benefits system. I will certainly pass on his comments to the Department for Work and Pensions.
The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), was right to highlight some of the work the Conservative Government did in this area. There is more to do, which is why we have introduced the Employment Rights Bill. She reeled off some of the opposition to it, but the CBI used to oppose the minimum wage, and we all know how that turned out.
I want to start by recognising the dedication and compassion of parents and carers across the country. They make a vital contribution to society, supporting those who need it at the most critical time. Sadly, people in that situation may have to stop work altogether, and they may not get a choice over whether they stop work altogether. Just half of all adult carers are in work, and a quarter are economically inactive.
Evidence indicates that disabled or unwell children are more likely than disabled adults to need continuous care. We also know that more than half of those who provide over 10 hours of care a week report that it impacts their work. That suggests that, as we have heard, the parents of seriously ill children face distinct challenges in balancing work and caring responsibilities. Given that that is clearly an issue, it is important that we think about how to support carers and parents of seriously ill children to balance those responsibilities with other parts of their life, including work.
As the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley said, there do appear to be issues in terms of awareness of the support that is already available to parents. So I thought it would be helpful to follow the Opposition spokesperson’s lead and outline what is available and what will be coming on stream shortly.
As has been mentioned, all employee parents are entitled to 18 weeks of unpaid parental leave over the first 18 years of a child’s life. That can be taken in blocks of four weeks, or for longer periods if there is agreement with the employer. The Employment Rights Bill will make that a day one entitlement.
Parents of a child who is disabled or living with a long-term health condition are also entitled to carer’s leave, as we have discussed. That can be taken flexibly in half or whole days or in one go over the course of a year. In line with our plans to make work pay, we intend to review carer’s leave. As Members will be aware, it has been in force for only just under a year, so there is some way to go to understand exactly how successful it has been in supporting carers in the workplace. We will also be engaging closely with smaller employers and sector bodies through that work to ensure that we fully understand the potential impacts and benefits that further policy development could bring.
From April this year, as has been mentioned, employees who are parents of babies in neonatal care will have access to a new entitlement to up to 12 weeks of neonatal care leave and pay. That includes a day one right to up to 12 weeks of neonatal care leave and a pay entitlement for eligible employees. That will enable thousands of parents to care for and be with their children in neonatal care without worrying about whether their job is at risk.
Another area where more support will be coming down the line as a result of the Employment Rights Bill is improved access to flexible working. That will help people to balance work and other responsibilities—for example, where there is a need to care for a child. It was interesting that the employer in Christina’s story just would not have that discussion about flexibility. Hopefully, the new right to flexible working will lead to a different kind of conversation in future for people in that awful situation.
There are existing protections in the Employment Rights Act 1996 for employees suffering detriment as a result of taking leave for family and domestic reasons, or where an employee is dismissed and family-related leave is the principal reason. In addition, parents of seriously ill children may be protected from employment discrimination by association with a disabled person under the Equality Act 2010.
Of course, employment rights are only one part of the much wider package of support available to families when a child is seriously ill. The accelerating reform fund will provide £42.6 million over 2023-24 and 2024-25 to support innovation and scaling in adult social care and to improve services that support unpaid carers.
A range of financial support is also available through social security. Help is provided via disability living allowance for children aged under 16 and via personal independence payments for those aged 16 and above. Those benefits are available if a child’s or young person’s condition or illness is both of a long-term nature and gives rise to daily care or mobility needs. Those benefits are a contribution to the extra costs that may arise, as we have heard. For those in receipt of the highest level of benefit, they mean an extra £9,583 a year tax-free. The benefits are usually paid to the parent of the child to help with the overall family finances, and they are free to use the money as they see fit.
The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley and several other hon. Members mentioned that it can take time to access some of these benefits. However, where there is, tragically, an end-of-life diagnosis, claims are fast-tracked, and recipients are guaranteed the highest rate of the DLA care competent or the enhanced rate of the PIP daily living component from the date of the claim.
The Government have recently announced that, from April this year, there will be an increase in the carer’s allowance weekly earnings limit, from £151 to £196 a week. That is the equivalent of 16 hours at the national living wage, and is the largest increase in the earnings limit since the carer’s allowance was first introduced in 1976. It will mean that carers can earn up to £10,000 a year while still retaining their carer’s allowance, which is worth about an additional £2,000 a year.
That is some of the work that is being undertaken, but I understand that some hon. Members wish to go further. As the debate has highlighted, a number of important issues need to be considered, including the scope of any approach and what any entitlement would look like in practice. There is certainly a need to fully understand the extent of the issue. We need to consider the length of time that would be requested, whether it would be paid or unpaid, the process that would need to be followed, who would be eligible to make an application, and whether other interventions may be more effective than an entitlement.
Mr Francois
I thank the Minister for his generous remarks about some of the speeches he has heard. For the record, he took the trouble before the debate began to introduce himself to my constituent, which I am sure was appreciated.
I heard what the Minister just said. I was a Minister once, and sometimes, after a debate like this, I would go away and think, “Do you know what? I think they might have a point.” In the hope that he feels the same way, and having heard what he has just said about looking at potential solutions, can I ask whether he would be prepared, ideally before Easter, to meet my constituent and perhaps myself, along with his officials, for an exploratory conversation based on this debate to see what the art of the possible might be? He has met my constituent informally. Will he now meet her formally? I would be very grateful if he said yes.
Justin Madders
As a former Minister, the right hon. Gentleman will know that the best way to get a Minister to agree to a meeting is to ask them directly in the Chamber. I will, of course, be happy to do that.
I will explain a little more what the Government are looking at in this area. I recently met the Minister for Care, from the Department of Health and Social Care, and the Minister for Social Security and Disability, from the Department for Work and Pensions, to discuss how we will improve the lot of carers and make progress in this area. We are determined to ensure that there are meaningful improvements, and the issues we have debated will certainly be fed into that discussion. We want to make sure that unpaid carers are able to navigate their responsibilities and stay in employment, if at all possible. There is ongoing work in Government on the wider programme, and what we have heard in this debate will certainly add to that. After I have met the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford, I may have further thoughts to submit to the machine.
It is fair to say that there is a lot going on in this area, and there is a lot to consider. This is an important subject; it is one of the most difficult times in anyone’s life when their child is seriously ill, and we want to ensure that we get the balance right in supporting parents during this difficult time.
Robbie Moore
To sum up, I first want to thank Christina, because without her and the circumstances she has brought to our attention, we would not have had the petition, the over 100,000 signatures that have attached themselves to it and therefore this debate. On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I thank not only Christina but Skye for their absolute courage and endeavour throughout the incredibly difficult challenges that they and their family have had, and for enabling us to bring this debate forward.
This has been a really robust debate—in the politest of senses—in terms of the subjects that have been covered. There has been real recognition of the fact that more data needs to be collected so that we can ensure that the legislation being introduced by Government is practically workable on the ground. We have also covered off the fact that not every employer is necessarily doing the right thing in terms of their own obligations. It is good to see that the Government have recognised that more work needs to be done to make sure that each employer and employee knows their obligations to one another so that, should the difficult circumstances arise where a child is ill, the employer will put out the best protection as quickly as possible to meet their employee’s needs.
I reiterate that there is space potentially to improve the Employment Rights Bill, based on the concerns raised throughout the debate. It is good to hear that the Minister—through my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois)—has guaranteed a meeting. Let all those who signed the petition be well aware that a meeting will follow this debate, and we can only hope that there will be good outcomes from it.
My final point is that, where carers are permitted to have carer’s allowance, they should not have to wait for an end-of-life prognosis for the payment to be fast-tracked. The Government machinery should be able to operate much more quickly, so that the carer of any child who is ill can get the allowance as quickly as possible—certainly within the 90-day period, and not at the last minute.
On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I thank all hon. Members who have contributed, and I thank those in the Gallery—Christina, Skye and their friend—for attending the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 638449 relating to career breaks for parents of seriously ill children.
Written Statements
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministers' Gifts and Hospitality and Other Transparency Data
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
Ministers’ Gifts and Hospitality
As part of the Government’s commitment to transparency, the Prime Minister updated the ministerial code on 6 November 2024. This requires the Cabinet Office to publish a Register of Ministers’ Gifts and Hospitality every month.
The register will bring closer alignment between ministerial declarations of gifts and hospitality and the parliamentary regime, ending the system where ministerial declarations are published many months after parliamentary declarations. The register will also require ministers, for the first time, to declare where possible an estimated value for all hospitality received.
In line with this requirement, the Cabinet Office published on Thursday 30 January the following datasets:
Ministers’ gifts and hospitality for the period of July to October 2024;
the first monthly Register of Ministers’ Gifts and Hospitality for November 2024; and
the second monthly Register of Ministers’ Gifts and Hospitality for December 2024.
The Cabinet Office also published new guidance on the publication process for the new register. The Government will publish a Register of Ministers’ Gifts and Hospitality at the end of each month.
Other transparency datasets
Government Departments also published the following routine transparency data for the period of July to September 2024:
Ministers’ meetings with external individuals and organisations, and overseas travel;
special advisers’ gifts, hospitality and meetings with senior media figures;
senior officials’ business expenses, hospitality and meetings with external individuals and organisations; and
business appointment rules advice given to applicants at SCS2 and SCS1—and special advisers at equivalent levels.
[HCWS408]
School Accountability and Intervention
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
I am today launching a 12-week consultation on proposals to reform school accountability and announcing the next steps on the Government’s manifesto commitment to deliver regional improvement for standards and excellence (RISE) teams. Ofsted has also published its consultation on inspection reform and report cards today.
The proposals in these consultations are essential for delivering high and rising standards for every child, and to the Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity by working to ensure that every family, no matter where they live, can be confident of sending their child to a good local school.
In September 2024, my Department announced we would work on delivering a better accountability system that sets clear expectations, encourages improvement, and spreads excellence to drive high and rising standards for every child. Ofsted’s new report cards will raise the bar on what we expect from schools while providing a more complete picture of school performance. They will provide greater clarity on a school’s strengths and areas for improvement for the benefit of parents and school staff and encourage schools to work together to spread success. In contrast, single headline grades were low information for parents and high stakes for schools which is why we took swift action to remove them. They were too vague and left too many struggling schools without the support they needed to improve. The publication of these consultations is the next major step in delivering upon the Government’s manifesto commitments on school accountability, inspection, and improvement.
My Department is consulting on:
Our approach to improving school accountability, and some principles to guide our ongoing work in this area;
the Department’s future vision for implementation of school profiles—a new digital service which would provide more complete information about schools for parents. It includes proposals for bringing together Ofsted’s report cards with a range of up-to-date performance information. The consultation seeks views on if there is other information about the nature and quality of provision that should be included; and
new arrangements for intervention in maintained schools and academies including proposals for how the Department will identify schools for mandatory targeted RISE interventions, and the circumstances where we would change the organisation that governs a school. The plans, subject to consultation, will entail the Department mandating intervention in approximately twice as many schools per year. There will also be a universal RISE support service for all schools to support ongoing improvement across the school system.
Alongside launching the consultation, we have today announced the initial school eligibility criteria we will use for targeted RISE interventions starting this month. We are making available over £20 million for targeted RISE interventions over the next 15 months.
We are also announcing today that supporting all schools to improve pupil attendance will be the first national priority for the universal RISE support service.
The previous Government’s approach to improving schools was blunt and too slow. We will structurally intervene swiftly with schools with the most serious issues but will also broaden our approach to tackling failure, providing bespoke, intensive and timely intervention, to the different challenges identified in Ofsted report cards. Our approach will additionally help to spread best practice and foster a self-improving school system which our new RISE teams will act as a catalyst to help drive.
Copies of the Department for Education consultation and the Ofsted consultation will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS410]
Land Use Consultation
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
Last week, the Government opened their consultation on land use in England. This is the launch of a national conversation on land use, and will inform the development of a land use framework for England that will transform how we use land in this country to support economic growth and food security and deliver on our plan for change.
England has finite land with growing calls on it— growing food, building 1.5 million homes this Parliament, and restoring nature.
The land use consultation builds on previous contributions made by Members of the House of Lords Land Use in England Committee, several Members of this House, and other organisations that have called for a more joined-up approach to land use and land management policy. It aims to foster a national conversation on land use in England. The findings from this consultation will inform the development of our housing and energy spatial plans as well as ongoing reforms to the planning system. It is another step in the delivery of our plan for change to build 1.5 million new homes, and the energy infrastructure needed to achieve clean power by 2030, while safeguarding food security and our natural world.
The land use framework is not about telling anyone how to use their land. Using the most sophisticated land use data ever published, the land use Framework instead will provide the principles, advanced data and tools to empower decision makers to protect the most productive agricultural land, boost food security and identify areas with the greatest potential for nature recovery.
The consultation sets out a vision for land use change and seeks views on:
The scale and type of land use changes that may be needed to 2050;
the principles that should inform decision making, and how they could be applied;
the actions Government could take to support decisions about land use change.
The consultation will run for 12 weeks and will inform Government’s development of the land use framework later this year. It will include workshops across England as well as roundtables with experts, industry groups and other interested stakeholders.
[HCWS412]
Independent Office for Police Conduct Annual Report and Accounts 2023-24
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
I am today, along with my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, publishing the annual report and accounts for the Independent Office for Police Conduct (HC 707). The report has been laid before the House and copies will be available in the Vote Office and on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS411]
Local Government Finance Settlement 2025-26
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
Today I laid before the House the “Local Government Finance Report (England) 2025 to 2026” and the “Referendums Relating to Council Tax Increases (Principles) (England) Report 2025 to 2026”. Together, the reports represent the final local government finance settlement for 2025 to 2026. I am therefore able to confirm that the local government finance settlement for 2025 to 2026 will grant councils in England access to over £69 billion in funding, which is a 6.8% cash terms increase on 2024 to 2025.
Change will not happen overnight, but this settlement marks the beginning of the Government commitment to rebuild and stabilise local government and run services that taxpayers can rely on. In 2026 to 2027, through the first multiyear settlement in a decade, we will begin introducing an up-to-date assessment of councils’ funding needs and financial resources, allowing local government to plan for the long term and deliver best value for taxpayers’ money. Our consultation on local authority funding reform sets out the proposed objectives and principles of these reforms.
Fixing local government requires tough decisions, and a willingness to seize the opportunities that devolution presents. Tough decisions are needed across local government to fix the broken system we inherited. In December, we published the “English Devolution” White Paper, which offered a priority route to devolution and invited councils to work with us on local government reorganisation, while strengthening existing devolution deals. Devolving powers requires stronger foundations and effective oversight, so as part of our commitment to devolution we also need a fit, legal and decent local government. We therefore issued consultations on local audit reform and strengthening the standards and conduct framework for councils in England, which will restore trust and confidence in local government. Alongside this, unitarisation is a crucial reform programme that will streamline local government and end the two-tier premium paid by taxpayers across the country. We will continue to work in partnership with local areas as we gradually mend the broken system.
I would like to thank everyone who has engaged with our consultation on the provisional local government finance settlement for 2025 to 2026, which ran until 15 January 2025. In total, we received 227 responses. In addition, we have met with colleagues in the House and with council leaders and officers, and we are very grateful for their views on our proposals. The Minister of State for Local Government and English Devolution and I have now considered all the representations received and today we can confirm how this Government will support local services, while beginning to put the system back on a sustainable footing.
The Government’s full response to the consultation on the provisional local government finance settlement for 2025 to 2026 has been published.
Final local government finance settlement 2025 to 2026
Our fiscal inheritance means that there will be tough choices on all sides to get us back on the path to recovery, and it will take time. Today’s settlement, alongside the Budget, will deliver over £5 billion of new funding for local services over and above council tax. We have confirmed over £2 billion in grant allocations to councils, including new investments in prevention in children’s social care services. We have guaranteed at least £1.1 billion in funding in 2025 to 2026 from the new extended producer responsibility for packaging scheme, and alongside that no local authority will see a core spending power reduction in 2025 to 2026. We are providing an extra £233 million for homelessness services in 2025 to 2026 outside of the settlement, and £500 million in pothole funding.
The Government are introducing a new recovery grant, worth £600 million. This is the first meaningful step towards funding reform that was not achieved by the previous Government, but it is an interim measure. A full update of the funding system will take longer, which is why we have already published our consultation on the objectives and principles of funding reform from 2026 to 2027.
I am also setting out today that £60 million has been confirmed for long-term improvements over the next year, including empowering mayoral areas leading the devolution revolution and fixing the local audit system to ensure transparency. Further details of this funding will be made available in due course.
Investment in adult and children’s social care services
We are taking action, with both legislation and investment, to rebuild vital prevention services and deliver overdue reforms to children’s social care. The Education Secretary will deliver the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to protect our most vulnerable children and crack down on excessive and exploitative profit making. At the final settlement, I can confirm the Government’s new children’s social care prevention grant will be uplifted to a total of £270 million in 2025 to 2026. This grant will use a new formula, which will allocate funding according to estimated need for children’s social care services. This grant will double settlement investment in preventive children’s social care services to over half a billion in 2025 to 2026.
With this new funding, we can confirm that we will make available up to £3.7 billion of additional funding for social care authorities via the settlement. The funding uplift in 2025 to 2026 includes an additional £880 million allocated through the social care grant. This takes the total funding in the social care grant to £5.9 billion next year.
In all, the Government are providing over £10 billion in grant funding for social care through the social care grant, the children’s social care prevention grant, the children and families grant, the market sustainability and improvement fund and the local authority better care grant in 2025 to 2026.
Employer national insurance contributions and additional measures for local government
At the provisional settlement in December, the Government announced an additional £515 million of support for local government to manage the impact of changes to employer national insurance contributions, introduced at the autumn Budget. Today, I have confirmed allocations worth £502 million to councils in England and £13 million will be allocated separately to mayoral combined authorities, with allocations to follow in due course.
In addition, following representations made during the consultation and in recognition of further increases to internal drainage board special levies and the impact this can have on specific councils’ budgets, the internal drainage board levy support grant will be uplifted by £2 million, taking the grant’s total value to £5 million in 2025 to 2026. We will confirm allocations in due course.
Council tax
The Government are committed to keeping taxes on working people as low as possible and, at the same time, are under no illusions about the fragile state of the sector and the pressures councils are facing to deliver for residents. For too long, councils have seen budgets cut and been forced to turn to excessive tax rises to continue to deliver vital frontline services.
This settlement maintains the previous Government’s policy on council tax increases. As set out in the March 2024 Office for Budget Responsibility forecast, this means a 5% council tax referendum principle, made up of a 3% core principle, and a 2% principle for the adult social care precept. These principles do not force councils to set taxes at the threshold level, and exist to protect taxpayers from excessive increases. When taking decisions on council tax levels, the Government expect all councillors, mayors, police and crime commissioners and local councils to consider the impact on households.
For the vast majority of councils, alongside the Government injection of additional grant funding set out above, these principles will be sufficient to support councils in setting their budgets. But we know that the fragility in the system has left some councils in difficult positions. That is why the Government said we would consider requests from councils for additional flexibility in the council tax referendum principles, where they are seeking exceptional financial support and see increases as critical to their financial sustainability.
The ability to request additional increases already existed, but this Government have been clear that we intend to take a stricter approach that puts taxpayers at its heart. This means avoiding excessively high increases, and only agreeing increases where councils have comparatively low existing levels of tax and plans in place to protect the vulnerable. This has limited the number and scale of additional increases. In particular it has meant the Government have not agreed where councils have asked to increase council tax by a very high amount in a single year or by high amounts in successive years. This is a contrast to the approach recently taken in councils such as Croydon, Thurrock and Slough.
As a result of the 14 years of decline and instability overseen by the previous Government, we know there are large numbers of councils in significant financial difficulty. This financial legacy of the previous Government has resulted in a record number of councils engaging with the Government about support to help them set their budgets, and a record number of these councils asking for additional council tax increases.
Having carefully considered requests from councils, the Government have agreed small increases for six councils. For the 2025 to 2026 settlement, bespoke additional council tax referendum principles will apply for Windsor and Maidenhead borough council (+4%), Birmingham city council (+2.5%), Bradford council (+5%), Newham council (+4%), Somerset council (+2.5%) and Trafford council (+2.5%).
These are difficult decisions that Government have not taken lightly. We recognise the importance of limited increases in helping to prevent these councils falling further into financial distress, but we have been clear this must be balanced with the interests of taxpayers.
We have agreed to a limited number of requests and in all cases have not agreed to the full amount requested. Where we have agreed, it is only for councils with among the lowest levels of council tax and where we expect, even after these increases, residents will still be paying less than the average compared with similar councils. At a national level, even with these increases, the overall increase in council tax is not expected to exceed last year’s.
Following confirmation of these referendum principles, it will be for individual councils to take final decisions on setting council tax in their areas, having reached agreement locally that the increases are necessary to the council’s financial recovery. I have been clear to all councils that they should take whatever steps locally they consider will help to protect the most vulnerable residents from the impact of any additional increase.
The position we have confirmed today is in respect of requests for council tax flexibility. Decisions on councils’ overall request for exceptional financial support will be taken and communicated ahead of local budget setting. As with previous years the Government will publish details of any support once agreed.
Conclusion
This settlement marks a turning point. We have taken the difficult decisions needed to move towards a fairer, cost-effective system. Through the 2026 to 2027 settlement, we will introduce an up-to-date assessment of councils’ needs and resources. These reforms will build on the framework set out in the previous Government’s review of relative needs and resources, originally the fair funding review, which was not implemented. Alongside this, we will reset the business rates retention system, as the previous Government committed to do, but again did not implement, so that authorities are fairly rewarded for new business rates growth. The Government will also reduce the number of funding pots, giving councils more flexibility to focus on priority outcomes. We also confirmed at the provisional settlement in December that 2025 to 2026 would be the final year of the new homes bonus in its current format, and that Government will consult in the first half of 2025 on detailed proposals for arrangements beyond 2025 to 2026. These reforms will be implemented in partnership with the sector, and we are currently inviting views on our approach through the local authority funding reform objectives and principles consultation, which closes on 12 February.
This written ministerial statement covers England only.
[HCWS413]
Cyber-security of AI: Government Response
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Peter Kyle)
Artificial intelligence is one of the most vital technologies of our lifetimes. It has incredible potential to improve our public services, boost productivity and rebuild our economy. However, to take full advantage we need to build trust in these systems which are increasingly part of our day-to-day lives. AI is at the heart of the Government’s plan to kickstart an era of economic growth, transform how we deliver public services, and boost living standards for working people across the country. To fully realise these benefits, we must protect end users and address the very real security threats to AI systems and models.
Last Friday, I set out the Government’s response to the call for views on the cyber-security of AI and set out our ambitious next steps to protect organisations in the UK so they can be confident they can adopt AI securely.
The UK Government’s research into the cyber-security of AI found there are clear and specific risks to the security of AI models and systems throughout the AI life cycle. It is imperative these are addressed so consumers and organisations can safely benefit from AI technologies.
A call for views on the Government’s proposed interventions was held from 15 May 2024 to 9 August 2024. The proposals included a two-part approach, comprised of a voluntary code of practice, which forms the basis for the second part, a global standard developed at an international standards body. Together, these establish baseline security requirements which will help reduce the number and impact of successful cyber-attacks and protect users’ data and the economy.
The Department for Science, Innovation and Technology received 123 responses to the call for views. I greatly appreciate all the responses we received, including those from international partners and industry which make this a truly global endeavour. I am particularly pleased respondents were overwhelmingly supportive of the Government-proposed two-part intervention.
We have taken this feedback and used it to update the code of practice and create a new implementation guide that supports the code. The guide provides detail that supports organisations, particularly small and medium enterprises, with implementing the code. The voluntary code of practice on the cyber-security of AI that is set out in this Government response will be used to inform the development of a new global standard. Through this work, the UK, as a world leader in securing technology, will continue to advocate the importance of cyber-security and the need for a secure by design approach across all technologies.
The code of practice and the new implementation guide forms one part of Government’s wider work on AI and is aligned and contributing to the vital programme that DSIT is progressing on frontier AI to prepare the UK for future advanced AI models. As announced in the King’s Speech last summer, we will deliver on our manifesto commitment by placing binding requirements on the handful of companies developing the most powerful AI systems. This highly targeted legislation will build on the voluntary commitments secured at the Seoul AI safety summit for frontier AI companies to develop and deploy their systems responsibly and strengthen the role of the AI Safety Institute.
This work on the cyber-security of AI is also aligned with DSIT’s other cyber-security initiatives, such as the upcoming draft codes of practice for cyber governance and Software which will improve security practices, outcomes, and confidence for UK organisations.
We have published the Government’s response on www.gov.uk, alongside the updated AI cyber-security code of practice and implementation guide.
As we begin to develop a global standard for AI cyber- security based on this work, it is my hope these documents will help ensure we can all benefit from secure AI and will kickstart economic growth and innovation.
[HCWS409]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That the Grand Committee do consider the Heat Networks (Market Framework) (Great Britain) Regulations 2025.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the house on 28 November 2024.
We know that to reach our net-zero commitment and reduce our reliance on international fossil fuels, we must use all the tools we have available. Currently, heating accounts for 23% of the UK’s carbon emissions. Two of our key technologies for decarbonising heat are heat pumps and heat networks.
Heat networks present us with an opportunity to enable a more resilient and flexible future for the UK’s heat, reducing carbon emissions and our future bills. Heat networks are particularly important, as they are in a unique position to exploit larger-scale and local low-carbon energy sources, such as large, efficient heat pumps and waste heat from industry or from natural sources that would otherwise be dumped. Proven internationally to provide affordable, low-carbon heat, heat networks are especially suited to dense urban areas. The Government expect that about 20% of the UK’s heat demand will be met by heat networks by 2050, which will be a significant increase from the current figure, which is about 3%.
We want to do everything that we can to support the much-needed growth of the heat network sector, but we also want to ensure that we deliver a fair deal for heat network consumers. Heat networks currently function as an unregulated monopoly: the 470,000 households that are supplied by heat networks cannot change their supplier if they are dissatisfied with their service or obtain redress if they are unfairly treated. The lack of regulation means that consumers are not guaranteed a fair service: heating is less reliable, suppliers are less transparent and it is harder for consumers to represent themselves or make complaints.
We have been working with consumer groups and have engaged in research that will allow, and has allowed, us to identify where this is happening in the market and what we can do to put in place measures to prevent such activity. These regulations are what we need to put in place to ensure that customers are protected. They stem from the Energy Act 2023, which provides powers for the Secretary of State to introduce regulations across Great Britain that will protect heat network consumers in a way that is rightfully comparable with other regulated utilities.
This statutory instrument seeks to provide protections to heat network consumers that are comparable with activities such as those in the gas and electricity sector. The instrument introduces an authorisation regime to be implemented by Ofgem; this will work in a similar way to the gas and electricity licensing regimes. It takes an outcomes-based approach to reflect heat networks’ diversity of scale and their nascent market position.
The regulations ban running a heat network without an authorisation. Existing heat networks are automatically given an authorisation in order to phase in market regulation. The conditions for authorisation are set by either the Secretary of State or Ofgem, and apply rules for running a heat network. Ofgem will be able to monitor compliance with regulations and act where appropriate.
Actions Ofgem can take include issuing information notices for compliance data, investigating suspected non-compliance, inspecting commercial premises of authorised persons and issuing a range of orders requiring remedial action. Consumer redress orders can also be issued, requiring that affected consumers are given compensation.
These regulations require Ofgem to publish statements of policy on how powers are used. Penalties will be proportionate to the authorised person’s size and the scale of harm that their non-compliance has caused. Additionally, the instrument gives Ofgem powers to set minimum performance standards. Although the scope of these standards is not defined in this instrument, these will include quality of service, outage minimisation and treatment of vulnerable customers.
This instrument also applies Parts 1 and 2 of the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Act 2007, with some modifications to apply them to heat networks. These create the roles of consumer advocacy bodies for heat network consumers, providing access to advice. It also extends the Energy Ombudsman’s redress scheme to these consumers. The regulations automatically enrol all heat networks into the scheme.
The commencement dates for some of the provisions are slightly different. This is because delays to the passage of the Energy Act mean that Ofgem cannot commence regulatory activities before January 2026. However, to ensure that heat network consumers are afforded some support before then, we are establishing the roles of the consumer advocacy, advice and redress scheme providers earlier, in April 2025.
Finally, this instrument makes amendments to the Heat Networks (Scotland) Act 2021, following extensive consultations with the Scottish Government. These amendments were made to ensure that Ofgem can regulate consistently across Great Britain.
My department has carried out two consultations to inform these regulations. The first consultation was on creating a market framework, in 2020; the second was on consumer protection, in 2023. Across both consultations, broad support for the structures created in this instrument was expressed. There is an ongoing consultation on the contents of the authorisation conditions, the outcome of which will be published before the authorisation regime commences.
In summary, this instrument represents the important first step in introducing comprehensive utility regulation to the heat network market. It lays the groundwork for a much fairer and just sector where heat network consumers are protected. We expect that this will provide a very good foundation for growing the sector in future. Putting consumer protection at the heart of our agenda is, we believe, a way to inspire public confidence. I beg to move.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to say that we are very supportive of the heat networks regulations before us. We broadly welcome these moves, which will start to regulate the heat networks market in England, Wales and Scotland.
These regulations will bring in some much-needed consumer controls and protections for the customers of heat networks. As the Minister said, heat networks are a form of deregulated energy distribution, where heating, cooling and hot water are circulated from central sources of generation to multiple endpoints of use. These can include domestic dwellings as well as public and commercial buildings.
Frankly, it is shocking that heat networks have been largely unregulated to date, despite being an essential utility that is presently used by nearly 500,000 households in the UK. The only legislation that currently applies specifically to heat networks are the Heat Network (Metering and Billing) Regulations, which apply only to metering and billing.
Heat network customers have significantly fewer rights and protections compared with any other energy utility customers in the UK. A report carried out by the Competition and Markets Authority in 2018 found that the existing market was, in effect, a monopoly. It raised concerns about customer protections as this market grows and moves forward. To date, this market has been allowed to operate mostly unregulated. In all other aspects, heat network customers have fewer rights and consumer protections than any other energy customers.
We welcome the Government’s intention to grow this share of the energy market and we recognise that the extension of heat networks can bring benefits to customers as we make the energy transition. We welcome the use of large-scale heat pumps and novel uses of waste heat, particularly in urban areas. The recently announced Bunhill 2 Energy Centre, which will provide heat and hot water to more than 1,350 homes, a school and two leisure centres in Islington, with waste heat from the London Underground, is an example of this type of innovation. In future, waste heat from industrial processes or data centres could be used to provide new forms of domestic heat and hot water from heat that is currently used just as a by-product and released into the atmosphere.
I note the Government’s stated intention to see that some 20% of the UK’s heat demand is met by heat networks by 2050. These regulations are about creating those basic consumer protections for heat network customers so that they have the same protections as everybody else. We want to make sure that this heat network market is fit for purpose so that it can grow and new customers can enter it. At the moment, the lack of consumer protection is the main barrier to growing this market, so we fully agree with the Government on these points. The lack of a properly regulated market needs to be resolved, and we support the Government doing so.
This instrument uses the powers in Chapter 1 of Part 8 of the Energy Act 2023. It defines “regulated activities” in relation to heat networks and provides that anyone carrying out these activities needs an authorisation. Authorisations are to be granted by the Gas and Electricity Markets Authority, GEMA, and in practice by Ofgem. Ofgem will also have relevant enforcement powers and authorisations under the instrument. The regulations give it the powers to carry out this role, including investigative powers to collect information and issue different types of compliance notices, consumer redress orders and variable penalties.
What support will the Government give to very small heat networks and small community heat networks, particularly those with fewer than 50 members? Obviously, with new regulations there is some level of new burden, so are the Government aware of that and doing everything they can to support them in the transition?
As the Minister said, these regulations are only the first step in introducing a much fuller regulatory regime in the months and years to come. The authorisation regime run by Ofgem will come into force on 27 January 2026, but the provisions on consumer advocacy and the redress scheme to be operated by the Energy Ombudsman will come into force on 1 April 2025. How will those two systems work together? What will happen in that interregnum? Will the Minister and the Government ensure that, as they move from one regulatory regime to another, consumers will be protected through that transition?
I want to ask about historical legacy issues, in particular the money the Government gave to people in heat networks. Once these regulations come into force, what will happen to any legacy issues, conflicts or problems that pre-date these regulations?
Finally, in a statement in the other place it was made clear, as the Minister has said, that the Government want to grow heat networks to 20% by 2050. This has not had a lot of discussion in this place or the other place. We welcome this policy, but will the Minister take a moment to say how they plan to grow the heat network market? Beyond these regulations and making the regulatory framework work, what steps are planned to help increase the use of heat networks? What investment framework are the Government looking to use to help bring about more heat networks? What other mechanisms do they have in mind to help grow this market? How will it be reported on? What organisations will oversee the delivery of the increase in heat networks? Finally, does the Minister see a role for GB Energy in increasing the number of heat networks?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, these regulations represent a pivotal step in securing the long-term sustainability of heat networks across Great Britain. Heat networks are central to the UK’s decarbonisation strategy, particularly in densely populated areas, and are projected to supply 18% of the nation’s heat demand by 2050. Presently, more than 500,000 households and businesses are already connected to these networks, which, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, rightly observed, historically have operated without formal regulation.
The previous Conservative Government made notable progress in modernising this sector, investing £32 million through the heat network efficiency scheme. This funding allowed network operators to replace outdated and inefficient equipment, resulting in improved reliability and more efficient heating for consumers. Heat networks are expected to play a crucial role in reducing carbon emissions, particularly in areas where individual heating solutions are less feasible, such as, as the Minister suggested, dense urban environments.
The measures in the SI seek to establish a structure of regulation for the heat networks market designed to ensure that heat networks operate in a way that benefits the consumer. The key provisions include: the licensing of heat suppliers; stronger consumer protections; regulatory oversight from Ofgem; and performance reviews on data and reporting. Additionally, the regulations will encourage market development to foster innovation, competition and the integration of renewable energy solutions, which will be essential for meeting the UK’s climate goals. These provisions are designed to create a fairer, more transparent and consumer-friendly heat network sector, while supporting the transition to clean energy, making it a central pillar in the Government’s wider decarbonisation agenda.
Notwithstanding the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the lack of regulation in this market, Energy UK has acknowledged that the current level of regulation is lighter than that for gas and electricity, which is understandable given the market’s current stage and variability. However, it also recognised the need for regulation to become more robust as the market matures. While the measures to encourage investment in the sector are welcomed, Energy UK advocates for further efforts to promote wider connections to heat networks and enhance investment, particularly in underserved areas.
Despite the positive progress these regulations represent, several challenges remain. On consumer protection, how can we ensure that vulnerable consumers are adequately safeguarded and fully informed of their rights? Regarding investment and market growth, what additional steps can be taken to incentivise further investment in heat networks and ensure that the sector remains competitive? Could we see measures such as tax incentives or grants for businesses in local authorities looking to develop new networks or to expand existing ones? As the market evolves, how do we maintain the right balance between regulation and innovation—fostering growth without stifling creativity and new ideas? It is essential that these regulations allow space for technological breakthroughs and market experimentation. Finally, given that heat networks often operate as local monopolies, how can we ensure fair competition and prevent consumers being locked into poor-value contracts? The introduction of transparency measures, dispute resolution mechanisms and regulatory enforcement will be essential in addressing these concerns.
In conclusion, these regulations are a vital step in creating a fair, efficient and sustainable heat network market. They aim to protect consumers, encourage investment and support our climate objectives. As we move forward, we must ensure that these regulations continue to adapt to meet the evolving needs of the sector. To that end, ongoing consultation with stakeholders, consumers and innovators will be critical to ensuring that the heat network market thrives, while the interests of the public are protected.
I end with a plea to the Minister to keep a watchful eye on Ofgem, which has seen its workload increase exponentially over the last few years. I hope that his department continues to monitor Ofgem’s increasing responsibilities and to ensure that its resources are increased to match.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, could I ask the Minister one question? I apologise to him: I realised this was being done today only about 20 minutes ago.
A significant number of existing heat networks are run by local authorities or hived-off organisations owned by local authorities. The aim of this legislation, as far as consumers are concerned, I have strongly supported for a long time, including during the proceedings of the Energy Act. I am very much in favour of consumer protection and consumer redress as spelled out in part of these regulations, but I have been told elsewhere that those protections and certainly those forms of redress are different if they are for consumers of heat networks run by local authorities, compared with a private sector or mixed ownership of the heat network. I would like to know whether that is true in principle. If it is at all true, perhaps the Minister could write to me and explain what the situation is.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this short but none the less interesting and, I think, important debate. As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, and my noble friend Lord Whitty have suggested, the development of heat networks is a very important one, and we want to see considerable progress over the next few years.
I also think it is important that the sector itself has broadly supported the regulatory proposals. I believe, and I think it was explicit in what the noble Baroness said, that that confidence will allow them to invest in the future and develop the market, which is what we earnestly hope for and wish to see.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield, I accept that this is another responsibility that is being placed on Ofgem. I have had quite considerable experience in dealing with regulators in my time in government. I think Ofgem discharges its responsibilities very seriously, and I have confidence in its ability to discharge this new responsibility. In a sense, it is simply extending the principles of the current regulation of gas and electricity to network heating, so it is something I am confident it will be able to do.
In response to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I make it clear that from April this year, heat network consumers will also be able to seek redress from the Energy Ombudsman scheme and, through Citizens Advice and Consumer Scotland, will have access to advice and advocacy services afforded to the gas and electricity markets. In answer to the noble Baroness, we think this will be particularly helpful to the vulnerable customers she mentioned.
The noble Earl asked me about retrospection. The new arrangements will not be able to be applied retrospectively. The fact he raised this shows why it is so important that we get a move on in introducing these new regulations, and how customers were at risk under the previous arrangements.
As far as fair competition is concerned, again, I very much accept that point. Indeed, this work arose from the Competition and Markets Authority, and Ofgem is well used to intervening in areas where it feels that competition is not being fairly adopted. I am confident that it can deal with that. The data gathered by Ofgem—and, of course, it will have this ability to require data to be provided to it—will enable it to identify emerging issues and trends and adapt regulation as the heat sector develops and grows. As I see it, regulation will be proportionate and organic, marching in step with the way the market itself develops.
I inform the Committee that we will be introducing further regulations this year: first, to introduce protections against insolvency and debt management; and, secondly, to create an entity to implement mandatory technical standards. Putting those together will provide the foundation for this market to grow in future. Market growth seems to me to be a fundamental question, so we are working to expand the existing heat network market through capital funding via the green heat network fund, which will establish heat network zones in key locations. This will allow heat network developers to deploy large-scale district heat networks in dense urban locations, where, as I have said already, they are best suited to provide low-carbon heat.
On support for smaller heat networks, my understanding is that, first, Ofgem will take a proportionate and outcomes-based approach to regulation, providing guidance and supporting small operations.
To come back to the legacy issue and add a bit more information, on legacy issues with existing heat networks, we will take action to guide heat networks through legacy challenges that they face with existing heat networks, with remedial works implemented over time. One advantage of giving authorisation to current schemes is that, once they have been given an authorisation, they then come under these regulations. In one way, if there are pre-existing issues, at some point they will be authorised, and then they can be dealt with under these regulations. So, in fact, although strictly speaking it cannot be retrospectively applied, I hope that that can bring comfort to customers who are really concerned about the situation as it is.
I understand also, in relation to vulnerable customers, that a priority services register will enable vulnerable consumers to access additional support relating to their heat network, including receiving communications in an accessible format, assistance reading their meters and the ability to nominate another person to act on their behalf when dealing with their heat provider.
In relation to the point raised about regulation and customer prices, Ofgem will have direct powers to intervene on prices with a general authorisation condition, to set prices fairly, with data-driven interventions proceeding from January 2026.
On the point raised by my noble friend Lord Whitty, first, I acknowledge the work of local authorities of in some ways even pioneering district heating systems. My noble friend may know that in the heart of the city of Birmingham we had a district heating system that ran right through the city centre, and we can see the potential area. I have also been informed about the South Westminster Area Network, which is being established through close working between Westminster Council and Westminster business improvement districts. That is a new approach to procurement; it took four months to bring forward a partner, which is much quicker than for many of the schemes and developments.
The point that my noble friend raised is a new one to me, and I hope that he does not mind me just checking it out and coming back to him on it. On the face of it, it seems puzzling, but I think that I need to find out some more information about it. But I take his point that we want local authorities to continue to take a lead in developing some of these network heating schemes and, clearly, the public must have confidence in how that is done.
Finally, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked me about Great British Energy. He will know that we believe that, in the development of local plans and the role of GBE in doing that, there is clearly potential to give encouragement to community energy schemes and network schemes. I cannot really say any more about that, but I shall draw those remarks to the attention of the start-up chair of Great British Energy.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I should just clarify my remarks about Ofgem. In no way was I intending to imply that its work was anything other than exemplary—I was just commenting on the increasing workload that we are putting on Ofgem.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
I did not take it as a criticism at all. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that we are asking Ofgem to do a lot—but her experience and mine is that it is very capable of doing that.
Separation of Waste (England) Regulations 2024
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayman of Ullock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Separation of Waste (England) Regulations 2024.
Relevant document: 12th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid in draft before the House on 3 December 2024 and confirm the final policy position for simpler recycling in England. For too long, households in England have been presented with a muddled and confusing patchwork of approaches to bin collections. The Government’s simpler recycling reforms will ensure that across England people will be able to recycle the same materials, whether at home, work or school, putting an end to confusion over what can and cannot be recycled in different parts of the country.
We are all responsible for addressing our country’s waste problem, and we know that citizens want to play their part and recycle as much as possible but that they are frustrated by the limited and confusing recycling services. Through these reforms, we are empowering citizens to turn their good intentions into simple, effective actions. Simpler recycling is one of the three core pillars of the Government’s ambitious collection and packaging reforms, alongside the forthcoming deposit return scheme and the extended producer responsibility scheme for packaging. Together, we estimate that the collection and packaging reforms will support 21,000 jobs in our nations and regions and stimulate more than £10 billion of investment in recycling capability over the next decade. The reforms are also estimated to deliver carbon savings of more than 46 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2035, valued at over £10 billion in carbon benefits.
Since 2015, household recycling rates in England have plateaued at around 45%, decreasing to 43% in 2022, so we urgently need to take steps to improve the nation’s recycling performance. Simpler recycling will end the postcode lottery of bin collections in England by ensuring that all households and workplaces can recycle the same core waste streams: plastic, metal, glass, paper and card, and food waste, with garden waste for households upon request. Simpler recycling will improve services for householders by introducing weekly food collections for all households in England and kerbside plastic film collections. This will make a significant contribution towards meeting our ambition to recycle 65% of municipal waste by 2035 and our target to reduce residual waste generated per capita by 50% by 2042 compared with 2019 levels. Furthermore, these changes represent a critical first step towards meeting the commitment in our manifesto to transition to a resource-resilient, productive circular economy which delivers long-term, sustainable growth.
I draw noble Lords’ attention to the exemptions introduced by the instrument. The legislation to implement the core legislative requirements for simpler recycling was introduced by the previous Government through the Environment Act 2021. This legislation has already come into force; in practice, this means that simpler recycling will automatically come into effect, beginning in March 2025 for workplaces and March 2026 for households.
Sections 45A, 45AZA and 45AZB of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, as amended by the Environment Act 2021, require that the six recyclable waste streams—plastic, glass, metal, paper and card, food waste, and garden waste—are collected separately, alongside residual waste. The legislation states that local authorities and other waste collectors can make use of an exception to collect these recyclable materials together, if it is not technically nor economically practicable to collect them separately or if there is no significant environmental benefit from doing so. However, if using an exception, waste collectors must produce a written assessment to record the justification.
This instrument sets sensible exemptions from this condition, allowing any combination of the recyclable waste streams of metal, glass and plastic to be collected together, at all times. This exemption applies to collections from both households and workplaces. It also allows food waste and garden waste to be collected together from households, at all times. Waste collectors will not have to justify co-collection of any of these materials, as they would have to under the primary legislation as it stands.
We have taken this decision because the Secretary of State has determined, based on the evidence, that co-collection of those materials does not affect the potential for those materials to be recycled. We will not include paper and card in the exemption. This must, by default, be collected separately from the other dry recyclable waste streams. This applies to collections from both households and workplaces. This is because paper and card are particularly vulnerable to cross-contamination from food and liquid commonly found on other recycling materials, which could significantly reduce the potential for collected material to be recycled.
However, we want to provide flexibility for local councils and other waste collectors. Where waste collectors consider that it is not technically or economically practicable to collect paper and card separately, or where there is no significant environmental benefit from doing so, they may collect paper and card together with other dry recycling, if they provide a written assessment to document the justification.
Waste collectors will decide where an exception applies. There is no need to request permission from Defra or the Environment Agency to co-collect paper and card where an exception applies. We have published guidance for local councils and other waste collectors to support their decision-making regarding the co-collection of paper and card with other dry recyclable materials, where appropriate. All exemptions will be automatic and local councils and other waste collectors will not need to apply for them. They will need to produce only a written assessment to co-collect paper and card with other recyclable materials. To reiterate, without this instrument, they would have had to produce written assessments to co-collect any combination of recyclable materials.
These exemptions mean that the new default requirement for most households will be four containers: for food waste, mixed with garden waste if appropriate; paper and card; all other dry recyclable materials, these being plastic, metal and glass; and non-recyclable waste. As we are maintaining flexibility, councils and other waste collectors may choose to separate materials further if this suits local need. We believe that this is a sensible, straightforward approach to the collection of recycling for every household and workplace in England.
This instrument will also mean that micro-firms—workplaces with fewer than 10 full-time equivalent employees—will not need to arrange for the recycling of the core recyclable waste streams, as required by the Environmental Protection Act 1990, until 31 March 2027. Without this exemption, under the primary legislation, micro-firms would have had to meet the simpler recycling requirements at the same time as all other businesses—by 31 March 2025. We recognise that micro-firms, of which there are an estimated 1.8 million, may face more challenges introducing the changes, so this phase-in period provides additional time for them to prepare.
These are substantial reforms. We will support local councils and workplaces to deliver these new requirements in the most cost-efficient way. Right now, we are focused on raising awareness and providing guidance, including webinars and toolkits, for both local councils and workplaces on how to deliver efficient services. For local councils, we are working to distribute funding for food waste collections as soon as possible; we have already provided £258 million of capital funding, and we will also provide resource and ongoing funding. We will continue to engage with stakeholders in order to understand the challenges that they are facing and to ensure the successful delivery of simpler recycling.
In conclusion, the need for simpler recycling has never been clearer. By simplifying what households and workplaces across England can recycle, these long-awaited reforms will jump-start England’s faltering recycling rate, maximising environmental benefits, ensuring that we keep our precious resources in use for longer, and unleashing investment and economic opportunities. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on introducing the regulations before us, which I broadly support. I will direct my questions to two specific areas.
The Minister mentioned that guidance will be given to councils on the separate collections. My concern is around what guidance will be given by councils to households in particular. I remember chairing the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee at the time of the “horsegate” scandal, where people found that they were eating prepared foods—usually lasagne—made from horsemeat, not beef. It ended, I think, a lot of people’s desire to carry on eating these pre-prepared, highly expensive, undernutritious, highly salted foods. However, if you are a householder and you have one of these trays in front of you, it normally goes, I assume, in your food waste because it is highly contaminated—or the packet that the lasagne I have eaten was in will have to be rinsed sufficiently to ensure that it is not contaminated.
Who is going to guide households on what to do with such prepared food, where it is difficult to get rid of the residual food waste? How does the Minister intend to ensure that, if it goes into the paper recycling, which will now be a separate collection, this will not lead to greater contamination? How will guidance be given to households to ensure that there is no cross-contamination? How does the Minister plan to ensure that there will be no increase in cross-contamination because of the contaminated stuff going into the wrong recycling bin or plastic bag—whatever it is called—that we are going to be issued with?
I would also like to press the Minister on ensuring that a strong message will go out from the Government to councils that there will continue to be a mandatory weekly food waste collection. Anything less frequent than that will lead to vermin and a lot of highly undesirable threats to households, through no fault of their own.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I made my maiden speech last week simply to make sure that I could speak in today’s debate. I congratulate the Minister on bringing these regulations forward; it is fair to say, I think, that they have been a long time in gestation. I recall, back in 2018, the resources and waste strategy setting out the idea of trying to get consistent recycling. I have to say, when I became the Secretary of State a while ago, I worked quite hard on this issue to try to get simpler recycling to achieve the outcomes that the Minister has set out.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to this statutory instrument, which I broadly support. The Environment Act 2021 made provision for household waste to be collected for recycling as one of the main planks of its purpose. We are four years on from that Act. The collection of separated waste on a countrywide basis was moving slowly towards completion at the time of the general election. I congratulate the Government on moving this issue forward and not leaving it on the back burner. I have received a brief from the Green Alliance and seen the report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
The instrument explains very well what will happen. English waste collection authorities and other waste collectors are to collect plastic, glass and metal recyclable waste streams together in all circumstances and not just where an exception applies. Paper and card will be collected separately from other recyclables to avoid cross-contamination. Food waste will be collected with garden waste; again, not just where an exception applies. This decision is not in line with international best practice nor government evidence. There will be provision for an exception to be applied to card and paper. This will be done by a written assessment. This is not robust enough and is not likely to lead to increased recycling rates generally, as paper and card will be contaminated when mixed with plastic, glass and metal, some of which will have food residues still present. The Minister has already referred to this.
The Government have decided that it is acceptable to collect glass, plastic and metal together and that this will not have a significant impact on the ability of the materials to be recycled. No evidence is provided that this is the case. However, there is evidence that 16.6% of materials at recovery facilities are rejected due to contamination. While the contamination rate for fully separated collected recycling is much lower, the co-collected material contamination rate is 13.5%, compared with just 4% for collections of recyclables kept separate. WRAP suggests this could be as low as 1.6%.
The Environment Act 2021 was clear that recyclable waste was to be collected separately so that recycling rates could increase. Recycling rates have not increased from 44%-45% since 2015, as the Minister referred to. The country therefore missed its target of 50% recycling by 2020 and the target of 65% by 2035 looks extremely unlikely. The public care deeply about the hazard that waste causes to wildlife, domestic animals, biodiversity and our general enjoyment of our environment.
Plastic pollution in particular is damaging our bird and animal species, with reports of plastic in birds’ nests and hedgehogs getting discarded strimmer thread caught around their legs. If recycling rates are not increased, our reputation in the light of more efficient schemes in neighbouring countries will be damaged and the confidence of the public will be further dented. If the public believe that, although they are keen to assist with recycling, a proportion of this is still going to landfill, they will be disheartened and stop bothering to separate their waste.
According to the Green Alliance, the cost of contamination to UK recyclers is more than £50 million a year. I lived in a council area that for many years collected weekly food waste and recycling and separated paper and card, cans and metal, glass and plastic, some in bins and some in bags. The residual used to be collected at two weeks and then moved to three weeks; there was no problem. The system should not get bogged down in the number of bins that people may have to have. If recycling is carried out correctly, the residual waste should automatically reduce.
I return to my comments about evidence. Is the Minister able to say what evidence there is that contamination will not occur if the waste streams for recycling are collected together? The original impact assessment noted that mixing food and garden waste together affects quantity and quality, which leads to
“lower amounts of food waste being collected and less efficient treatment through in-vessel composting compared to anaerobic digestion, which produces energy and organic soil improver or fertiliser”.
According to WRAP research in the Government’s impact assessment,
“separate weekly collections of food waste can capture twice as much material per year compared to mixed food and garden waste”.
Food waste makes up nearly a third of residual waste. Providing separate collection options is the best way in which to achieve the legally binding target in the Environment Act on waste minimisation. The Environment Act’s legally binding targets are not to be discarded without serious consideration of the implications for our wildlife and biodiversity.
Is the Minister able to share the Government’s evidence on what led to the exemption for separate waste collections and to what extent the Government expect local authorities to make use of the exemption? Cost alone should not be the overriding consideration. There has been extensive consultation with the industry on this matter, and with the English waste collection and disposal authorities and the Environment Agency. Some 76% of respondents agreed with the proposed exemption to allow collection of all dry recyclable waste streams in all circumstances.
Agreement by the industry does not automatically mean that recycling rates will increase. I note that Ipsos has been commissioned to do an evaluation of Defra’s resources and waste policy, including simpler recycling, over a five-year period from February 2022. We are three years into this evaluation. Is there any mid-term update on how it is going?
While I congratulate the Minister and the Government on taking recycling collections forward, I am disappointed that we had static recycling rates at 44%-45% for 10 years under the previous Administration. I am not convinced that the scheme now being introduced will move us forward to the 65% needed by 2035. I appreciate that local authorities and the industries will have to amend the way that they collect and deal with various waste streams, but they had since 2021 to think about this and get ready. I fear that the proposals in this SI are not stringent enough to make the difference that is needed for the sake of our country, its people and its wildlife.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, if it is Monday in Grand Committee, it must be recycling day. Generally, I am very supportive of these regulations, if they bring about some standardisation in our bin collections around the country, but they raise several important questions about how the changes will be implemented and the potential long-term impact. Permitting English waste authorities to co-collect dry recyclable waste streams—plastic, glass and metal—in a single container is eminently sensible; so, too, is keeping paper and card separate. I have concerns about amalgamating garden and food waste, and I shall come to that later.
The new default requirement for most households and workplaces will be four containers: one for residual, non-recyclable waste; one for food waste mixed with garden waste; one for paper and card; and one for all other dry recyclable materials, including plastic, metal and glass. Although these exemptions are a sensible and pragmatic solution to logistical challenges, they raise a crucial question: how will the quality of recyclable materials be affected by the co-collection of plastic, glass and metal? Co-collecting different materials might cause contamination, making it harder to separate and process them effectively later in the recycling process. I hope that the Government will make it clear to local authorities that we expect co-collection to increase recycling for each of the co-collected products and that they must avoid contamination.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
My Lord, I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate today and for their support for this statutory instrument. I particularly welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, to Defra debates in this House. She brings huge knowledge and experience, and I look forward to working with her.
In response to the last question, I will start with cross-contamination because all noble Lords mentioned it in relation to the exemptions impacting material quality. To reiterate, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the impact of contamination is not significant in terms of the overall impact on the ability of materials to be recycled when co-collecting plastic, metal and glass. As I said, separate collection of paper and card will be required by default due to the potential impact of co-collection on material quality. Waste collectors will be able to co-collect paper and card with other materials, where justified on technical, economic or environmental grounds. We are going for an evidence-based pragmatic approach to ensure a suitable balance to support environmental outcomes, while providing local flexibility and convenience for households while at the same time looking to increase recycling rates.
Where waste has been separately collected, Regulation 14 of the Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011 requires waste collectors to ensure that it is not then mixed with other materials with different properties unless certain exemptions apply; for example, if doing so would not damage material quality. This will ensure that contamination of paper and card is minimal once it has been collected.
The number of councils likely to use an exemption to co-collect paper and card was mentioned. We recognise that there are various technical, economic and environmental circumstances in which separate collection is not practical. In such cases, waste collectors will retain flexibility to co-collect paper and card with other dry recyclable materials but must produce a written assessment to record this justification, as I mentioned earlier.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, asked what evidence there is to support the paper and card decision. We reviewed extensive stakeholder feedback and evidence about plans for collection of dry materials and the Secretary of State concluded that there is some evidence to indicate that simplifying the number of bins can help participation in recycling. But evidence also suggests that systems with one mixed dry recycling bin have the highest levels of contamination, which would affect the recycling rate. Contaminated materials may be rejected after collection if it is not economically viable to reprocess them. As has been mentioned, paper and card are particularly vulnerable to cross-contamination from food and liquid, commonly found in other recycling materials. We do not want that to happen because it significantly reduces the quality of collected materials. That is how that decision was taken.
On monitoring and evaluating, we are committed to monitoring the success of the simpler recycling project and have commissioned Ipsos, in partnership with Ricardo and Technopolis, to carry out an evaluation of Defra’s resources and waste policy programme, including simpler recycling, over a five-year period that started in February 2022.
The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, asked about micro-firms and whether the two-year delay would affect recycling rates. We are proceeding with the exemption to allow micro-firms until 31 March 2027, as I mentioned, but also to allow them to implement in the most sustainable and cost-efficient way. Including micro-firms in scope of this policy is estimated to increase the non-household municipal recycling rate by 9.3 percentage points, as micro-firms are responsible for around 30% of that waste.
The noble Lord also asked about support for micro-firms. We are working with WRAP and representative voices from each sector to develop sector-specific guidance for the Business of Recycling website. It is designed to support businesses as they transition to compliant waste collection services. Four sector-specific guides—on retail and wholesale, hospitality, health and social care, and offices—have been published so far. Three more—on food manufacturing, education, and transport and storage—will be published shortly. We are also working to develop guidance on how to optimise waste services to minimise the cost burden where possible and, in some cases, to maximise any potential cost savings.
Noble Lords asked about local authorities and their preparedness. Councils have been planning to implement simpler recycling since the legislation was passed back in 2021 with the Environment Act. We have already provided £258 million of capital funding to support this and will shortly confirm resource funding for the 2024-25 financial year.
Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2024
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker
That the Grand Committee do consider the Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2024.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, this statutory instrument amends the Armed Forces (Court Martial) Rules 2009 by changing the rank requirements for the president of a court martial board where the defendant is a very senior officer. Before I set out the changes that this statutory instrument will make, it may be useful to the Committee 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 the sentences which can be imposed by the commanding officer at summary hearings, or in the court martial for more serious offences. The average number of courts martial a year is just over 400.
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 presented to them.
The constitution of a court martial board depends on whether the defendant is a serviceperson, ex-serviceperson or civilian. Where the defendant is a civilian and not an ex-serviceperson, the proceedings are usually placed before an entirely civilian board, unless there are exceptional circumstances that justify a mixed or service board. Where the defendant is an ex-serviceperson, the court may consist of either civilian lay members or service lay members or be a mixed board in each situation.
The constitution of the court martial will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. At the sentencing stage, unless the trial was conducted wholly with a civilian board, where the judge advocate would sentence alone, the role of the lay member differs significantly from that of a jury in the Crown Court, as each lay member and the judge advocate has a vote on sentence, although in the event of a tie the judge advocate has a casting vote.
When some or all of 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 verdicts and ensure that all members have an equal voice and one vote. They also have additional functions, which include protecting the integrity of the deliberative process by ensuring compliance by all members with the court martial guidance issued by the Judge Advocate-General and the Military Court Service director.
However, it is important to note that, despite the title of the president of the board, the judge advocate presides over the court. 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, this includes the deconfliction process to identify whether any member knows another member, a defendant or a witness, or has 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 major general. As a senior officer, he was obviously well known, and his potential character witnesses included serving and retired OF-9 grade officers who were also known to many in the pool of potential board members. 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 very senior officers is rare in the UK—this was the first OF-7 officer to be tried in approximately 200 years—it is sensible for the service justice system to be ready and able to deal with these cases if and when they occur. This 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 of 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.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear and comprehensive introduction to this statutory instrument, which makes, as he said, a small change to the existing system. However, the fact that this statutory instrument comes before your Lordships’ Committee today provokes me to rise with a single question for the Minister: does not the fact that this small change is being brought here today mean that the Government are prepared to look at bigger changes in future and are looking at the entire system of military justice?
I ask that specific question because, earlier today, I was at an event with the Child Rights International Network, the Centre for Military Justice and Salute Her UK. The Child Rights International Network was expressing great concern about events at the Army Foundation College and the level of offences, particularly sexual offences, there. More broadly, there was a sense at the meeting that the service complaints and justice systems in the military are broken; that units are marking their own homework; and that there are serious problems with the investigation of rape and sexual assault cases, as well as with the experiences of black and racially minoritised personnel.
I have no objection to the statutory instrument before us but, at that meeting, something was said that I found very disturbing. A representative of female personnel serving in the military and veterans said that they felt as though they had gone back to 2015 in terms of the attitude of military justice, particularly towards female victims of potential abuses in the military. Can the Minister assure me that the Government are prepared to, and will, look much more broadly at the whole system?
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, when we get to questions of military justice, I normally rely on my good friend, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, to speak on these matters because he is far more expert than me. So, I am grateful that the Minister gave us the background to this case. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I suggest that we accept this amendment as it stands, clearly, but I have a couple of questions, one of which is quite close to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. Is there a danger that officers of a certain rank will feel unable to act as robustly as they might otherwise do if the officer at the court martial is senior to them?
There is a real question around whether service justice is doing what it needs to do. Clearly, the person facing the court martial needs to be treated fairly, but the Armed Forces still have questions to answer. If we look back to the Atherton report in the previous Parliament, when Sarah Atherton serving personnel and former personnel to come and give evidence—very much with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie—we see that that was important. If courts martial are being populated by serving personnel, will people feel that they can really act as judge and jury in the way they need to be able to do?
I have another related question. It is noted, in the Explanatory Notes, that part of the issue is a lack of senior officers. As His Majesty’s Armed Forces shrink—the size of the Army, in particular, has shrunk—will the problem get worse rather than better? Do we need to think about how to reform military justice, in a wider sense, to ensure that the best practices are in place?
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, the Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2024 aim to address challenges in forming court martial boards when senior officers are involved. A court martial consists of a judge and a board of military personnel, similar to a jury in civilian courts. The board determines the innocence or guilt of the defendant and, if they are convicted, assists the judge in deciding the sentence.
Currently, at least one lay member of the board must be an officer who is qualified to be the president of the board, and this president must rank higher than the defendant—particularly when the defendant holds lower ranks. However, in cases where a senior officer is being prosecuted, it may be difficult to find a suitable president who is not personally acquainted with the defendant. Although these cases are rare, the Government have recognised the importance of ensuring that the service justice system is equipped to handle such situations as and when they arise.
This instrument aims to modify these rules to extend the pool of eligible officers who can serve as president, particularly when the defendant may hold a senior rank, such as OF 6 or higher. The primary purpose of this statutory instrument is to improve the flexibility and functionality of the court martial system, particularly in cases involving senior officers. By allowing officers of at least rank OF 6—such as a commodore, brigadier or air commodore—to serve as president when the defendant holds the same rank, this amendment addresses the challenges of forming a court martial board for high-ranking individuals.
Currently, one of the main obstacles when prosecuting senior officers is finding a qualified president who is not personally acquainted with the defendant. In rare cases, the existing requirement that the president must be a higher rank than the defendant, particularly in cases involving senior officers, has proven difficult due to limited personnel who meet the criteria and do not have prior relationships with the defendant. This amendment provides greater flexibility in the composition of the court martial board and ensures that it remains capable of fulfilling its role in these uncommon but crucial cases.
The change also seeks to ensure the court martial system’s adaptability, particularly given the evolving nature of military justice. Although such high-profile cases involving senior officers are rare, it is essential that the service justice system is prepared to handle them effectively as and when they arise. By allowing a broader pool of officers to serve as president, the amendment reduces the potential for delays and disruptions, ensuring that justice can be administered without unnecessary obstacles. This amendment applies across the UK, the Isle of Man and the British Overseas Territories—except Gibraltar—thus ensuring its relevance and consistency under service law, regardless of where the personnel involved are stationed.
While this amendment is largely viewed as a practical and necessary update to the rules, several important questions remain regarding its broader implications. First, how has the Minister assessed the potential impact of this change on the impartiality of court martial boards, especially in cases involving senior officers with extensive personal or professional connections to the board members? Secondly, what specific measures will be put in place to ensure transparency, avoid conflicts of interest when selecting presidents for cases involving high-ranking officers and ensure the integrity of the trial process?
In considering this amendment, how does the Minister plan to address the potential for further systemic reforms in the service justice system, particularly with the upcoming Armed Forces Commissioner Bill?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Smith, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for their contributions and general support for the change that we are making.
I have a couple of points. With respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I agree with one thing and fundamentally disagree with another, as she probably expected. This usually happens in our dialogue, but we get on well—up to a point. There is disagreement on her first point, but no disagreement on the need for fairness in the way the service justice system operates. We have seen, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, pointed out, the various reviews that have taken place and the changes that need to occur.
I will deal with this before I come to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, on which I slightly take issue. She knows that serious offences such as murder, manslaughter and rape should be dealt with in the civilian justice system. There has been discussion about that. With respect to that proposal, the MoD is considering the current model of concurrent jurisdiction between the civilian and service justice systems for serious offences such as rape. That specifically answers those points about serious offences that the noble Baroness made; there is ongoing discussion and thought being given to how that may or may not be taken forward.
There is a debate about 16 and 17 year-olds being able to join the military. Let me say where the Government and a large number of people stand on this. It is common to call them “child soldiers”, but the noble Baroness knows that 16 and 17 year-olds are not allowed into conflict. That is the case. With respect to Harrogate, she also knows that some cases have been documented and dealt with, and should there be any cases of bullying or inappropriate behaviour, they will always be dealt with as it is unacceptable. The Army thinks that; we all think that that is totally unacceptable.
I fundamentally disagree with the noble Baroness—this is my opinion, and many will take issue with this both within and between parties—on her point about 16 and 17 year-olds. I have been to Harrogate, as I think the noble Baroness has. She has not. I thought she has, and I apologise. Places such as Harrogate and others, but mainly Harrogate, give 16 and 17 year-olds, many of whom are from the most difficult circumstances, an opportunity that would not be available to many of them. I am not defending any bullying or inappropriate behaviour, but the only way that some 16 and 17 year-olds from some of the most difficult and challenging circumstances have ever got anywhere is because of the training, discipline and structure that were given to them when they were 16 and 17 years old. That is not everybody’s view. Some people fundamentally disagree with it, but I will argue that with people time and time again. That is a really important point.
The noble Baroness disagrees. This is a clash of view and of opinion that may—to go on a little about this—be worth a debate in the Chamber, Moses Room or wherever because it is fundamental. The Government, many of us and I stand firmly behind the principle of giving opportunity to 16 and 17 year-olds through the military in an appropriate way. Therefore, I would be pleased to lead a debate on behalf of those who think that we should take this forward. Notwithstanding that, one out of two points is not too bad. These are serious points: there was the point about the service justice system and the changes that may or may not be needed, and we have our differences on Harrogate.
Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Gustafsson
That the Grand Committee do consider the Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Relevant document: 12th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade and Treasury (Baroness Gustafsson) (Lab)
My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that, since 2022, the UK has kept a beneficial ownership register of overseas entities owning property in the UK, which I will refer to as the ROE. The regulations that we are debating today will strengthen the transparency of trust information on the ROE, improving transparency around the control and ownership of land.
The Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, which I will refer to as the 2022 Act, created the legislative basis for the ROE. The ROE requires overseas entities owning or buying property in the UK to give information about their beneficial owners and/or managing directors to Companies House. Currently, there is no public access to information on trusts related to overseas entities on the ROE, other than the name of the trustee. This approach protects the right to privacy for those who operate trust structures for a variety of legitimate reasons. However, the Government understand the concerns around the use of trusts to facilitate economic crime, partly because their anonymity makes assets easier to hide; that is why we have brought these measures forward for your Lordships’ consideration.
I will now set out the two measures contained in the regulations. First, they will enable anyone to apply to access trust information held on the ROE, through applications to Companies House. This marks a significant step forward in transparency, empowering the public and civil society to scrutinise trust beneficiaries on the ROE. Applicants must provide their personal information; the name of the trust related to the relevant protected trust; and the overseas entity’s name and ID.
Applicants seeking trust information related to minors or more than one overseas entity in a single application, also known as bulk access, must show a legitimate interest in the requested information. This safeguard protects personal information while providing that critical information is available to those with a valid need, such as investigative journalists. For an applicant to demonstrate that they have a legitimate interest, they must: show that they are investigating money laundering, tax evasion, terrorist financing or the breaching of sanctions; provide a statement that they are requesting the disclosure to further that investigation; and provide a statement of how they are planning to use the information disclosed to them. If no such interest can be demonstrated, the registrar of Companies House may withhold some or all information. The registrar will notify the applicant of the decision with reasons. If a legitimate interest can be demonstrated, the registrar will release any unprotected information.
As an additional safeguard, the registrar will have the discretion to impose conditions under which the trust information is disclosed, such as restricting its use or further disclosure. Failure to comply with these conditions will be a criminal offence. The registrar may also refuse an application where that disclosure may prejudice an ongoing criminal investigation or adversely affect national security, or where the trust is a pension scheme.
I turn to the second measure. This involves provisions for the protection of sensitive information, which will come into force before the disclosure provisions go live. We are expanding the category of individuals who can apply to Companies House to have their information protected. This ensures that those connected to a trust—settlors, trustees and beneficiaries—who are at risk of violence or harm can have their information protected. Those who are aged under 18 or lack capacity can also apply to have their information protected.
The protection measures will come into force on 28 February this year, while the disclosure provisions will come into force on 31 August. This will allow time for those who are eligible to apply to Companies House for protection. An application for protection does not exempt an overseas entity from full compliance with the requirements of the ROE in general, such as the update duty and filing with Companies House. The registrar will still be able to use their general information-sharing power to share protected information with law enforcement agencies and public authorities for purposes connected to the exercise of their functions.
These regulations further the Government’s mission to improve the transparency around beneficial ownership, driving confidence for investment in the UK and exposing bad actors who seek to take advantage of our open economy. I urge noble Lords to support these regulations and beg to move.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness to her post, as it is the first time I have been across the table from her. She was not here when we were debating the two economic crime Bills, but I am sure she is aware that the subject of the use of trusts to obscure the beneficial ownership of UK property on the ROE and obscure ownership of UK companies, which this instrument does not cover, was one of the major areas of our debates at the time.
These regulations are a small step to improve transparency around the use of trusts to own UK property. I understand the balance around the protection of minors and others at risk, so I welcome the regulations, but slightly question how much difference they will make in practice. At least the progress is in the right direction.
I will ask a couple of questions about some general, related areas, if I may. I could not resist this opportunity. First, the latest information that I could find indicates that the true identity of the beneficial owner of UK properties owned by overseas entities—there are 152,000-odd—is not published in about 70% of cases, at the moment. For about 35% of cases, the true beneficial ownership is not known even to law enforcement agencies. There may be a number of reasons for that, including simple non-compliance, which accounts for about 10% in the last numbers I saw; the use of opaque corporate structures, which claim no beneficial ownership, or the use of nominees; and the use of trusts, which is the biggest one, particularly in our overseas territories. Transparency International’s latest numbers identify about £6 billion worth of suspicious transactions in UK property coming through our overseas territories, using trusts.
Could the noble Baroness provide up-to-date statistics on both level of compliance with the rules and the number of properties where the ultimate beneficial ownership remains unknown, for whatever reason? I am happy for her to write, if necessary, if she does not have the numbers to hand. Is she happy with the level of identification of beneficial ownership as it stands? What impact does she think these regulations will have on that? What further steps are planned to make sure that we know who beneficially owns the properties? In particular, what plans does she have to make the information from our overseas territories more transparent? The British Virgin Islands, in particular, appear to be the jurisdiction of choice for obscuring beneficial ownership, at the moment.
Of those entities that have not complied—10% was the number that I saw, which is about 15,000 entities—how many have been fined? Of those, how many have paid those fines and gone on to comply subsequent to payment? How many charges have been taken against the properties in relation to non-payment of the fines? In other words, does Companies House have sufficient powers to deal with non-compliance, and is it using those powers effectively?
Secondly—and I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me for going slightly off-piste—another way to hide beneficial ownership is through the use of nominee shareholders. I notice the noble Lord, Lord Fox, smiling; I hate to be predictable, but there we go. This is particularly true for UK companies, where the persons with significant control or PSC rules can be sidestepped by the use of nominees. An entire industry has built up around that. The previous Government accepted that there was an issue around the use of nominees for this purpose and agreed to include a power in the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 to take further action against the use of nominee shareholders and the industry that supports them, if they felt it was necessary. This is now Section 790IA of the Companies Act 2006. I want to take this opportunity to ask what assessment this Government have made of the use of nominees in that respect and whether they intend to make use of the powers they have under the Companies Act to address it.
Lord Fox (LD)
When the discussions were had with the noble Baroness about her becoming a Peer, I wonder whether they mentioned that she would be in the Moses Room presenting statutory instruments. I bet they did not. But I welcome her, and thank her for the clear explanation as well as the Explanatory Notes, which worked very well. To some extent, the Minister is at a disadvantage—or perhaps it is an advantage—in that the three speakers in this debate are the old gang getting together. We were all involved very extensively in both this and the predecessor Bill that came though.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the register of overseas interests—the ROE—was introduced under the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, which, if I may say, is an excellent Act. I know this to be true because I took it through the House of Lords with considerable advice and assistance from the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Vaux—I have been looking forward to saying that, if I am honest.
The aim of the Act was to increase transparency regarding overseas entities, as has been noted—and let me thank the noble Baroness for her extensive introduction to these regulations. The primary objective was to ensure that beneficial ownership information was accessible, so that the public and authorities could better understand who owns land in the UK. However, as we consider these regulations and whether these measures truly enhance transparency or complicate the process and introduce further risks, we have a couple of concerns that are legitimate to raise.
The Government justify these amendments as a means to protect individuals at risk of violence or intimidation, while simultaneously permitting greater access to information on trusts. The reality is that these changes appear to broaden the scope of who can apply for protection as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, noted. That would make it easier for individuals to hide behind the shield of protection, even when they do not necessarily have a legitimate interest. It reads as if it is potentially an invitation to game the system. So I ask the Minister: are the Government convinced and happy that these regulations, as currently drafted, are robust enough to prevent that potential risk?
Additionally, the amendments propose new mechanisms to address trust information, but the conditions for such access, especially in bulk applications, also raise concerns about the potential for misuse. While the intention might be to make certain information available to those with a legitimate interest, the Government have only partially clarified what constitutes a legitimate interest, which we think leaves room for exploitation and, potentially, unnecessary legal battles.
There is also an application question as, again, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned. How will the registrar judge things such as how the disclosed information will be used? What criteria will they use to judge legitimacy? For example, is it okay if it was the Times of London asking and would it not be okay if it was some obscure online publication? How exactly will that situation be resolved? It is something I will come onto in a second, but will it be explained in greater detail in the explanatory guidance that will be published shortly?
These measures are proposed to expand the category of individuals who can apply to Companies House to have their information protected, where it may be disclosed under the register of overseas entities. It would also enable trust information on the register that is currently restricted from public inspection to be accessed by application if certain conditions are met.
A significant measure is that of the protection of information. Although expanding the categories of individuals who can apply for protection may sound like a good way to shield vulnerable persons, we are concerned that it risks creating opacity in the system where more people, beyond those in positions of risk, can hide their information from the public eye. The original purpose of the economic crime Act was to shed light on overseas ownership and its implications; we worry that that is now at risk of being undermined by this expansion.
As I and other noble Lords have noted, the Act aimed to simplify and enhance transparency, but these proposed changes seem to introduce additional layers of potentially complex bureaucracy. The process for accessing and protecting information could become more complicated, adding unnecessary burden both for the authorities responsible for managing the data and for the public. Will these changes create a more efficient system in the end, or will they merely add unnecessary red tape to an already complex regulatory landscape?
The Explanatory Notes say:
“Guidance will be made available”.
Can the Minister tell us when it will be made available and whether it will address some of these concerns, such as by going into considerably more detail on the definition of and circumstances surrounding “legitimate interest”? We agree with the Explanatory Notes that, if this measure is to work, extensive and expansive communications are absolutely key.
Broadly speaking, we support these regulations, of course, but we have legitimate questions. The noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Vaux, also asked legitimate questions, including about exactly how these regulations will be applied and so on.
Lord Fox (LD)
I have one further question, which I meant to ask earlier. The Minister talked about national security interests in the context of legitimate interests. How can national security interests be reflected in Companies House when it is almost certain that nobody there will have sufficient security clearance to be told what the national security interest is in order to apply it in its decision-making process? Clearly, it will not forward every single application to someone who does have security clearance, so how on earth will this be mechanically organised?
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
First, I thank noble Lords. It is a pleasure to hear from what was clearly the dream team, back when this was established, of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe, Lord Vaux and Lord Fox. I am privileged to be in a Room where we all agree on the importance of balancing the transparency around and the privacy of the information being provided.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked whether I saw myself, when I joined the House of Lords, standing here in front of noble Lords delivering a statutory instrument. I could not possibly have begun to comprehend what it involved, but I will now do my best to answer as many of noble Lords’ questions as I possibly can. I promise to follow up in writing for any that I miss.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, asked whether we have an update on some of the metrics. Since the register was launched, we have 31,827 entities as of 24 January 2025, which reflects a very good rate of compliance. Notably, non-compliant overseas entities can no longer easily sell, lease or raise finance over their land until they comply. Furthermore, with regard to those that are non-compliant and the extent to which we are following up by issuing fines, we have issued 4,800 penalty warnings since 26 June 2023, along with 440 penalty notices, worth £20 million, of which 70 have been redacted. I hope that this demonstrates that, although it is imperfect, we are making progress on establishing more transparency in the register and enforcing that transparency wherever we are available and able to do so.
On the question of whether further steps are necessary, particularly regarding the British Virgin Islands, this is a constantly evolving and moving landscape. I regret that, whatever structure is put in place, a lot of people with a lot of brain power will be there trying to find a way around it and get through the process. This measure will, therefore, be under constant review and constantly evolving. We will conduct a post-implementation review at a later stage to evaluate the overall impact of the register of overseas entities, including the specific effects of the regulations on trust transparency. We will also conduct ongoing engagement with stakeholders, whether it is lawyers and accountants, the registrars themselves or civil society who require this information. This will be an ongoing dialogue as we constantly battle out the balance between privacy and transparency.
Lord Fox (LD)
I asked whether judicial review is applicable. If the Minister is able to write to me on that, that would be helpful.
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
I absolutely will write to the noble Lord to follow up on that.
I was asked whether Companies House is equipped to deal with this volume of applications and what the administrative burden will be of undertaking a lot of these reviews. It is important to note that most applications for disclosure are going to be fairly straightforward and will not require the demonstration of legitimate interest. This requirement is required only for specific types of requests, such as those involving minors or bulk data, which we talked about. In those cases, applicants must provide evidence that they are investigating money laundering, tax evasion, terrorist financing or sanctions, and must explain the intended use of the information.
Companies House will draw on mechanisms similar to those used by HMRC, where applicants demonstrate a legitimate interest in disclosures from HMRC’s trust registration service. The registrar may request additional information or evidence to determine an application or refer a question to another party who they consider may be able to assist in determining the application. With extensive experience in handling sensitive requests, Companies House is well prepared; it has contingency plans to manage any surge in applications promptly and efficiently. I note that a nominal fee will be required of applicants to make sure that this is cost-neutral with regard to the Government. I think that covers most of those questions, but do correct me if I am wrong.
I shall now move on to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, about what legitimate interest is, how it is pursued and followed up, and what the application process is. To apply for access to information about a specific trust, applicants must provide their personal information, the name of the trust related to the relevant protected trust information, and the overseas entity’s name and ID. Applicants seeking trust information related to minors or bulk access—that is, applying for information on more than one trust in a single attempt —must demonstrate a legitimate interest, such as investigating money laundering, tax evasion, terrorist financing or a breach of sanctions imposed by regulations under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. They must provide a statement to Companies House that they are requesting the relevant protected trusts’ information to further their investigation and a statement of how they plan to use the information. Companies House is not obliged to disclose the information if it could prejudice an ongoing criminal investigation or adversely affect national security; if it involves a pension scheme; and where the individual has applied for protection.
With regard to how someone will show that they are investigating money laundering et cetera for the legitimate interest test, applicants are expected to provide comprehensive details of the investigation that they are undertaking, supported by evidence to demonstrate the legitimacy and seriousness of their request. This will help ensure that applications are valid and that the process is not misused.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
Can I just follow up on that? It occurs to me that there is a potential issue here. What it does not say is who—so you do not have to be a journalist; you could be anyone looking at money laundering. For example, you could be a Russian person with a vendetta against another Russian person who owns a property, and you could simply say that you were looking at the money-laundering aspects of that. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked whether it had to be the Times of London or whether it could be some dodgy website—but it could go further than that. It could be another competing Russian oligarch, or something of that nature.
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
I think that you talk to the problem at hand, which is how you balance off disclosure from harm. There will often be legitimate reasons for wanting to access this information, but there are also legitimate reasons why you would not want someone to have that information. I do not think that this is a policy where you can describe a single selection, or parameters, that will defend both sides, which is the exact reason for this process, I believe.
The applicant who requires the information has to give full and detailed information as to their identity and why they would need the information, and the individual whose details are being disclosed has the opportunity to write and say that this is information that could cause them harm were it to be disclosed—and proactively make that statement, so that the registrar has the ability to protect those interests. Then it is the registrar’s role to take that information and ensure that they are getting that balance right. They have the information about the applicant, and they can make that judgment based on whether something is a legitimate interest and this is not a bulk access—someone trying to get the full list of all the trustees so that they can sell their local accountancy advice, or whatever that motivation is. On the other hand, they also have the register for people who believe that interest would be detrimental to their personal ability. Their role is to balance the two, providing that transparency but also protecting them from harm.
Lord Fox (LD)
I am sorry to labour the point, but the way in which it is being depicted is as if people will accept the registrar’s ruling and say, “Oh, yeah, right, I understand why you’re not letting me do this”, or, “I understand why you’re letting this person look at my identity”. It seems to me that human nature will operate in exactly the opposite direction and that there will quickly be a huge backlog of people who do not agree with the registrar’s decision, one way or the other. There does not seem to be a defined appeal process. If it is all getting lumped into judicial review, we all know how long that takes and what it leads to—and if there is no system and it all ends at the registrar, there is huge pressure on the registrar to be right every time, which will be extraordinarily difficult. While I can understand how it is being described, my sense is that it will be a lot messier than that.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
Just to add to that, I cannot see anywhere in the regulation where the registrar has to inform the subject of the application that an application is being made. I can see that they can, but I do not see that they have to.
Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)
To take the second question first, that is correct. The beneficial owner will not automatically receive notice that they have had this request around their information, or that their information has been disclosed, although that information would be available through a freedom of information request. The information is there, but there is no automatic process whereby they would be informed were someone to make that request. I understand why that would be the case, and that it would be something subject to an ongoing review—but, ultimately, I understand why that decision has been taken here.
With regard to the process, there is a judicial review in place for an appeals process. It is something that is going to have to be under this ongoing review about the volumes that are required and whether we are creating a backlog of requests that ultimately end up in that appeals process, which could be indicative that this is not a pragmatic balance that is sat in the middle between transparency and privacy. I still believe that this is a really strong step forward in providing the much-needed greater transparency that all noble Lords in this Room have been important and paramount in creating in the first place. We are just taking the next step in providing that transparency.
Community Radio Order 2025
Baroness Twycross
That the Grand Committee do consider the Community Radio Order 2025.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, over the past 20 years, community radio has secured its position as an integral part of the UK’s radio landscape, providing unique, locally tailored content to the communities it serves. From Resonance FM, which broadcasts new music and arts-based content from just a few miles from here in Southwark, to Spark FM in Sunderland, which broadcasts local news and sports coverage, community radio stations up and down the country are important sources of information within their communities.
Community radio has a strong track record of catering for the diverse needs and interests of specific groups. Fever FM in Leeds, for instance, caters specifically to the Asian community in Leeds and broadcasts in multiple languages. Other community radio stations such as Gaydio serve LGBTQ+ communities in a number of areas across the UK, specifically catering to their interests and experiences. There are now more than 300 analogue community radio services in existence, the first of which launched in 2005 under the then Labour Government. DAB and small-scale DAB have provided further opportunities for more stations to broadcast to localities across the UK.
Community radio has never been just about local programming. It also provides training opportunities for those who are new to the industry, often giving people their first experience of working in the radio sector. These stations are often entirely dependent on the work of volunteers. Working with limited resources and often juggling multiple other commitments, these volunteers are dedicated to providing an important local service for their listeners. These core principles distinguish community radio from commercial radio. The model established in 2005—that community radio stations are local not-for-profit organisations providing social gain to the communities they serve—remains sound and has delivered a wide variety of services with a diversity unmatched in other media. Radio also consistently remains among the most trusted forms of media, with Ofcom reporting that it is rated highly on accuracy, trustworthiness and impartiality. Supporting these valued sources of reliable information has never been more pertinent.
The UK’s radio landscape and listening habits continue to evolve as new means of accessing radio and audio content develop. Nearly 75% of all radio listening is now digital and FM accounts for less than 20% of commercial radio listening. The Government believe that, while FM services need to continue until 2030, we cannot ignore the wider implications of these changes and the need to ensure that we support community radio stations to develop their services for future sustainability. Although more and more community stations are now coming on to DAB thanks to the availability of small-scale DAB networks, we recognise that analogue broadcasting continues to represent the vast majority of community radio listening and is likely to continue to do so over the coming years. It is therefore essential that consideration is given to the future of these licences and the best way to secure their stability in the medium to long term.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I am here because this is really interesting. I declare an interest, as I played a small part in the days of offshore pirate ships when they were broadcasting; and I have a legitimate interest, in that I helped to advise the then Government before the White Paper that came ahead of commercial broadcasting in the early 1970s. I also made a failed application for one of the first commercial radio stations in Tyne and Wear, of which my noble friend will be aware; I think my little group came second. But I also have an interest in hospital broadcasting, which is really the element of community radio about which I want to talk for a moment, in connection with what I think is a very welcome order.
I have been involved for more than 50 years with one of the largest hospital broadcasting entities, Radio Tyneside, which covers an area around Newcastle upon Tyne and for all those years has served a number of hospitals and the patients in them. When community radio became available a few years ago, my hospital broadcasting people decided to apply for a community licence to broadcast in FM, and it was granted. Currently, Radio Tyneside can be received—I am selling it now—on the web, by FM and of course in direct communication with patients.
I mention all that as background because what is being proposed here seems very important. It is giving a greater level of certainty and continuity to those that broadcast in that way. In a way, it aims more for different kinds of community broadcasters, but the extension, in obtaining that FM licence, from merely serving hospital patients to serving the wider community and, indeed, pursuing its well-being and health outside of the health service, as it were, seems a really fine aim and one which, again, fits exactly within the requirements of community radio.
As I say, I generally welcome these provisions, but I have two concerns and questions, the first of which is about extensions on the basis of analogue broadcasting being regarded as running until 2030. The extensions of time on licences are very welcome. I note, by the way, that the proportion of those listening to analogue varies enormously depending on the nature of the people who are listening, the nature of the community broadcasts themselves and the areas of the country served. Although DAB is fine, it presents certain problems for community radio stations. There are technical problems, and there are problems associated with being part of a multiplex, which is not easy at all, particularly for an organisation such as a hospital broadcasting service. While not much is said about it here, it is important that as much encouragement as possible can be given to entities of that kind. Indeed, the Minister mentioned a number of minority areas, as it were, that are well served by community radio, as they should be, but I hope that the whole group of hospital broadcasters, wherever they may be, will be encouraged to continue and to extend their services in the way in which Radio Tyneside certainly does.
Secondly, there is the question of advertising revenue. Most of these entities have a charitable status of some kind, and sometimes the charitable status and the aims of a charitable operation do not allow anything other than voluntary contributions, so that taking advertising, for instance, somewhat conflicts with the activities. They have to rely wholly on donations and, as we are all aware, donations put pressure on in terms of guaranteeing continuity for income and budgets.
There is an element of competition for audiences between different community providers when an increase in the advertising revenue is available but not necessarily achievable in certain areas. There is possibly a certain unfairness in that. Therefore, while I welcome the idea that this would help some community stations continue when they otherwise could not, there perhaps has to be some kind of balancing to help community stations, such as the one that I am involved with, which have to raise money in a different way. Otherwise, I very much welcome these proposals, and I hope that we can make some progress in continuing with community radio in the future.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, the Minister may have had a small audience for her speech introducing this order but, much in the way of community radio, as my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate set out, the small listenership has still provided a very important and valuable discussion, and I am grateful to my noble friend—my noble and former piratical friend, I should say—for his contribution. I pay tribute to his work and that of Radio Tyneside. With a number of relatives and friends back home in the north-east who have worked in the NHS or who have been in hospital for a period, I know how important that radio station, and the work of hospital radio stations more widely, is to patients and the people who work in our NHS.
I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the background to this order. As she says, it follows on from consultation which the previous Government undertook in the last Parliament. She set out the approach that this Government are taking. There are two areas of concern that I want to touch on, which I hope she will be able to help allay.
The first community radio licence was issued in 2005 following the Community Radio Order 2004, which created the regulatory framework. The purpose of community radio is to provide services for the good of members of the public or of particular communities, rather than for commercial reasons. In doing this, community radio stations should provide some form of social gain. They should be not for profit and non-profit distributing. Any form of profit should be used to secure or improve the future of the service, or to deliver a social gain for the community that it serves. I am a little concerned that this order could risk undermining those principles.
The extension of the licences for community radio stations entrenches current operators at the expense of new entrants and could risk locking out competition. Barriers to entry could harm the community radio sector more broadly, particularly in rapidly changing urban areas or rural communities where there is high demand for specific and relevant programming. Extending the licences also eliminates a key check on the service provided by community radio stations. A relicensing process and review of current licences would ensure that current operators are holding up their end of the bargain. They would have to prove that they are delivering social value and serving their communities. New stations would be able to compete for licences, guaranteeing that only those stations which are truly committed to their social purpose are licensed.
Can the Minister set out why the Government are simply extending the licences, rather than taking the opportunity to review the current providers, ensure that they offer the social value that we all want and potentially allow new entrants where there is a need for them? If the Government are committed to these licence extensions, what action will they take to make sure that community radio stations do indeed deliver social gain in future and provide the community-centred public service broadcasting that we all value?
The other area of concern relates to the phasing out of analogue radio in favour of small-scale DAB radio, as my noble friend Lord Kirkhope touched on. Many community radio stations report that SSDAB is unaffordable, unreliable and inaccessible in key areas. As my noble friend set out, it can be very variable across the country. Many stations struggle with poor reception and limited reach, particularly in areas with high-density housing or rural areas with uneven topography. The high operating costs make SSDAB unviable for smaller, social-purpose broadcasters, such as those we are concerned with today.
This lack of coverage means that community radio cannot effectively serve minority or overlooked audiences. Stations such as Panj Pani Radio in Leicester and Rutland and Stamford Sound, which serves the county of Rutland and parts of Lincolnshire, have reported critical DAB coverage issues—in their very different geographical areas—preventing them from serving their target audiences effectively. We saw during the pandemic how important these small community stations are and what important local lifelines they can be to people through the provision of local information. Without spectrum alternatives, these issues jeopardise their survival. Regional DAB costs upwards of £78,000 per year, pricing out many community stations. Would the Minister consider the limitations of SSDAB for many community radio stations? Would she commit to reviewing the policy of pursuing that over FM and AM?
The Minister was right to highlight the important of community radio, not just to their audiences but as a stepping stone for those who are starting out in the industry, whose voices may become well known and trusted. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Kirkhope for his good question about charitable organisations operating community radio and how the advertising revenue implications of the order might apply to them. With gratitude to the Minister, I look forward to her response.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have contributed this afternoon. I am slightly disappointed that more people are not here to debate. We do not get very many opportunities to debate community radio, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, that this is an interesting area. I commend his role with the hospital radio he mentioned and, at some point, I would love to understand how he managed to make it from being a pirate to being a Member of your Lordships’ House.
It is clear from today’s discussion that both sides of the Committee really want to do what we can to secure support for the community radio sector to ensure that it thrives long into the future. These stations are often at the heart of the communities they broadcast to, and we want to do what we can to make sure that they can continue to deliver local content to their listeners.
I turn to some of the questions raised, and I apologise if I do not get through all the questions that were raised. I will write afterwards if there is anything I need to pick up. I will look through Hansard and double check that I have covered everything.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, raised the point about hospital radio, and Radio Tyneside moving from being a hospital service to a community radio station. It is a really important point: small-scale DAB is continuing to grow, but there is more to do to give community stations and hospital radio stations more scope to reach communities. As I said, we are keen to support the sector and see it grow. Officials met the Hospital Broadcasting Association in January this year, and when I was briefed, ahead of this debate, we had a discussion about the important role hospital radio plays. It is important for us to note the role of hospital radio stations in a broader context.
The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, asked why we are not seeking to relicense, and why we are looking to extend licences. It is a really difficult balance and the risk is that relicensing stations leads them to fold. Stations are required to report to Ofcom, including on their social gain, in their annual returns. The social gain is a continued requirement and a condition of licensing. The CMA, UKCRN and the sector strongly supported this option, which is one of the reasons we have chosen this approach.
There was an issue around DAB not necessarily being available and it being difficult for stations to access it sometimes. We agree that there may be a role for new FM community radio licences to help support new stations in areas where DAB is not available or is a challenge to install, but it is not straightforward given the very limited spectrum available for new FM services, and the viability of new FM service stations as a result of the significant market shift to digital listening. Therefore, we felt we should leave it to Ofcom to determine the balance between the demand for community radio services wanting to broadcast and the need for a wide range of services across the UK.
This is not the end of the debate, even it was quite a short debate, but this order will ensure that the invaluable work of all these stations is protected and they are able to thrive. We want to foster communities that are home to diverse local media ecosystems. The measures in the Community Radio Order 2025 ensure that community radio can be part of these ecosystems long into the future, contributing to the plurality of choice and to the training of the next generation of radio broadcasters and producers.
I am very grateful to noble Lords for taking part in this debate and for your Lordships’ interest in the continued endeavours of community radio services across the UK, and hospital radio as well. I beg to move.
House of Lords
Introduction: Lord Lemos
Introduction: Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill
Arrangement of Business
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, before we start Oral Questions, I take this opportunity to remind Members that the House wishes Questions to be short, sharp, succinct and to the point. As I have said many times before, it is called “Question Time” for a reason. There is no greater favour a Member can do for a Minister than to make a speech before asking their question. Equally, the House expects Ministers when replying to questions to be short, sharp, succinct and to the point. If we do this, we will all have greater scrutiny of Ministers and the Government during Question Time, and more Members will get the chance to ask more questions.
Finally, when questions are being asked, we move around the House, enabling Members from different Benches to get in. If a Member from a particular Bench asks a question, it is unlikely that we will get back to that Bench until other supplementaries have been asked from other parts of the House. For example, today the first Question is from my noble friend Lord Rooker. After he has asked his supplementary and it has been answered, we will then move to other Benches. I would not normally expect another Labour Member to ask a question until we have heard from the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Cross Benches, and maybe even from the Bishops’ Benches.
I hope that this is clear and of assistance to the House.
Council Tax
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rooker
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to make council tax more progressive.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, there are currently no plans to reform council tax. I suppose I should sit down now. It is a widely understood tax with a high collection rate and contains a range of discounts and exemptions to reflect personal circumstances. Local authorities are also required to run local council tax support schemes to provide reductions to those on low incomes.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
I thank my noble friend, but how is it that a £12 million penthouse in Islington pays £1,000 less in council tax than a £1.5 million manor house in Hartlepool? It is eight times the value, yet it pays £1,000 less. This is why council tax is so regressive, and no tough decisions have been taken for 34 years. When people no longer know what a tax is for or how it is fixed, and they see this unfairness, that risks bringing the whole system into disrepute. It is a major political and social risk. Why are we taking it?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, we all know that there are problems caused by outdated valuations and the regressive nature of council tax. However, a widescale reform of the system would be time-consuming and complex, and we are committed to keeping tax on working people as low as possible. The Government will carefully consider the impact on councils and taxpayers before taking any further decisions on council tax.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, the last time we discussed this, on 19 November, the noble Baroness also said in response:
“We all know that problems are caused by outdated valuations and the regressive nature of council tax”.—[Official Report, 19/11/24; col. 118.]
So why are the Government so reluctant to act?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
If there were to be a revaluation, there would be winners and losers. This is one of those issues where whatever we did would cause further problems in the system. It is a widely understood tax and there are high levels of collection. However, the Government are taking part in the fair funding review—we have issued a consultation on that—to make sure we level up the playing field for local authority funding, so that areas which need the money most get the most money.
Lord Shipley (LD)
My Lords, council tax is a regressive tax and for the past 10 years, Governments have been loading part of the increasing cost of adult social care on to council tax. Poorer households are therefore having to pay more in council tax than they otherwise would. The Government are going to spend the next three years coming up with a plan for adult social care. Is that delay fair on poorer households?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, we are more than aware of the issues in tackling adult social care funding; however, the best way to resolve them in the long term is make sure that we do the job properly by looking at what is needed. We recognise the important role that councils have in delivering those services. That is why we announced in the provisional settlement a further £200 million for adult and children’s social care, bringing the total additional funding to £3.7 billion.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, does the Minister think that this Government are generally finding it quite difficult to be progressive?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
Absolutely not. The range of legislation we have brought forward has shown just how progressive this Government are being in both fiscal and social policy.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My noble friend, with her long experience in local government, knows well enough that, when there are major reorganisations in local government, you can be absolutely certain they will cost a lot of money, whatever the savings in the long term may be. Can she assure us that in the plans being considered, which are already costing local authorities preparation money to defend themselves or to decide which groups to join, the cost of this will not fall on the council tax payer?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very important point about the cost of devolution. We want to see all of England accessing that devolved power, and efficiencies will be generated in the long term. My honourable friend the Minister will be setting out the local government finance settlement later today, and I am sure he will include the details then.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, when the Minister says there will be winners and losers in any reform of council tax, does she not agree with the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, put it: that the winners are those who, at the moment, are living in high-value properties and the losers are those who live in low-value properties?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, the party opposite had 14 years to sort this out and did nothing about it. Council tax levels are decided by each council. We maintain the previous Government’s policy on the referendum levels. We are tackling the fair funding that was started off by the last Government but never finished. That will level the playing field for areas that need more funding support.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, local authority council tax support schemes are failing to provide adequate protection for many low-income council tax payers, either because of their restrictive nature or because of low take-up. Will the Government therefore consider increasing and ring-fencing the funding for these schemes, and look into introducing an automatic trigger for a council tax support application when a universal credit application is made?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My noble friend makes a good point about the link between universal credit and council tax, but there is significant support. All local authorities are required to run local council tax support schemes, which provide council tax reductions for those on low incomes. Some 3.7 million households currently receive this support. There is also a range of discounts and exemptions that reflect personal circumstances. I urge anyone struggling to pay their council tax to contact their local council, because they might be missing out on some of the benefits that are available.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, last year, Labour-run Birmingham City Council imposed a 21% council tax hike on residents over a two-year period after it mismanaged its finances. This year, Labour-run Bradford Council is proposing a 15% hike. Can the Minister explain why it is Labour-run councils that are imposing some of the worst council tax increases on local people this year?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
It is not only Labour-run councils that apply for exceptional financial support. My honourable friend the Minister will be making a Statement later today about which councils have been successful in gaining that exceptional financial support. There are any number of reasons why councils need to apply for that. It is not necessarily poor financial management: it can be the circumstances they find themselves in, particularly those areas that have low funding because the fair funding was not looked after.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, many local authorities are able to raise millions of pounds from their council tax payers from things such as car park charges. Does the Minister intend to take into account the massive amounts of money that some local authorities can raise?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, fees and charges form an important part of councils’ income. Whether that is fair or not is for the council tax payers of the area in question to make their minds up about locally. The three strands of council tax funding very much include those fees and charges, and the voters will decide whether they are reasonable or not.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, further to the question from my noble friend Lord Shipley, some council tax payers are now paying 12% on top of the council tax bill to pay for social care—the social care precept. Is that a fair and reasonable way to raise money to pay for social care? I remind the Minister that it was introduced by the previous Government.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
The social care precept was introduced by the previous Government. There is an increase in demand for social care in our demographic, and that has to be funded. The Government continue to keep under review how adult social care is paid for. At the moment, it is paid for by an additional precept on council tax for those who need social care. It is very important that we continue to support people in our communities who need it, and I am sure the noble Baroness would want us to continue to do that.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, under the Liberal Democrat administration, Windsor and Maidenhead Council’s financial discipline has collapsed. The council is now seeking to impose a 25% council tax hike on residents. Does the Minister agree that local residents are paying the price of Liberal Democrat councillors failing to maintain financial discipline?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
When I hear the party opposite criticising Labour and Liberal Democrat local councils, whose main financial problem was the economic mismanagement of the previous Government, they ought to have another think about who they are attacking.
Major Defence Contracts
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harlech
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the economic impact of uncertainty surrounding major defence contracts.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question in my name on the Order Paper and declare my interest as a serving Army Reserve officer.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, the Ministry of Defence recognises the importance of certainty in the MoD’s demand signal for industry. Making the right procurement decisions is a key enabler for improving effective equipment delivery to the Armed Forces and ensuring greater value for money for the taxpayer. This Government are determined to establish long-term partnerships between business and government, promoting innovation and improved resilience.
Lord Harlech (Con)
I thank the Minister for his response. Poland is now spending 4% of GDP on defence. Finland has a wartime strength of 280,000 and can call on a reserve of 870,000 troops. NATO allies are waking up to the fact that we must take defence spending seriously. Will the Minister do everything in his power to ensure that the Treasury understands why we must spend not 2.5% but 3.5% as a minimum on defence and make that change before the spending review?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his Question and, as I always do, acknowledge his service to our country as a reservist. On defence spending, he will know the Government’s policy. In the spring the Government will set out a pathway to 2.5%. He will also be pleased to know that the Government have not waited for that; we have already increased defence spending by £3 billion in the next financial year. We are on a pathway to increased spending on defence.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, when the defence review finally appears, it is hard to imagine that it will not include a requirement for an innovative, agile and scalable defence industry. What impact does the Minister think that the continued uncertainty over funding, alongside the treatment being meted out to the defence industry at some of our academic institutions, will have on the long-term investor confidence so necessary to the future health of this crucial sector?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I say to the noble and gallant Lord that of course the defence industry will be an important partner for His Majesty’s Government. He will know that we are currently consulting on a new defence industrial strategy. That consultation finishes at the end of February and we will come forward with various proposals to deal with the defence industry and promote it in the future.
This gives me a chance to take the point he made, which I think most noble Lords will take. He made the point about the inability of the RAF to go to certain university campuses to recruit and the inability of certain defence industries to go to certain university campuses to promote, quite legitimately, their sales and defence jobs. That is an absolute disgrace. I hope the universities take that on board and do something about it.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister not agree that the experience of the war in Ukraine has made it all the more important that we have an updated defence industrial strategy, and can he indicate when that will be brought forward to the House?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
As many noble Lords have heard me say, the war in Ukraine has been a wake-up call not only for this country but for the alliances across the world. We need to be able to scale up our industry and do so quickly, and to reflect on the sovereign capability we need, so that we have that as well. It will require apprenticeships and investment in all areas of the country.
My noble friend also makes the point that we have to know what we wish to spend our money on. Whatever billions we end up spending, it will be important to spend money on the sorts of defence equipment and capabilities we need to meet the threats of the future, not those of the past.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the SDR suggests that the defence sector is important for growth, yet a couple of weeks ago the House magazine pointed out that many SMEs in the defence sector are struggling, and some are thinking of moving out of defence. What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of this and what are they doing to support SMEs in the defence sector, which is so vital?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
We are supporting the SME sector by spending billions of pounds on defence. The noble Baroness makes an important point about the importance of small and medium-sized industries. We often talk about the primes—the really big companies— but they are often supported by small and medium-sized businesses, which are extremely important, along with ensuring we get investment across the country.
I will tell noble Lords the other thing that needs to be done. For decades in this country we have had a shortage of skilled workers and skilled apprenticeships, and certainly small and medium-sized businesses need help to recruit the skilled labour they need to deliver the products that they have on offer.
The final point I will make is that, clearly, we are now in a period of transition from pre Ukraine to post Ukraine. That obviously results in looking at who we are buying from and the sorts of things we are purchasing, and the defence review will deal with some of that as well.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, further to the point raised by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, it is the case that our defence industry sector has never been in greater need of the skills and talents of our brightest students, and the Minister failed to address the point specifically raised by the noble and gallant Lord. This House wants to know what are the Government doing to address the unacceptable intolerance whereby companies are hounded off campuses and barred entry to careers fairs? In particular, what are the Government doing to ensure that this obstruction to the supply of talent to the defence industry sector is removed?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I am sorry if I did not answer the point raised by the noble and gallant Lord. The point the noble Baroness makes is extremely important, and she asks what the Government have done about it. The Secretary of State for Defence, and I think the Business Secretary, wrote to the universities concerned and asked them to ensure that obstructive factions within the student unions in their universities did not prevent the legitimate recruitment, with respect to the RAF, and the legitimate activities of defence companies as well to try to recruit. It is extremely important for all universities to understand that of course we accept the right of students to protest, and all the rights and freedoms that come under a democracy—that is what we are standing for in many of the conflicts in which we are involved across the world. But with that comes the universities’ responsibility to do what they can to ensure that people pursuing legitimate activities—which will help the defence and security of our nation and our allies—are protected, and this Government will do all they can to ensure that they are.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, on Thursday evening, I spoke at the Cambridge Union on behalf of a motion that Britain should spend more on defence and needs more defence—and I am glad to say we won, much to my surprise. One young man came up to and said, “Do the Treasury actually understand how dangerous the world is and how important it is we should spend money on defence?” Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the Treasury does understand—or does it not understand?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I will give a very quick answer. I can tell my noble friend that the Treasury of course understands, and that is why the Government have agreed to spend more money on defence: £3 billion more next year and a pathway to 2.5 % to be announced in the spring. That is a Treasury and a Government who recognise we need to spend more on defence, and we will do.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
I welcome many of the remarks the Minister has made this afternoon, but is there not a big problem with the way we are conducting these discussions? All the time it looks as if we are discussing percentages between the Treasury and the Ministry of Defence, when in fact the strategic health of the world has changed for the worse. We need to involve the public more, to get them to understand why we need to spend more on defence. The Minister has made some very forthright remarks this afternoon, many of which I welcome, but do we not need to broaden out this argument and make it not just among ourselves but out there in the public field?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Again, the noble Lord makes a really important point and I agree: it is something that I have said from this Dispatch Box. The debate about the peace and security of our world, the defence of the freedom and democracy of our country, is something that is important and that we need to talk to the British public about. I think the British public are becoming increasingly concerned about peace and security and the threats to our country; that is why the defence review will look at homeland security, threats to undersea cables and all of those sorts of things. But let me say this: I say quite clearly from this Dispatch Box that the geopolitics of the globe is changing in a way that many of us perhaps did not expect. I think the British public understand that and certainly we in Parliament, across this House, understand it. We will have to address these points in a way we have not before. Of course, people want money spent on schools and hospitals, and all those things, and that will have to take precedence as well, but alongside that there can be nothing more important than the defence and security of the values we and our allies across the globe stand for.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
My Lords, it is nowadays accepted that social media is a weapon of war these days. It was recently suggested to me by a senior military figure that we should spend as much on social media as we do on our hard kit. Does the Minister agree?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Shall I be honest? I do not know how much we should actually spend and whether it should be the same on social media as on hard power—tanks or fighter jets—but I do know, and I support the point the noble Lord is making, that every Member of this House understands and believes that the nature of warfare is changing. We have hybrid warfare now and threats that we did not expect: social media; attacks on our critical national infrastructure; and attacks on underwater cables. Clearly, we will have to spend more money, as a nation, on all those aspects of defence and security, and to prioritise within the existing defence budget. It is a changed defence environment and certainly social media is part of that. I say this: if we lose the fake news war, if you like, the social media war, we will be half way to losing some of the other battles that we will fight. That is why it is so important.
Mental Health Treatment: Waiting Times
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reduce the waiting time for access to mental health treatment.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to be answering this Question during Children’s Mental Health Week. To ensure that high-quality support can be accessed in a timely manner, among other actions we are committed to recruiting 8,500 more mental health workers to cut waiting times, introducing access to specialist mental health professionals in every school and rolling out young futures hubs in every community.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. There has been a 33% rise in mental health referrals since 2019 and it is particularly severe for children and young people, with an increase from 12% to 20% for those experiencing mental health conditions. This has not been matched by an increase in investment in services or additional staff to enable early intervention and speedy help. Many children have been forced to wait till their conditions escalate, putting a lot more pressure and exceptional demand on school counsellors and on community care. Can the Minister say exactly what the Government are doing to address these pressures, particularly on young people? How will she ensure that funding at local level will focus on their needs?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend’s assessment of the impact of what is a totally unacceptable situation, particularly for children and young people. On the point about ensuring delivery locally, I refer your Lordships’ House to the NHS planning guidance, published last week, which not only confirms our commitment to the mental health investment standard but sets out an objective to increase the numbers of children and young people under 25 accessing services in the forthcoming year compared to 2019.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Does the Minister agree that the long delays experienced by released prisoners in accessing necessary mental health care simply oil the revolving door of their return to prison? Will the Government give high priority to dealing with that problem?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
We are extremely aware of the point the noble Lord helpfully makes. The matter of severe mental illness in prisoners has come up repeatedly in Committee on the Mental Health Bill, and we will continue to work to address the points he raised.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the fact that the new NHS operational planning guidance, which the Minister just referred to, includes targets for improving mental health care, learning disabilities and autism. What assurances can the Minister give that these targets will be properly reflected in the forthcoming spending review, the NHS 10-year plan and the updated NHS workforce plan to ensure we really do see parity of esteem between physical and mental health?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I can confirm the commitment of the Government to parity of esteem between mental and physical health services, as was outlined in our first programme of legislation confirmed in the King’s Speech. It will have absolute regard in all the areas the noble Baroness refers to. I know she is aware that I cannot comment specifically on spending reviews, but all that will be announced publicly in due course.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, ADHD affects lots of children and, though treatable, it is often not treated. Can the Minister assure the House that treatment for ADHD will increase substantially to ensure children can get back to school and get on with their studies?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
It is important that children with ADHD receive the right education and the right support. We are working with the Department for Education to make sure that happens.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I welcome my noble friend the Minister’s replies to the questions asked. I know she is personally committed to improving the services provided to people suffering from problems with their mental health. However, is she aware of the concern that has been expressed by the Royal College of Psychiatrists that the increased autonomy allowed to local health authorities will, without clear guidance, lead to inadequate investment in mental health services? Can she provide some reassurance for the royal college?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this. There are whole areas in which we are seeking to turn this round, and I know my noble friend is aware of the challenges we face. To highlight just one, I refer him to the fact that the Government have chosen to prioritise funding for talking therapies and to deliver that expansion. That is really important because, in all of this, we have to make the move from dealing with sickness to prevention, and I believe this is a very strong example of how we can do that.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, in mental health services, the gap between referral and treatment is getting longer and longer, and that delay is leading to a marked deterioration in the patient’s experience? So far as young people are concerned, the delay has become incredibly long. Can the Minister assure the House that thought is being given to reducing the gap between referral and treatment?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very important point. This is one of the many areas where long waiting lists and delays in people receiving the necessary service are creating additional pressures on the individual, communities and the NHS. We are doing work in a number of areas, such as ensuring that NHS 111 can provide for those in crisis, or those concerned about a family member or loved one, so they can speak to a trained mental health professional. We are constantly looking at and providing new ways for people to get more instant access.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, do the Government see a role for employers in promoting the mental health of their respective workforces?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I certainly do, and with the NHS being such a large employer, that is one of the areas that we will be attending to. The long-term workforce plan will provide its report around the summer of this year and there will be much detail on how the workforce will be but also on the ways that we can improve its health and retention as well as recruitment.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Warwick spoke particularly about young people and provision in schools. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that there is a key role for educational psychologists and school nurses in ensuring that diagnosis can take place early? Does she believe there could be a greater role for academies and schools working together at local level to provide that type of provision?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend’s suggestions. Of course it is a team that provides the mental health support that is necessary, but I am particularly pleased that we are working to deliver a mental health professional in every school. That is a starting point, not necessarily the end point, so my noble friend makes some very helpful suggestions.
Lord Markham (Con)
I appreciate from my own time as Health Minister how difficult it is to meet the expanding demand, so I wonder if we are still looking at other methods to expand capacity, particularly digitally, both in terms of early diagnosis but also some of the digital mental health treatments which are quite impressive?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am glad for the understanding of the noble Lord. NHS England is encouraging the local use of digital tools, for example digitally enabled therapies, and it is an extremely helpful way also of managing waiting lists so people are not just left waiting but they are held and supported, often through digital means.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interest as set out in the register. A policy of the police not attending mental health incidents, called “right care, right person”, was developed by Humberside Police and adopted by the Metropolitan Police. What assessment has been made of the impact of this policy on those suffering from mental health issues?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. Again, this is an area which has been explored in Committee on the Mental Health Bill and we are looking at the results of how that is working out, because we have to get the balance right between supporting people in crisis and also ensuring that the right professionals are in place.
Humanist Weddings
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask His Majesty’s Government what is the timetable for legalising humanist weddings in England and Wales.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)
My Lords, I am aware that humanists have long campaigned to be able to conduct legally binding weddings and fully appreciate why my noble friend is asking this Question. However, I am afraid I must repeat my previous Answer. As a new Government, we must take the time properly to consider our marriage law and the Law Commission’s review on weddings before publicly setting out our position, which we will do in the coming months.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, I had two responses prepared: “hurrah” and this one, which basically says that my noble friend the Minister has disappointed those who see this as a priority and who have for the last 11 years been asking the previous Government and now my own Government to take action. I would be grateful if he could meet me to discuss how best to take this matter forward; then, perhaps, I will not need to keep asking this question—which I will do until the matter is resolved.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I am very happy to meet my noble friend—any time, any place. As I said, I am aware that a number of noble Lords have extremely strong views on this matter. The Government want to do this in a measured way. Other factors are in play, about which I have informed my noble friend; nevertheless, I am very happy to meet her.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, more Scots now choose a humanist wedding than those who marry in all other religious ceremonies combined, yet we deny that option to those who wed in England. The Minister emphasised, as he has previously, that England’s centuries-old legal framework is more complex. If we want to align England’s framework with contemporary belief and manifest social demand, can he identify any impediments in the way that cannot be easily and speedily overcome?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question and the letter he wrote to me recently, which I answered. Complexities were identified in the Law Commission report a number of years ago which are real and need to be taken seriously. The Government are set on doing that, and on giving themselves the time so to do.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I have previously raised with the Minister another issue with our marriage law with which he is familiar. There are cases where people—mainly women—go through a religious ceremony thinking that they have got married but they have not actually done so under UK law. They find that out only when things break down. Can the Minister outline the solution to that? Are the Government considering making it an offence to conduct such a ceremony without first having seen a civil certificate of marriage?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I do not know the answer, but I will write to her, because she raises a very important point. When she asked a similar question a few weeks ago, I made the point that I regularly came across those types of scenarios when I sat as a family court magistrate. I add that the myth of common-law marriage exists not just in particular sectors of our society but across it. It includes the idea that women—it is usually women—get rights, but that is absolutely not the case. That is why the Government are undertaking to look at how the rights of people who have been in long-standing, cohabiting relationships can be addressed when those couples split up.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, the Minister referred to various difficulties, but Liberal Democrats and humanists do not see them. I echo the request of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton: can those of us with a special interest in this area meet and put some new ideas forward, to make sure that we can move this along?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I am very happy to meet the noble Baroness.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
When this House heard the last of the very frequent and not very satisfactory Questions on this topic, my noble friend the Minister committed to conducting an equality impact assessment to evaluate the impact that this current ongoing delay is having on different groups. When will the Minister be able to share this with the House? Will he bring it to the meeting which has just been agreed?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I cannot remember making that commitment, so I will need to write to my noble friend about that matter.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, the House should recognise that the Minister’s answer of “in the coming months” is rather better than we have had before. Humanists and others simply want a marriage ceremony that reflects their beliefs, whether religious or not, and that will be legally recognised without unnecessary obstacles. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are now actively looking at comprehensive reform, in line with the Law Commission’s 2023 recommendations, to help not just humanists but other similarly disadvantaged groups, even if that may take more time than we would want?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question. The Government are indeed looking at comprehensive reform. There are many anomalies within our current marriage law and a number of disadvantaged groups. We believe that we need to take our time on this matter to get the answer right, so I thank the noble Lord for his question.
Lord Lilley (Con)
Can the Minister explain to those of us who do not know what either of them are like the difference between a registry office wedding and humanist wedding?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I can answer that for the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. A registry office wedding is legally binding in the eyes of the law in England and Wales. A humanist wedding which is not conducted in a registry office would not be legally binding in that sense. A humanist getting married in England or Wales would essentially have to go through a two-stage process to be married in the eyes of the law in England and Wales.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on dropping the rather meaningless phrase “in due time” and telling the House that this is going to be done in the coming months. By that, I assume that it will be within 12 months, because he said in the coming “months” and not in the coming “years”. Can he assure the House that we will have legalised humanist marriages within the next year—in other words, in 12 months?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
I am very glad that noble Lords have noticed the change in wording since the last time this matter was discussed at Oral Questions. The commitment is that in the coming months we will review the situation in the light of the Law Commission submission, and we are well aware of the Labour Party’s commitment in the manifesto.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
The Minister must be feeling that it is Groundhog Day yet again, and it will continue, as the noble Baroness says, until we get a response on this—please. The Minister keeps talking about the complexities of these issues, but it is a complexity which has been resolved in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Jersey and the Isle of Man. It is not as though government should have come as a great surprise to the party opposite—it had plenty of time to plan for it. What is required is not more discussion and more complexity but a decision. Will the Minister please bring forward a decision at the earliest possible moment?
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I have to disagree with the noble Lord. There is genuine complexity here, and there are other groups who are not bringing their cases to this House who are also disadvantaged, and we want to look at the complexities in the round. He talks about Scotland, but there is a different system in Scotland, and there are anomalies within Scotland as well. This all increases the complexity of the overall situation in England and Wales. We have taken a very small step forward, and I hope that we can fulfil the commitment to look at this matter as we said that we would.
Airport Expansion
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, Heathrow Airport Ltd is a 100% privately-owned company, which is subject to a form of economic regulation with which many noble Lords will be familiar from the water sector. In that light, can the Minister confirm that the long-standing, cross-party policy that any project for a third runway should be paid for wholly by the private sector and not the taxpayer will continue, and in particular, that any proposal as part of that project to relocate, tunnel or bridge over the M25 is also part of the cost that is to be paid for by the private sector and not by the taxpayer?
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, is completely correct about the ownership of Heathrow Airport Ltd, which of course is likely to be a promoter—but possibly not the only one—of a third runway at Heathrow Airport. It certainly is government policy that a third runway should be paid for by a third party, but the detail of what it is and what other work is necessary to allow it to happen is not clear. The Government have invited proposals to be brought forward by the summer and promoters will hopefully make them, at which point it will then become clear how much they entail, how much other work is needed and how much they are proposing to pay for.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, the U-turn announced by the Chancellor in support of airport expansion across the south-east is astonishing. Can the Minister explain how a third runway at Heathrow will meet Labour’s four tests—on growth across our regions, climate, air pollution and noise pollution? Does he agree that far more investment in regional transport infrastructure would be a more sustainable way to secure economic growth across the country?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I assure the noble Baroness that the criteria that she has set out for airport expansion proposals are indeed those that the Government would use to look at any application for a development control order. We do not have that application yet because this is in the early stages. However, the proposition that connectivity drives growth, jobs and housing in line with the Government’s missions and the plan for change is no different in respect of air connectivity, which also drives economic growth.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in responding to my honourable friend in the other place, Siân Berry, on the question of how this could possibly fit within the Government’s legal climate commitments, the Government suggested that the answer was sustainable aviation fuel. That currently represents less than 0.1% of aviation fuel, and it would take an awful lot of fried fish and chips if we were going to rely on used cooking oil. Does the Minister stand by the claim that somehow we will see a massive explosion in sustainable aviation fuel?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I suggest that “a massive explosion in sustainable aviation fuel” is probably not what the noble Baroness meant literally. But seriously, the answer is yes, as this country can be a leader in sustainable aviation fuel, which can support thousands of jobs, and the plan is for it to make up a much larger proportion of total aviation fuel. The Government are committed to our legal obligations to reach net zero in 2050, as set out in the Climate Change Act. The analysis that my department has done suggests that a third runway is compatible with net zero, because sustainable aviation fuel will make a difference. The Government are proceeding with it, and there is a lot of investment in advanced fuels to get technology to move forward.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that airport growth can be a great stimulus to the local economy, especially in places such as Doncaster Sheffield Airport? The airport closed under the previous Government but I was pleased to see it mentioned by the Chancellor in her speech. Can he assure me that his department will do all it can to support the reopening of Doncaster Sheffield Airport?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question, and this department will do all it can to facilitate the reopening of Doncaster Sheffield Airport.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, I was the Secretary of State who took this proposal through the Commons seven years ago, and I declare an interest as an adviser to AtkinsRéalis. The Chancellor suggested that work on the runway could begin before the end of this Parliament, which is only in four years’ time, and that for that to happen, it would be necessary for the process to start part-way through it. Do the Minister and the department believe they have to go back to square 1 and start from the beginning with a national policy statement and then a DCO again, or do they believe that that process can be short-circuited and they could start somewhere further down the track?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord is very familiar with the processes that have been gone through so far. The answer to that question is that it really depends on what is submitted by the promoter this summer. We all know that there was a proposal for a third runway in the north-eastern quadrant of the airport. To start with, it depends very largely on whether that submission is very similar to the one the promoter made previously or if there is something substantially different.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, in 2014, the cost estimate just to build the Heathrow third runway was £18 billion, to be paid for in the end by higher fees on the airlines. British Airways was clear that it would not pay. In addition, Transport for London costed the upgrade to local transport as between £15 billion to £20 billion, of which the airport offered to pay £1 billion—the rest was to fall on London businesses and TfL. That project failed because the business case is completely ludicrous. Will the Minister now update us on the range of costings and, more importantly, who will pay?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The costs of a third runway depend, of course, on the proposals of the promoter to deliver it. Without that proposition, we cannot usefully have a debate about how much it might cost, but my earlier answer to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, stands about the cost of the runway itself. The only other thing I point out to the noble Baroness is that, since 2014, the Elizabeth line has opened, and a significant amount of extra railway capacity has already been provided to Heathrow Airport.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, a good deal of air freight arrives at Heathrow. Does my noble friend the Minister think it would be possible—and rather a good idea—to redirect some of it to Doncaster Sheffield Airport, which is currently standing idle, thereby freeing up possible slots for other flights to come into Heathrow, and possibly obviating the need for a third runway?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am not intimately familiar with the proportion of air freight that arrives in Heathrow on aircraft solely adapted for cargo. My understanding is that much of the air freight that arrives there in fact arrives in the holds of passenger aircraft, therefore redirecting it is far from a simple process. But the earlier point about the success of regional airports stands, which is that the Government are very anxious to reopen Doncaster Sheffield and will do everything they can to achieve that.
Baroness Sugg (Con)
My Lords, I am sure the Minister agrees with me that expansion must be affordable, improve operation resilience for passengers and freight, and be compatible with environmental commitments. The modernisation of our airspace is a key part of that; modernising our skies is a crucial project that has been going on for many years—I remember it well from my time as Aviation Minister. Can the Minister update the House on the progress of that important project?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I shall have to write to the noble Baroness, but otherwise I agree with everything she said.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will remember Boris Johnson’s promises of levelling up. This Government’s recent announcements on support for economic growth in transport and advanced manufacturing have favoured the south and east very strongly. Will they please ensure that in future planning they think about the impact on the rest of the country, and take into account that the south-east is short of water and is certainly short of renewable electricity?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
An expansion of Heathrow will be of benefit to the entire UK, not just London and the south-east. A recent analysis suggested that over half the benefits would in fact be in the rest of the UK and not in the south-east of England.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
My Lords, in welcoming the Government’s announcement that they are considering a third runway, may I ask the Minister what their attitude will be to airports outside London expanding? Does he think the expansion of Heathrow will at all put in danger the expansion of regional airports?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I will be interested to discuss with the noble Lord his view of the question he has asked, because, of course, he was Secretary of State for Transport in his time. Certainly, the view here is that it will not affect the development of regional airports. The Government are quite clear that the appropriate development of regional airports is the right thing to do for the development of regional economies.
Fiscal Policy: Defence Spending
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, last week I raised my profound concerns about the funding fog surrounding defence. Specifically on the Government’s fiscal policy, I want to ask the Minister the following questions. First, given the recent gloomy projection by the CBI on job losses, what discussions have the Government had with major defence suppliers to assess the impact of the NIC increase on their workforce? Secondly, if the Government really value our Armed Forces personnel, why are they landing families with the full impact of VAT on private school fees, when the continuity of education allowance will meet only part of that increase—and yet they are prepared to exempt United States armed forces personnel in this country from paying VAT on private school fees?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her important questions. We are working closely with NATO in developing industrial capability. In particular, we are looking at how we develop interoperability between NATO partners—which, as the noble Baroness will know from her work, is an important consideration—to give us the capabilities we need.
The noble Baroness will know that the Government have increased the continuity of education allowance to meet 90% of the cost of school fees, which is line with the consistent use of that policy to meet school fees. On the US military exemption, the VAT rule applies to all businesses supplying services to US forces, so there has been no change in that regard.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the Question referred to fiscal policy, and although there may not have been a change in the relationship with the United States, there has been an impact on His Majesty’s Armed Forces. Such children are being sent to private school not through the parental choice that might be made in the civilian sector, but to ensure they can have a secure education while their parents are serving. The cost of education has just gone up through VAT. Is that not a problem? Could the MoD not talk to the Treasury about it?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
On VAT on school fees and the impact on military families, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, just pointed out, the Government have increased the continuity of education allowance, which now meets some 90% of the increase in fees that military families will face as a consequence of the VAT rise. That allowance is there to support military families in the way she said, and the VAT increase has been met in a way that is consistent with that policy, through the uplift in the allowance to 90%.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, the Minister was speaking earlier this afternoon with perspicacity about the changing nature of warfare. Does he agree that when we talk of defence expenditure, we are talking far beyond the MoD budget and the cost of military equipment? New technology threatens and exposes the civilian population as never before, and more directly than at any time in our history. In the Russian attack on Ukraine, it is the attack on its infrastructure, facilities and energy systems that is seen as the main assault, undermining and demoralising the civilian population and destroying any achievements made on the front line. Will the Minister assure us that in looking at our defence expenditure, we are focused on energy and the fact that equipment now exists which would destroy our entire energy system and create social chaos in an amazingly short time?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his important question. Notwithstanding the debate about the total quantity of defence expenditure, he is right to point out the changing nature of warfare. We are looking to see how we can further protect the underwater cables that bring energy to this country; he might have seen some of the debate that took place last week on that. The RFA “Proteus”, which was bought for the RFA by the previous Government, is one example of how we do that. The defence review is looking at the purchase of a second ship, and various other capabilities are being developed. The noble Lord also made the point about our own critical national infrastructure. There is no doubt that we will have to consider homeland security and how we protect that infrastructure, and the defence review will do that. As I said earlier, hybrid warfare and the way systems are impacted by data and those sorts of attacks also needs to be considered.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, it is absolutely clear to anyone who knows anything about defence that we need to spend more on our defence forces. I do not think I have come across anybody—including the students at Cambridge the other day—who does not realise that that needs to be done. Presumably, the reason why it is taking time and we are not moving forward is the fiscal policy. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that if you lose a war, things such as the National Health Service, education and social care matter not one jot? Therefore, one ought to think very hard about making sure we prevent a war. One way of doing that is to ensure that we are properly armed, and that needs money.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I congratulate my noble friend on winning the debate at Cambridge; I meant to say that earlier. He makes a point about additional money, and there will be a debate about the overall level. I know my noble friend has his views about the level of defence expenditure. He will know that the Government will set out a pathway to 2.5% in the spring. As part of our increased defence expenditure, we will spend £3 billion extra in the next financial year. Of course, alongside all that, he makes the really important point—again, I have made it from the Dispatch Box—that part of the way you prevent war is by preparing for war. That is an unfortunate state of affairs. Deterrence is important. As a country and in our alliances across the world, we need to consider not only how we fight wars but how we prevent them, and deterrence has to be part of that.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
The noble Lord explained what the Government are doing to compensate service personnel who might be penalised by the VAT increase. Exactly the same problem arises with diplomats, who, again, necessarily have no choice except to educate their children privately. What are the Government doing to compensate people working in the FCDO?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I will have to write to the noble Lord about that to make sure that I do not inadvertently misinform the House. If he will allow me, I will write to him with a specific answer to that and place a copy in the Library.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend will probably know that the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, of which I have been a member, is going to undertake a review of undersea cables and other areas of what we now call critical national infrastructure. Would he agree that, as a result of inquiries such as this into areas of defence that previously have not been considered in such great detail, our friends in the Treasury will have to acknowledge that modern defence threats will require novel Treasury solutions?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Whatever the Treasury may or may not think, and whatever the level of defence spending should or should not be, one of the important things coming out of the debates and discussions and questions from all parts of the House is that Ukraine has shown that the nature of warfare is changing, and the way we fought wars in the past is perhaps no longer appropriate. Of course, there is a need for mass and for traditional warfare. But the way in which the application of drones has changed the nature of warfare; the attacks on underwater cables that my noble friend pointed out; the threats to our homeland and to critical national infrastructure that the noble Lord, Lord Howell, referred to; and the data attacks and hybrid warfare that other noble Lords have referred to—all of these require us to discuss not only what the level of expenditure should be, but how we meet those challenges in a way that is relevant to the threats we face now, not those we faced in the past.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the Minister that prevention is by far the best investment. The UK has many strategic interests around the globe in areas where there are increased levels of fragile and potentially conflict-afflicted states, which will require us to have more defence resource. Can the Minister please say that the reporting last week that the Government are now projected to cut by one-third conflict prevention work in development assistance funding was an error?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I read those reports, as did the noble Lord—I know that he takes a keen interest in all these matters. Whatever the rights and wrongs of those reports, we should reflect on what this country does to prevent conflicts in different parts of the world. The noble Lord has been to many countries where the UK, along with its allies, is preventing starvation, conflict and ethnic cleansing of one sort or another. I was in Nigeria last week and saw the immense activity of the British military and others to stabilise a country that faces real threat from the Sahel and from terrorists such as Boko Haram, Islamic State’s West Africa Province and others.
I accept that there are sometimes questions about what is or is not being done, and what changes are being made to government expenditure in difficult times. But, without trying to deflect from difficult decisions or to say that we should not discuss cuts, sometimes we should, as a country, talk about what we actually do, rather than about the challenges we face.
Growing the UK Economy
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, the Government have told us that growth is their number one mission. That is the promise they have repeated again and again, and, given the difficult circumstances the country faces, that is sensible. That being the case, I am afraid that the Government’s statements—both that of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to Parliament and the speech given by the Chancellor—do not measure up to the scale of what is required.
Above all, we need a recognition that the first steps of this Government—spreading pessimism; rewarding recalcitrant unions with large pay increases without them being tied to productivity increases; increasing stifling regulation, particularly on employment and renting; and increasing taxes—are precisely what should be avoided. Instead, we need an optimistic mindset—seizing the issue, and shaking up those who are not contributing and could do more—and a determination to make real progress, not a flabby wish list with no indication of how it will be achieved in practice.
Last week, Lloyds Bank announced 1,600 job cuts after the CBI warned of a “significant fall” in business activity in the private sector, and the normally robust supermarkets announced large job losses. This is before we start to feel the effects of the Government’s most burdensome measures, which come into force in April. Businesses are fearful, and consumers are showing caution in case they lose their jobs or face price rises that affect their families.
That does not mean to say the Government’s proposals are not welcome, up to a point, if they contribute to stability and growth as we hope. The expansion of Heathrow seems to be central to the Government’s plans to “unlock further growth”, but this will take well over a decade to come to fruition and seems to be highly contentious in the Cabinet. Will the present proposal outlive the Chancellor? It seems doubtful.
The Chancellor highlighted the importance of the life sciences sector and referenced AstraZeneca. It must have been embarrassing for the Government to hear of its decision not to go ahead with the much-needed new vaccine manufacturing plant in Speke—a £450 billion investment. I know that the value for money rules are not straightforward, but could matters not have been managed to secure a better outcome?
Having studied the discussion in the other place, I would be interested to know more about how the growth package will help Northern Ireland and how the Office for Investment will provide a line of sight to opportunities across the country.
We agree with the Chancellor that we must focus on removing barriers to growth, and that that means cutting regulation. It also means reversing the way in which the public sector has started to crowd out the more productive private sector since its necessary expansion to a wartime footing during Covid, yet the Government seem determined to do the opposite. Can the Minister explain what assessment the Government have made of the impact of their extra regulations on economic growth?
I am particularly concerned about energy. History shows that cheap energy is vital to growth. Our businesses in the UK already have to cope with the highest energy prices in the developed world, and that is set to get only worse. That is terrible news for industries such as steel, cement and ceramics. I am sure the Government will come to regret their decision not to support the Rosebank field and the punitive tax on oil and gas, alongside the delays in nuclear rollout and grid connections. I would not want to be the Energy Minister when the lights start to go out.
This is not a debate about welfare, but it is clear that more needs to be done to get people off welfare and into work as part of the growth mission.
Perhaps I could end on some positives. I am glad to see the plans for new investment in reservoirs. Successive Governments have been slow to meet that need. The Thames Tideway tunnel has been an early success in the water area, on time and largely on budget, in an impressive partnership with the private sector.
The Government are right to press ahead with more housing and to lift some of the regulatory constraints, although they should be doing more in the London area, where the pressure of population is worst. I am particularly pleased to see the new focus on building around railway stations, a recommendation of the Meeting Housing Demand report by the Lords Built Environment Committee, which I chaired at the time. How do the Government propose to report progress in this area?
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for sharing the Statement.
In a Janus-like switch from the gloomiest person in Whitehall, the Chancellor was all smiles last week. To cap that change in mood, she gave her much-heralded growth speech. The most notable feature, as far as I was concerned, was what was not in the speech.
We all know that committing the UK to a genuinely closer and more efficient trading relationship with the EU would be the quickest and most effective way of driving growth. That is why the Liberal Democrats have suggested a customs union as the most significant route to growth. If the Government do not believe us, they should commission the Office for Budget Responsibility to analyse the impact that a customs union with the EU would have on the economy and public finances, and then we could discuss the numbers.
Instead, the Statement was, in essence, a list of projects—some of them interesting, some of them less so. I believe they were intended to communicate as much a mood as actual projects. To cap the message was an exclamation mark: the announcement on Heathrow. I suppose the point of that was to suggest that the Chancellor and the PM were such growth ultras that they would even allow Heathrow an extra runway. Even though that is patently the wrong thing to do, seemingly the Chancellor was using Heathrow as a badge of her serious intent on growth. However, as we discussed just now in the previous Question, it is so far into the distance that it is growth window dressing. The numbers that are used are highly selective, and the estimated timings hopelessly defy reality when it comes to projects of that scale.
I think it was the former Chancellor George Osborne who coined the phrase “shovel-ready”, implying that some projects could start immediately. This is rarely the case, so it would be good to get an idea of the start time for some of the projects that the Chancellor listed. For example, when will we get the announcements on Gatwick and Luton, and how shovel-ready are they? When does the Minister expect those expansions to have any effect on our economy? Similarly, the suggestions that talks may be reopened regarding Doncaster Sheffield Airport are welcome, but is that idea backed by any central government investment or is it just talks with cash-strapped local authorities?
With such a heavy emphasis on air travel in the Statement, it was inevitable that, by way of some sort of offset, the Chancellor would talk about sustainable aviation fuel. Can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House the Treasury’s estimate for what the percentage and volume of SAF used for air travel departing the UK will be by 2030? How effective will its implementation be?
Finally, on the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, I can understand how some would see this as a great idea, but how will the idea be made flesh? The noble Lord, Lord Vallance, is to be the champion, but what is he championing? Your Lordships will be aware that the journey between the two university sites passes through many local authorities. Each, I am sure, will have their own idea and vision of what this corridor would or could be. Will the ministerial champion have any powers to compel a joined-up plan? Will he have any money to cajole authorities to bend to his will, or is this corridor a possible railway link for some time in the future, with a few road works?
Meanwhile, the bird has flown. As we just heard, AstraZeneca, Britain’s biggest public company, has pulled out of its proposed £450 million investment in a new vaccines plant, reportedly after “protracted discussions” with the Government. It is now no longer pursuing its plan for Speke. The implication is that the Government not only reduced the money on the table but did so very slowly. I do not want to hear from the Minister that the previous Government had not funded the offer. We know that they did not fund the offer; they funded virtually none of it. What I want to know is what thinking in the Treasury stopped the present Government funding this project? While having a Chancellor announcing airport expansions might make the odd headline, what delivers an effective message to future investors in this country is an announcement of the start-up of a project such as that.
As a result of this failure, can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House that he now recognises that it is the job of politicians much more positively to drive negotiations such as those? It is politicians who have to step in and remove administrative barriers, and it is up to them to make projects like this happen.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for their comments and questions. As noble Lords will know, and as the Chancellor reaffirmed in her speech last week, growth is the number one mission of this Government. Without growth, we cannot cut hospital waiting lists, put more police on the streets or improve the lives of working people.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke about our growth mission. As she knows, there was no bigger failure of the previous Government than their failure on growth. With their austerity, their disastrous Brexit deal and their Liz Truss mini-Budget, the combined effect was devastating. Had the economy grown by the average of other OECD countries over the past 14 years, it would be more than £150 billion larger today. We did not hear much humility for that record from the noble Baroness, and there has still been no apology for it to the British people.
As the Chancellor said last week, low growth is not our destiny, but growth will not come without a fight. While this country has incredible potential, the structural problems in our economy run deep; the low growth of the past 14 years cannot be turned around overnight.
The strategy that this Government have consistently set out is to grow the supply side of our economy, recognising that, first and foremost, it is businesses, investors and entrepreneurs that drive economic growth, alongside a Government who systematically remove the barriers that they face. Our strategy is based on three elements: stability, which is the basic condition for secure growth; reform, which makes it easier for businesses to trade, raise finance and build; and investment, the lifeblood of economic growth.
On stability, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke about the Budget. It was this Government’s duty in October last year to fix the foundations of the economy and repair the £22 billion black hole in the public finances that we inherited. We have always been clear that there are costs to responsibility—the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions will have consequences for businesses and beyond—but the costs of irresponsibility would have been far greater. I think the noble Baroness knows that, which is why we have still heard no alternative put forward by the Conservative Party: no alternative for dealing with the challenges we face, no alternative for restoring economic stability and, therefore, no plan for driving economic growth.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, both asked about AstraZeneca. Government funding must demonstrate value for the taxpayer; a change in the investment proposition by AstraZeneca led to a reduced government grant offer being put forward. We remain closely engaged, though, with AstraZeneca on work to develop our new industrial strategy and our thriving life sciences sector, which is worth £108 billion to the economy and provides more than 300,000 highly skilled jobs across the country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about job figures. The OBR forecasts that, over the course of this Parliament, employment will rise and unemployment will fall. Our announcement last week about the third runway at Heathrow could create 100,000 new jobs. The investment zone that we announced in Wrexham and Flintshire with JCB and Airbus could create 6,000 new jobs and the investment by Prologis at East Midlands Airport 2,000 jobs. There are plenty of reasons to be optimistic about the ability of our economy to grow and to create jobs.
The noble Baroness also spoke about business sentiment. In the Budget, we capped the rate of corporation tax and extended capital allowances for the duration of this Parliament. I hope that she will have seen the reaction of business leaders to the Chancellor’s speech last week. A business survey, which came out straight after the speech, suggested that two-thirds of businesses now feel more confident about our country’s growth prospects because of what the Chancellor announced. Rain Newton-Smith of the CBI said that businesses will welcome the Chancellor
“grasping decisions that have sat on the desk of government for too long”,
showing that the Government are serious about growth and prepared to take the tough decisions necessary. Shevaun Haviland of the BCC said that
“these proposals can light the blue touchpaper to fire up the UK economy”,
and Tina McKenzie of the FSB said:
“The positive energy in today’s speech … has our backing”.
The noble Baroness spoke about an optimistic mindset; I hope that she will respond by showing some of that same positive energy when it comes to the country’s and our economy’s prospects.
The second element of our strategy is reform. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke about welfare reform. We published our Get Britain Working White Paper at the time of the Budget to begin to tackle the unacceptable levels of inactivity that we inherited. We will publish a further welfare reform Green Paper this spring to begin to correct some of the incentives in the system.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about reform of our relationship with the EU. I know that he and I agree very much in our analysis of Brexit, and on the fact that the previous Government’s disastrous Brexit deal permanently reduced GDP by 4%, so we have to reset our relationship with the EU—our nearest and largest trading partner—to drive growth and support business. He will have seen that the Prime Minister is in Brussels today to meet European Union leaders for the first time since Brexit.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, spoke about regulatory reform. We know that business has been held back by complex and unproductive regulation, which is a drag on investment and innovation. We have already issued new growth-focused remits for our financial services regulators and announced a new interim chair of the CMA. We will publish a final action plan in March to make regulation work better for our economy. On her question about a specific assessment, as she will know, the OBR sets out the economic consequences of all our policies.
The third pillar of our growth strategy is investment. As noble Lords will know, at the international investment summit, we saw £63 billion of additional private sector investment committed to our economy. In the Budget, we announced an additional £100 billion of public sector investment, which the IMF has been clear is vital to unlocking high levels of growth.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about energy prices. I completely agree with her that that is one of the biggest contributions that we could make to our growth prospects. It is why the transition to clean energy is so important in driving those energy prices down. I am grateful for her support on our housing policy.
We are seeing some encouraging signs in the British economy. The IMF has upgraded our growth prospects for 2025—the only G7 country outside the US to see this happen—which gives us the fastest growth of any major European economy this year. A global survey of CEOs by PwC has shown that Britain is now the second-most attractive country in the world for businesses looking to invest, the first time the UK has been in that position for 28 years. This is all welcome news, but we are, of course, not satisfied with the position we are in. We know that we need to go further and faster, which is why the Chancellor made the announcements that she did last week.
Whether it is the third runway at Heathrow, the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor—creating Europe’s Silicon Valley here in the UK—the new stadium at Old Trafford, investment in Teesside in sustainable aviation fuel, or reopening the airport in Doncaster, all of these things are the next steps of our ambitious plan to grow our economy and make working people better off.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked specifically about the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor, and the role of my noble friend Lord Vallance. My noble friend absolutely is there to join up all the different bodies that exist. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about the specific powers that my noble friend has. Obviously, the Government have many specific powers in this respect and it is my noble friend’s job to bring what is needed to the attention of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor so that they can use their considerable powers to do what is necessary to achieve the objectives that we have set out.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked a specific question about Heathrow and sustainable aviation fuel. I will have to write to him on that point if he does not mind. I disagree with him overall in respect of his position on Heathrow, as I think he would expect. I see it as absolutely central to our growth prospects. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about the timescale of the third runway expansion. We have asked Heathrow to come forward with plans by the summer. We then want to grant a development consent order in this Parliament. We will have spades in the ground at Heathrow in this Parliament, not years and decades into the future.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, also asked about Gatwick and Luton expansion. Decisions on those are both due to be made very shortly, but I cannot say more at this point about a specific timescale. She asked a question about Northern Ireland, about which I will also write to her if she does not mind.
We are making progress towards our number one mission of economic growth but, of course, we are not satisfied. We must go further and faster, so that we can put Britain on a better path and deliver for the British people.
Lord Desai (CB)
My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that, because we had a debate on growth very recently, and because the question has been raised again, what we really need is an expert committee—perhaps your Lordships’ Economic Affairs Committee—to inquire into why we have not had growth for the last 15 years and why all the policies that were tried by the last Government failed completely? If we learn from our experience, it might be more helpful than having frequent debates in your Lordships’ House.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. Obviously, it is not for me to suggest what inquiries the Economic Affairs Committee should conduct. If it were to conduct such an inquiry, I would certainly read its report with interest, and I think we would see that the record of the previous Government on the economy was nothing short of catastrophic—whether it was their austerity, which took demand out of the economy at exactly the wrong moment; their disastrous Brexit deal, which has reduced GDP by some 4%; or their disastrous Liz Truss mini-Budget. All of these things have done long-term deep-seated damage to the economy, which will take time to turn around, but I believe we are starting to turn that around and we will continue to do so.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, given the passenger forecast for a third runway of a doubling of passenger numbers at Heathrow, I was told that domestic passengers would come from all the regional airports because the airlines would cease to fly direct international flights from regional airports, including both Birmingham and Manchester, and instead feed to Heathrow. I was told that the international passengers would be almost exclusively transfer passengers—one of the reasons for arguing that not a lot of additional transport is needed into London. I understand why all of that works to create profits for the airport, but I find it very hard to see how that creates any growth. Can the Minister please explain how, particularly, that damage to the regions will help with regional growth and, frankly, how transfer passengers contribute significantly to overall growth?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. This is, I think, probably one of the few issues that we disagree on. Obviously, she is asking me to comment on what she was told several years ago, and I cannot necessarily comment on what she was told then. She is describing, I think, the concept of a hub airport, which is why Heathrow is such a specific proposition, and will lead to significant amounts of growth in our economy, not least because of freight. The amount of freight that Heathrow conducts, the increase in trade, and the new emerging markets that an expanded Heathrow will connect us to, will directly lead to increases in growth in this country. That is an incredibly valuable thing.
The noble Baroness spoke about regional growth and regional airports. I would simply point her to the enthusiastic response from regional airports. They have come out very strongly in support of an expanded Heathrow, because they know it will lead to expansion for them and growth and jobs in their areas. We know that, in terms of the economic benefits of the expansion of Heathrow, 60% of those benefits will be outside London and the south-east. So I genuinely disagree with the noble Baroness when she says that it is negative for the regions; I think this is a very positive point for regional growth.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I remind noble Lords of my registered interests relating to Cambridge and Oxford. I welcome what the Government are saying in their focus on the Oxford to Cambridge growth corridor, and the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Vallance. But the establishment of an Oxford growth commission needs to run in parallel with the existing work of the Cambridge Growth Company. Can the Minister tell us more about how the Oxford growth company can catch up in terms of the existing leadership team, budget and local political relationships that the Cambridge Growth Company has now established?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord. As he stood up, I was reminded that he contacted me last week on this point and I owe him a response. I apologise to him for not having got back to him quickly enough. What he said dovetails perfectly with what the Chancellor said in her speech. Clearly, the Cambridge Growth Company has been very successful under the leadership of Peter Freeman. We have now set up a growth commission for Oxford to review the barriers to growth that are holding the city back from reaching its full potential. At the moment, that is a specific team within MHCLG, but it has the potential to grow into something similar to what is happening in Cambridge. I do not think we would see any problem in that happening and developing in that way. What the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, is doing is complementary to that in terms of joining it up.
The whole point of the growth corridor is that we do not see it as two separate cities doing their own thing but instead join them up and see the benefits. People talk about it being Europe’s equivalent of Silicon Valley. All the business reaction post the announcement has been incredibly positive in terms of what it can do and the benefits that it can achieve in attracting businesses into the area. The big problem businesses have is a lack of affordable housing and fast transport to move people about within that region. We are looking to address both of those things. I think we will be very supportive of what the noble Lord says about Oxford.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Chancellor’s speech and the positive statement of intent that it conveys. I put it to my noble friend that one key ingredient is investment in science and technology. I draw the Minister’s attention to one example. We know that we have strengths in the life sciences. A recent report by your Lordships’ Science and Technology Committee, of which I am a member, on engineering biology, indicated an enormous new range of potential growth opportunities. When the Minister and his noble friend Lord Vallance come to consider what to do, I hope that special attention will be paid to reports of that kind, because that is the future.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I 100% agree with everything that my noble friend said. Innovation is one of the seven pillars of the growth strategy. R&D and innovation are absolutely vital when it comes to growth. He will know that life sciences are one of the eight sectors we have selected as part of the industrial strategy, because of the huge competitive advantage we potentially hold in that area. I held a round table last week with representatives of the life sciences sector. They have some incredibly exciting proposals to bring forward. They will be captured when it comes to the life sciences sector plan that we will bring forward as part of the industrial strategy before the spring.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, the history of direct support for industrial investment is not a happy one, with much money wasted and few jobs created. Can the Financial Secretary confirm that the Treasury will continue to take a rigorous approach to assessing support for inward investment, based on the best value for money principles?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Yes, I can, and I am happy to say that I cut my teeth in the Treasury when the noble Lord was Permanent Secretary to the Treasury, and I learnt a lot from him. I very much agree with his view of the Treasury’s role within Whitehall.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, I remind the House of my interests as an adviser to AtkinsRéalis. I was also the Secretary of State who introduced the last Government’s Airports National Policy Statement. The Minister has just said that he expects spades in the ground by the end of this Parliament. We are probably 12 to 18 months away from the new planning legislation so, for now, the Government have to go through an ANPS process. There are then likely to be judicial reviews, albeit curtailed as the Government intend, and then a DCO process. I asked the Transport Minister this afternoon whether he expected to be able to short-cut that process; he said he did not yet know and would not know until he saw detailed proposals from Heathrow in the summer. How can the Minister, and indeed the Chancellor, say they will get spades in the ground by the end of this Parliament? Those who have been through it before know that, unless the process changes, there is no possibility of that happening.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I was lucky enough to be in the House for the noble Lord’s question to my noble friend the Transport Minister, and I obviously agree with what my noble friend said to him. In terms of timescales, the Government have asked Heathrow to come forward with its proposal by the summer of this year, and we have said that we want to confirm planning consent by 2028. That is obviously an accelerated process, but we are determined to do everything it takes to accelerate it. I am confident that there will be spades in the ground at Heathrow within this Parliament. The third runway is part of a wider programme of expansion of Heathrow, including various terminal expansions, so without question there will be spades in the ground at Heathrow. However, we also want to see spades in the ground for the runway within this Parliament.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, as is predictable, the Minister trotted out the usual thing about the black hole of £22 billion. On the other hand, the Government are looking at departmental budgets, which by most people’s reckoning are completely bloated, and looking for savings. What are the chances of those savings well exceeding £22 billion?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for raising the £22 billion—he knows it is one of my favourite topics, and I am always very happy to talk about it. It was obviously one of the most shocking features of our inheritance from the previous Government that they had £22 billion of commitments that they did not fund and sought to conceal from various government bodies. That is deeply shocking and should not be taken lightly. The noble Lord has said to me previously that the Government’s budgets are bloated; most government departments would dispute that, after decades of austerity under the party opposite. We know that public services are stretched extremely thin. I have asked him before for his examples of that bloating, and what savings he would propose. I would be more than happy to discuss any potential savings that he has in mind, but I think they are unlikely to reach the level that he describes.
Lord Bichard (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister reassure both me and the House that the Government and the Treasury understand that growth in the economy is about investing not just in capital projects but in people? We have seen an underinvestment in skills for the last 15 years. Are we going to see another few years when the skills element of growth is not given a priority? We are going to be debating it later in the week; I would like to know whether it features highly in the Treasury’s considerations.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
It does absolutely, and I agree with everything the noble Lord said. Investment in people is one of the key pillars of the Government’s growth strategy, and skills falls under that, so it is a top priority. I talked about how the Chancellor’s strategy is to improve the supply side of the economy and, obviously, skills are a key feature of that and of our ability to grow the economy. When it comes to all the various infrastructure projects we are talking about, we know that we are going to need the skilled labour to achieve them. I am happy to reassure him that it is central to our thinking.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, the Statement says a lot about spades in the ground; it does not say very much about the UK’s woeful productivity challenge. Is the Minister aware that Gareth Davies, the head of the NAO, has said that our public services cost too much and simply cannot deliver? Beyond the skills shortages, what is the Treasury doing to address the level of public spending that we have reached, which has gone from 33% to 36% in the last five years?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. I completely agree with her, which is why the Government have set a 2% productivity target for all government departments as part of the spending review. We have been very clear that, clearly, in a constrained fiscal environment, productivity and reform will be central to delivering better public services. In an environment where the noble Baroness opposite and I do not agree on very much, this is definitely an area where we agree, in terms of the importance of driving productivity not just in the private sector but in the public sector too. Please let me reassure the noble Baroness that this is absolutely top of mind as we consider the spending review decisions that we have to take.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, the key lesson from the last 14 years is that sustained economic growth cannot be secured without improving the purchasing power of the bottom 50% of the population. The two-child benefit cap, the winter fuel payment cut for pensioners below the poverty line and a freeze on personal allowances are just some of the impediments. Can the Minister say when these policies will be reversed and when steps will be taken to secure equitable distribution of income and wealth because, without money, people simply cannot buy products and services?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Although I disagree with my noble friend on some specifics that he raises, I think we all agree that it is right that we have a goal to raise living standards in every part of the UK by the end of this Parliament, which is why that is central to our Plan for Change targets when it comes to the economy. We have already provided stability to the economy, enabling the Bank of England to make two interest rate cuts; we have protected working people by keeping our promises on tax at the Budget; we have frozen fuel duty; and we have increased the minimum wage, and we are now seeing wages starting to rise. All those things are beneficial in terms of living standards. My noble friend will appreciate, though, that we have to grow the economy before we can start distributing the benefits of that growth.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, to return to the Minister’s remarks about innovation, how would he justify to the innovators and risk-takers who are starting up businesses and trying to scale up in the UK the day-one employment rights in the Employment Rights Bill? I refer him to another Select Committee report, published today, about scaling up AI in creative tech businesses and the barriers that they face. These, too, are priority areas for growth that the Government have highlighted.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. I know that this is an area in which she is particularly expert—far more expert, I am sure, than I am. I will say a couple of things. First, I completely agree: it is often said to me that the UK is a very good place to start a business and a less good place to scale up a business. I think that has to be central to our thinking when it comes to economic growth and growing those small businesses. When it comes to entrepreneurs and those who we want to take greater risks in our economy, one of the most important things we can do is ensure economic stability, because the more stable the economy is, the more willing people are to take the risks that we want them to take. She asks about employment rights. All the evidence now suggests that, the more secure a workforce is, the more productive it is. We were talking about productivity before and, on secure rights for workers, workers who are more economically secure are going to be more productive workers in the economy.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, the Minister acknowledged the importance of resetting relations with the EU. I understand the importance of sticking to the golden rules his party has laid down about not rejoining the single market or the EU customs union, but does he acknowledge that it is really important to improve those trading relations as quickly as possible? Therefore, will the Government not just discuss but pursue wholeheartedly joining the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I agree with the noble Baroness’s analysis, and we are absolutely dedicated to resetting our relationship with the EU, which is clearly our biggest trading partner. Following their meeting in Brussels in October, the Prime Minister and the President of the Commission agreed to strengthen the relationship between the UK and the EU, and last month at a Eurogroup meeting of EU Finance Ministers, the first to be attended by a UK Chancellor since Brexit, the Chancellor set out the need for a closer UK-EU economic relationship based on trust, mutual respect and pragmatism. The Chancellor has also said that she is absolutely willing to consider the customs partnership that the noble Baroness refers to. The noble Baroness is also right about speed: we recognise that delivering new agreements will take time, but we are ambitious, we have clear priorities and we want to move forward at pace.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I am glad the Minister found something else to agree with my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe on: the importance of affordable energy for growth. Can the Minister therefore clarify whether the Government endorse the more than doubling of the carbon price in the next five years, which is needed to achieve and deliver another of the Government’s missions—that of clean power by 2030—as set out in the National Energy System Operator report?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that question. I will leave it to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for DESNZ to bring forward the Government’s response in that area.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, Martin Wolf, the chief economics commentator for the Financial Times, this morning noted how trend growth across a wide range of global North countries continues to be at historic lows, reflecting real-world conditions such as increasing dependency ratios, and geopolitical and climate shocks. Mr Wolf said that
“the government could focus on redistribution instead”
of growth. Does the Minister agree with Mr Wolf that something such as a wealth tax could be a way to immediately address child poverty, ill health among working-age people, the housing crisis and the low spending power among the lowest 50% of the population by income that the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, alluded to?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question, but I do not understand the contention at the heart of it. She talks about redistribution, but what is the growth she wants to redistribute if she does not believe in growth? She talks about a wealth tax, but what wealth is it that she wants to tax? She does not believe wealth should be created.
Sudan and Eastern DRC
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the latest atrocities unfolding in Sudan and eastern DRC are a sobering reminder of the human cost of conflict and the duties that we all share to respond decisively and compassionately. A brutal attack on the hospital in El Fasher, which has claimed the lives of 70 patients and their families, is a grim illustration of the callous disregard for international humanitarian law by many of these armed groups. Stories of women and children suffering unspeakable violence shared by the Foreign Secretary from his visit to the Chad-Sudan border really do underline the urgency of our necessary response.
In the DRC, the resurgence of M23 and the appalling reports of atrocities against women and children are heart-wrenching. There has been some fantastic reporting recently from British reporters in those areas. The bravery of the UN peacekeepers who lost their lives in Goma must not go unacknowledged, and we extend our deepest condolences to the nations that supplied them and to their families.
What concrete steps are the Government able to take to help to secure lasting peace in these regions? Diplomatic efforts are of course welcome, but can the Minister clarify how the Government plan to strengthen Britain’s role in African-led peace processes and ensure sustained international engagement, especially with partners such as Rwanda and Uganda, who bear responsibility for much of the violence there? In the other place, the Foreign Secretary said that the Minister spoke to the Rwandan and Angolan Foreign Ministers last week. I would be interested if the Minister could update the House on what he discussed, particularly with the Minister from Rwanda.
It is deeply concerning that Russia vetoed the UK’s and Sierra Leone’s humanitarian resolution at the Security Council. What efforts are being made to circumvent the paralysis of the UN, possibly through regional alliances or coalition-building outside of the Security Council framework?
On humanitarian aid, I welcome the UK’s commitment to increasing assistance, including the additional £20 million for Sudan and £62 million for the DRC. How do the Government intend to ensure that this aid actually reaches those in need, given the persistent blockages and insecurity on the ground, and the dangers for international organisations operating there?
Finally, I echo the Foreign Secretary’s point about the lack of global outrage. The selective attention paid to different conflicts is not just morally indefensible but strategically foolish. Neglecting African crises risks exacerbating instability, illegal migration and the proliferation of armed groups, all of which have consequences for all of us. We must never be indifferent to suffering, regardless of where it takes place. I urge the Government to maintain their focus on these crises, not just in the headlines but through sustained diplomatic and humanitarian efforts. I am sure that the House stands ready to support any measures that bring us closer to peace and relief for the benighted people of Sudan and the DRC.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I am very happy to associate myself with the final remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan.
The House is aware, as is the Minister, of my ongoing interest in supporting Sudanese civilians in exile. The humanitarian suffering continues on an enormous and heartbreaking scale, with what the US had previously categorised as genocide in Darfur, again, and atrocities committed by both sets of belligerents, civilians slaughtered by Chinese drones, reports of chemical weapons being used, and the systematic blocking of humanitarian aid to the communities that need it most, especially women and children.
There are still far too few safe zones, which should have been established many months ago. The Minister is aware that I have supported the Government’s work at the Security Council. It is worth reminding ourselves that, had it not been for the Russian veto, many of the diplomatic actions and work that we have been calling for would have been put in place as a result of the UK-drafted resolution.
The scale is enormous. That was brought home to me when I was in Nairobi last weekend, with civilians in exile, as part of dialogue. One of the former diplomats who is working tirelessly to try to bring about cohesion in the civilian voice told me that his brother had been killed the day before.
For those who are working to try to bring about an end to the war, who cannot return home and who have many family members at home in great peril, this is very real. In a country in which so many of its population face starvation—although Sudan is a country that could feed itself, and indeed export food elsewhere—there are still the basic needs of clean water, medicine and food.
Will the Minister reassert that there should be no impunity for those who are afflicting these terrible breaches of international humanitarian law and war crimes on the civilian population? There should be no hiding place for those who are committing the atrocities, or for those who are systematically blocking food, hydration and medicine. These are war crimes and need to called out as such. I commend the work that the UK is doing with others to ensure that there is the proper collation of evidence, so that there can be consequences to this.
It is not just about those who are afflicting the war crimes; it is about those who are profiting from it. I appeal to the Government to do more to reduce the illicit gold trade. I read a credible report that that part of the economy of Sudan is now more profitable as a result of nearly two years of war than it was prior to the war commencing. That means that near neighbours, including allies of the United Kingdom, are profiting from this humanitarian horror. What work are the Government doing to ensure that there is no profit from war for many of those within the Gulf or near neighbours who are seeking transactional relationships with the belligerents in the gold trade?
The same goes for possibly the most disgusting trade of all: that in human beings. There has been a proliferation of trafficking and smuggling. What actions are all parts of the UK Government taking to ensure that that element of the war economy is closed and there is no future for those who are profiting from war by securing advantage in any form of peace?
I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s visit to the Chad border, and what he has said and is doing, as well as the work of our envoy and diplomats. Indeed, we are lucky to have the Minister for Africa in our own House, and I commend the work that he is doing. However, given the reports that the RSF may be seeking to form an administrative authority of its own, which it will call a Government, can the Minister confirm that we will not recognise or provide legitimacy to the RSF? At the moment, there is too much consideration of what Sudan might be if it becomes like Libya: two Governments—two competing authorities. The RSF may seek to an end to the war but it will also seek to have permanent influence; however, it should have no right to govern Sudan.
Does the Minister agree that there is an urgency to this? We are just a matter of eight or nine weeks from the second anniversary of the war, but there should be no third year. All efforts should be focused on these short weeks ahead to ensure that there is diplomatic effort to bring the belligerents to the table and to create the space where civilians can have the opportunity to govern one civilian-led Sudan at the end of the process.
Can the Minister say what assessment the UK has made of the terrible decisions that the Trump Administration are making on USAID? Have waivers been provided for US humanitarian and food assistance in Sudan? What is the Government’s assessment of the likely impact of the USAID decisions?
Turning to the DRC, there is little surprise that there has been ongoing territorial violence in that region; many have warned about that for many months. I commend the UN forces and any UK personnel who have been contributing to the end of this. I also send condolences to the families of those who have paid with their life in attempting to have peace in this area.
The work of the Rwandan Government and M23 has been raised in this House repeatedly. I raised it in June 2023, when I asked the Minister’s predecessor what actions the UK Government were taking with the Rwandan Government to cease the latter’s funding and support of the M23 group. It was marked that the previous Administration refused to make any public statement, probably because of the partnership agreement that they had signed with the Rwandan Government. I hope that the Government will not be shy of the consequences for UK funding support for the Rwandan Government if the latter continue to support an organisation that has been repeatedly held up for multiple violations of international humanitarian law and human rights abuses. Can the Minister comment on whether the Nairobi and Luanda process has now completely ended?
I close with an appeal to the Minister. What we have seen, both in Sudan and the DRC and with the Trump Administration, is that the need for UK development assistance and presence is greater than ever before. If there was ever an opportunity for the Government to review, take stock and then change course on their cut to development assistance, it is now. As well as helping with conflict prevention and humanitarian assistance, we need to ensure that the UK’s global soft power can be a force for good, and so we should not follow the Trump Administration in reducing official development assistance.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments.
I will focus first on the DRC, because the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asked for an update. I decided that it would be better to discuss this Statement today so that I could afford the House an update on the situation. The United Kingdom remains firmly of the view that all parties should cease hostilities and return to diplomatic talks immediately. Their engagement in good faith in African-led processes is absolutely key. Of course, there can be no military solution.
Noble Lords will be aware that I have been engaged in following this conflict since day one. The very first country I visited was Angola, followed by the DRC and then Rwanda. Throughout those visits, I was focused on President Lourenço’s attempts at a new peace process to ensure that there was an inclusive process that could guarantee a future secure peace.
When I arrived in Angola, the Government there announced the ceasefire, and our attempts since that day have been to ensure that that ceasefire held. When we saw and heard the movement of M23 towards Goma, we made very clear our view that that should not happen and that Rwanda should cease supporting M23—and there was clear evidence that RDF forces were there also, supporting that move on Goma.
When I spoke to the Foreign Minister of Rwanda on 24 January, I made it clear that such a move would have consequences: the international community would respond on a collective basis—and the Foreign Secretary made the same call the next day to President Kagame and repeated that. Now, of course, Goma has fallen and it looks like M23 is determined to move further to Bukavu.
I have had conversations with the Angola Foreign Minister, as well as the DRC Foreign Minister, repeating the fact that we should keep Luanda as a process that is there and which can guarantee an inclusive dialogue if ceasefire is held and the combatants stop fighting immediately. I spoke to the Ugandan Foreign Minister just an hour ago to reiterate that collective view about the way forward in terms of the Luanda process and ensuring peace. The Foreign Secretary has had conversations with European allies, including the EU high representative, and I have also had conversations with European Foreign Ministers on the same subject. Yesterday we had the G7 statement, which very much reflected the United Kingdom’s position of ensuring that those combatants cease their conflict and cease moving towards the second largest city in eastern DRC. I know that the Foreign Secretary also had discussions with Secretary Rubio on this question, and the United States and the United Kingdom both remain concerned about the situation and want to ensure that there is de-escalation and a ceasefire as soon as possible.
We also should not underestimate the huge humanitarian impact of this conflict. Hundreds of thousands of people have been forced to flee since the beginning of the year. Currently, 7 million are displaced, and that has huge impact. We have also seen the terrible rise of sexual violence in conflict, which of course we are absolutely focused on. We also saw foreign embassies attacked in Kinshasa; fortunately, our staff were secure and safe. I have made it clear to the Foreign Minister, and I know the Foreign Secretary made it clear to President Tshisekedi, that the protection of diplomatic staff is essential.
We are going to take the matter forward. We are reflecting on our actions, but we think it is really important that we are sending a very clear message to Rwanda that it must cease this support and return to the negotiating table. We have made it clear that its presence in DRC is unacceptable. So we are not holding back in terms of communications, but we are absolutely determined to support the African-led peace processes, and SADC and the other regional organisations are very clearly coming to that view too. I will keep the House updated on what our attempts deliver, particularly as we move to a further meeting of the UN Security Council. We have already had two on the DRC, and we are absolutely committed to that collective action.
I appreciate the comments of noble Lords regarding the Foreign Secretary’s visit to Chad. I think it is the first visit of a Foreign Secretary to that situation. His visit to Adre, on the border, made absolutely clear our focus on the humanitarian situation and how to get aid in. This has created the worst humanitarian crisis, with half of Sudan’s population, 30 million people, in urgent need of aid, 12 million having been forced from their homes and 8.7 million on the brink of starvation. We need to move this up the global agenda and we are certainly determined to. We have worked with international partners, as a penholder at the United Nations Security Council. Noble Lords have mentioned the Russian veto on our last attempt, but that has not stopped us raising this question at the UN. We are focused on the Secretary-General’s call for the protection of civilians and in particular holding the combatants to their Jeddah commitments, to ensure that there is a mechanism to protect civilians.
We are absolutely convinced that more needs to be done. We are convening a meeting of foreign ministers, hopefully next month, in London, to galvanise efforts on Sudan, in particular on humanitarian support but also in terms of a political solution. The noble Lord knows very well how we have been seeking and supporting civilian actors in Sudan so that we can see a return to a civilian-led government. The integrity of Sudan is absolutely vital. We cannot afford to see it collapse and we are certainly not accepting that there should be any breakaway or any recognition of any force outside the move towards a democratically elected Sudan Government.
Of course, we have recognised the scale of this crisis with an unprecedented response. The Foreign Secretary has doubled UK aid to Sudan this year, as well as visiting the border in Chad to draw attention to the crisis. I am clear that we all must do more. Funding is just one part of the problem. Far too much of the aid already committed is unable to reach those who need it most. We are pressing all parties to ensure that there is safe and unimpeded access to humanitarian support.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, during the previous war in Congo, some six million people died. Can the Minister tell us what he believes is driving the conflict in the DRC, given that what are being called “blood minerals” are regularly sold through the markets in Rwanda? What have we said to our Commonwealth partner Rwanda about the exploitation of the DRC’s natural resources and how this is empowering groups of rebels to take the law into their own hands and to drive on the conflict?
In the case of Sudan, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, referred to the bombing of the hospital in al-Fashir, with the deaths of some 50 people. A further 70 people died in the nearby market as well. What are we doing to collect evidence to ensure that those responsible will be brought to justice? Far too many people who were responsible for the earlier genocide in Darfur are still roaming the land with impunity and fuelling the present conflict. I think the House would like to know what is being done to hold those to account who have been responsible for those atrocities.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I think that the noble Lord appreciates that the issues surrounding this conflict are clearly complex in terms of the history of eastern DRC. We should not forget the genocide that occurred in Rwanda, which after all is only 30 years ago. However, the integrity of the Democratic Republic of the Congo is important, and international law is important. That is what we have been focused on. As I mentioned, we have been supporting inclusive talks so that, where there are concerns, they should be addressed in those negotiations. I felt confident that at the meeting on 15 December we would make progress, but sadly we did not.
I am deeply concerned by the reports from the UN group of experts about M23 and Rwanda illegally extracting critical minerals from the DRC, including coltan. We have made our concerns known and will continue to do so.
On Sudan, the UK condemns in the strongest terms the increasing reports of atrocities being committed across Sudan, particularly in Darfur and al-Fashir, as the noble Lord mentioned. The Foreign Secretary issued a tweet on this subject, particularly in relation to the hospital. We are committed to doing everything in our power to ensure that those responsible are held to account. That means ensuring that those parties remain committed to their Jeddah commitments. We also strongly support the ICC’s active investigation into the situation in Darfur, and we welcome prosecutor Khan’s report and briefing to the council. We are absolutely committed to hold these people to account.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, I commend my noble friend the Minister on his initiatives and his very strong personal commitment of long standing to peaceful solutions to conflicts in Africa. Clearly, both these conflicts depend in part on the lure of natural resources and on external intervention—Qatar and others in Sudan and Rwanda in the DRC.
Can my noble friend say what leverage we have, and are we prepared to use it in a clear form? For example, in 2012, the British Government froze our aid to Rwanda, which led fairly speedily to a solution to the M23 intervention in the DRC. Would we consider a similar intervention?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his comments. The Foreign Secretary’s Statement in the other place last week made it clear that we will be working with our allies, and this is the important thing; we want a collective, international response that shows how serious and concerned we are about Rwanda’s activities in the eastern DRC. The first point is the one made by the noble, Lord Purvis: we have been absolutely clear in our message that it is unacceptable and there should be an immediate ceasefire. I will not speculate on what actions the international community will take, but rest assured they will be serious and will have an impact.
On the extractive industries and the mining situation, it is important to say that, when I first met President Lourenço, we talked about the Lobito corridor; we talked about the potential that Africa, and particularly that part of Africa, has in terms of greening the global economy. It has huge potential, and the DRC has the biggest amount of potential. We have focused in all our talks on saying there is a dividend for peace here—let us look at the future and not focus on the past. Sadly, we were unable to deliver that vision at the 15 December summit, but I am confident that we can refocus efforts on that and ensure we focus on progress in Africa.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, following on from the Minister’s point and what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, Rwanda is now exporting more gold and, in particular, more smart tech minerals than it is producing in country. So is there an argument for this Government to put pressure on the major tech companies to look at their global supply chains? Especially as, for example, the UN group of experts pointed out that there is now compelling evidence that minerals smuggled out of the DRC have been used by Apple in constructing its latest generation of iPhone.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
As I have said, we have seen those reports from the mission and expressed serious concern about the exploitation of those minerals in the eastern DRC for the benefit of both M23 and Rwanda. We have expressed our concern. Again, I will not speculate on what action the international community takes, but the noble Lord can rest assured that we are determined to act on a collective basis that has the most impact.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I commend my noble friend the Minister on his comprehensive presentation. Clearly, it the most awful of situations, and I would like to say a word about the exploitation of children in the extractive industries, which I am sure the noble Lord agrees with. Very many children who should be in school are in mines in the DRC. As the Secretary of State noted in the other place, there has been a 16% increase in what he described as irregular migration from Sudan. On that basis, can the Minister say whether we are considering the possibility of safe and legal routes for people who may be in a position to leave Sudan, particularly those who may have family in the UK? I realise that that is very far from the answer to this problem, which should be African-led and should take place in Sudan.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right in her latter comments. Since the conflict began in Sudan, 3.6 million refugees have fled to neighbouring countries, including Chad, Egypt, South Sudan, Uganda and the Central African Republic. As the Foreign Secretary said, we have already seen an increase in people crossing into Europe, with the number of Sudanese people arriving irregularly to the UK increasing by 16% from the previous year to 2,882. Not only is UK aid vitally needed on humanitarian grounds but it will help people to stay within their immediate region. Having 3 million people trying to cross the Mediterranean is just not acceptable. We have to focus on those neighbours and on a solution for Sudan. We are committed not only to ensuring that we deliver the humanitarian aid that is so vitally needed now but to finding a political solution that ensures that we return to one Sudan, with a civilian-led Government who will put the interests of the Sudanese people first. That is what we need most.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my entry on the register in working for organisations committed to conflict prevention and resolution. In commending the Minister and his efforts across the piece, I put on record our thanks—I know, having sat where he is, the focus that a Minister engaging at this level brings. Turning to the important responsibility he now carries on preventing sexual violence in conflict, as the Minister will know, the biggest tragedy of all the tragedies that unfold in conflict is that it is the most vulnerable, particularly women and girls, who are targeted in the most abhorrent way by crimes. Over many years, we have supported the Panzi Hospital in the DRC and the excellent work done by Dr Mukwege. Can the Minister please update the House on our continued support for these initiatives that are helping victims at a time when they are facing the worst kind of tragedies and violations of their being?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Lord is right. I met Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Edinburgh last week and we talked about that hospital and the vital need to support it, and we continue to do so. As the noble Lord knows, the situation is extremely difficult. With fighting going on between combatants, it is extremely difficult to get in the support that is required, but we are committed to doing so and are supporting every effort to do so. He is right that we should focus on ensuring that the voices of those people suffering such abuse are heard. We have done that in Sudan—we raised it at the UN General Assembly, where we held a meeting so that survivors could speak—and we are determined to do that in the DRC. Many of those in internally displaced people camps have suffered from all kinds of sexual violence. We are focused on supporting them with aid and support, and giving them a voice so that the leaders of the DRC and Rwanda can hear the true consequences of their actions.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the Minister referred to the genocide 30 years ago in Rwanda. I suppose nobody in your Lordships’ House can feel that more painfully than me, since I was the British ambassador to the United Nations at the time. I am all too well aware that, along with the rest of the international community, we did not come out covered with glory. But we really cannot allow that argument to justify the invasion of a neighbouring country, with the Rwandan military force operating in the DRC. Rwanda has used that argument again and again. Has not the time come to say very clearly—perhaps privately—to the Government of Rwanda that we are not prepared to justify or condone what they are doing in the DRC because of our failings in the 1990s?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I hope I made it absolutely clear that we have communicated to the Government of Rwanda that it is totally unacceptable to invade a neighbouring country and to have forces present there. We have made that absolutely clear. When I spoke to the Foreign Minister of Rwanda, I attempted to halt that advance, as did David Lammy when he spoke to President Kagame. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I acknowledged that there are complexities to this conflict and issues that need to be addressed in an inclusive peace process. We were nearly there on 15 December—agreement had been reached. Sadly, one of the parties decided, right at the last moment, that they would not participate. We then saw the sudden surge and advance of troops towards Goma. We tried to stop that; sadly, we could not. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is right that it is totally unacceptable to invade a neighbouring country in the way that Rwanda has.
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
Monday 3rd February 2025
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 View all Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 53-I(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (3 Feb 2025)
Lord Davies of Gower
“Purpose: protection of premises from terrorism(1) The purpose of this Act is to protect premises from terrorism.(2) The Secretary of State must, in taking any actions under the provisions of this Act, have regard to this purpose.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the purpose of the Act, namely to protect premises from terrorism.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this amendment seeks to insert a new clause before Clause 1 that aims to clearly establish the purpose of this important Bill: namely, the protection of premises from terrorism. Before I begin, I was very sorry to hear that there has been a stabbing and subsequent death at a school in Sheffield this afternoon. I know I speak for the whole House when I say our hearts go out to the victim, their family and the people of Sheffield at this difficult time.
The events of recent years have made it tragically clear that terrorism remains one of the gravest threats facing our nation. The horrifying attacks at the Manchester Arena, London Bridge and Borough Market are seared into our national consciousness. These atrocities were targeted not just at individuals but at our entire way of life. They were aimed at places where people come together to live, work and celebrate life. It is the duty of government to protect our citizens and public spaces from such evil, and that is precisely what this Bill seeks to achieve.
I again pay tribute to Figen Murray. Without her work in campaigning for this Bill, it is unlikely that it would have come before your Lordships’ House. We owe a duty to the victims, survivors and families to get this Bill right. Legislation must always be crafted with clarity of purpose. A Bill without a clearly articulated objective risks confusion during implementation and unintended consequences.
That is why this amendment is so essential. It explicitly states:
“The purpose of this Act is to protect premises from terrorism”,
and requires the Secretary of State to have regard to that purpose when
“taking any actions under the … Act”.
The Bill is of the highest importance, and the Official Opposition will take a constructive approach to scrutinising it to ensure that we can deliver these urgently needed security measures in the best way possible. We have already tabled a number of priority amendments to the Bill.
During a meeting with me and my noble friend Lord Sandhurst last week, the Minister indicated that the measures under the Bill may not be implemented for at least two years. I am sure the Minister will confirm that today. I must express my concern about that timeline. Two years is a considerable length of time between the passing of a Bill and its measures taking effect. As we have seen all too often, terrorism does not wait. Therefore, we will be tabling additional amendments to ensure that the Bill comes into effect as soon as possible, to ensure the Government deliver on their promises promptly and effectively.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord in the desires that he expressed, but in my view those desires are not assisted by this amendment. It is otiose and tautological compared with the rest of the Bill. Sir John Saunders, in his recommendations in volume 1 of his three reports on his excellent inquiry into the Manchester Arena events, emphasised that it was necessary to place the duties on individuals—to make sure that individuals took their responsibilities properly—and that indeed has been the objective of the campaign led so well by Mrs Murray.
In my view, if one reads Amendment 1 and then the Long Title of the Bill, one sees that the Long Title covers everything included in Amendment 1 and an awful lot more. My view is that we should not enter into a discussion about what in the abstract is required of premises; that is not what the Bill is about. It is about placing on individuals enforceable responsibilities, the failure of which would provide serious consequences for those individuals. That is why we are here, and that is why we should stick to the Long Title without this amendment.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am minded to support the amendment, but maybe that is because I am a little uncertain about how we are going to ensure that what we all want, which is to protect the public, is guaranteed by the Bill. I worry about a certain mission creep. At Second Reading, a lot of people quoted Sir John Saunders saying:
“Doing nothing is, in my view, not an option”,
but I also quoted Yvette Cooper, the Home Secretary, who quoted him as saying:
“Equally, the Protect Duty must not be so prescriptive as to prevent people enjoying a normal life”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/10/24; col. 625.]
As I understand the aim of the amendment, it is simply to ensure that we do not forget what the point of the Bill is. Whether we like it or not, regulatory powers have a tendency of leaving their original aim and growing or going elsewhere. In that sense, I want to ensure that we do not forget what the Bill is about, and that means this amendment. It might seem silly to say that, and tempting to say, “We won’t forget what this Bill is about”, but a lot of the evidence in relation to the Bill does not indicate that the specific measures in it will actually keep people safe from terrorism. I do not doubt that it puts a huge amount of responsibility on individuals, but I do not know that the end result is going to be what we intend it to be. I was of a mind to think that the amendment might help to keep focus; that is one of the things that I was attracted to.
One of the things that is nagging me—and I am going to raise it here because it seems an appropriate place—is that, if we are going to say that the aim is to protect people from terrorism, we also need to know what we mean by terrorism. I am not being glib. The Government themselves have noted that the Bill is partly in response to the changing nature of terrorism—we now have lone-wolf terrorists; it is not straightforward, so we cannot just rely on the secret services and so on—so the changing nature of those terror threats requires this regulation. However, I do not know that we are closer to knowing what that definition of terrorism is. We can all say, as we all will, that we want to pass a piece of legislation that will keep people safe from terrorism, yet we have decided that we do not know how to define terrorism.
Let us think of the official confusion in relation to Axel Rudakubana. As one journalist pointed out last week, saying that he was known to the authorities is an understatement. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, pointed out that this is about putting responsibility on individuals but, in that instance, it is hard to name an authority or individual who did not know the threat embodied by that young man, including the police, social services, mental health services, counter-extremism services, education establishments and Childline. He actually said, “I am going to be a mass murderer”, and we know about the ricin, the al-Qaeda manual, and so on. Yet he was not labelled a terrorist. I worry that, if we are confused about our definitions, in relation to this Bill as well, there could be problems.
I have a final point on this. I also worry precisely because we have decided, or declared, that terrorism is changing—I do not challenge the idea that there is something in this—such that somebody who created ricin and had an al-Qaeda manual was not labelled a terrorist. He did not fall through the net—he was caught in the net—yet, none the less, as has been pointed out, nothing was done.
At the same time, we have an expansive slippage between the notions of extremism and terrorism. It has become very unclear what we mean. It might be a joke, but it was revealed over the weekend that the report commissioned, albeit rejected, by the Government, featured a reading list indicating dangerous, far-right extremism that could lead to terrorism. A viewing and watch list was included, featuring Michael Portillo’s “Great British Railways” programme and “Yes Minister” as potentially indicating a problem.
You know, that is, like, “What? How mad”. The reason I am mentioning it is that I do not want mission creep in relation to definitions, or in relation to the regulatory aspects of this Bill. I am terrified of the unintended consequences for community organising, civil society, venues and so on. I just think there is nothing wrong with a very specific reminder of what we want this Bill to do. That is what attracted me, at least, to this amendment.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I of course approve of the Government’s overall intention behind the Bill. However, I have serious concerns about how it will be implemented and whether it is necessary to have this wide range of powers on quite small organisations, events and places that will have events coming within the scope of the Act—when it is an Act—only once or twice a year. We could have real problems there.
My concerns are similar to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, from whom we just heard. There is a real need for focus, and for the Secretary of State, when making regulations, to get them sharply on the point. This is especially so in relation to the likely impact on smaller businesses as well as voluntary and community-run organisations in the standard tier premises. There is a lack of evidence that the Bill will adequately reduce the threat of terrorism to smaller organisations, if indeed they are likely to be at risk.
There will be problems too for one-off and occasional events, which may attract quite large numbers, but in informal surroundings. There will be a big burden on them. How will it really work? So, the purpose is necessary. Just because there are going to be 850 people at an event, do we really need the whole panoply of this Bill?
In 2023, the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee produced a report, which, for those who have not looked at it recently, is well worth looking at. It was a careful and well-evidenced report that addressed the then draft Bill. I know that things have moved on since then, but the conclusions reached by that committee on the evidence to which the report referred highlight areas that need to be addressed in the approach to be adopted today.
The committee pointed out that in the 2010s—a slightly different period from the one that my noble friend Lord Davies opened on—there were 14 terror attacks. A lot of those involved knives; there were also vehicle attacks, bombs and one firearm. This was in the 2010s. The majority were out of scope of what is in the Bill: they were on the streets, on Crown premises such as barracks, or on transport. Those would not be covered by the Bill, yet they were the bulk of the attacks. This Bill is irrelevant to them.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I have to admit to being unclear, after what I hope will be a short debate of 20 minutes, as to what exactly this amendment is for. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, wanted a mini-Second Reading debate, because that is what we have had. I remind him, and noble Lords who have spoken, that this is Committee and not Second Reading. The arguments should therefore be addressed to the amendment concerned.
I am also unclear, when I look at Amendment 1, what it actually adds. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said that the Long Title of the Bill really spells it out. If that is too much for anybody who is unclear what the Bill is about, simply look at its title: “Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill”. Does that not really rather sum it up? Why do we need this clarificatory line to say:
“The purpose of this Act is to protect premises from terrorism”?
You just have to read the title of the Bill; it says that already.
Noble Lords have talked about mission creep and the problems of defining terrorism. Can I just make one point quite clear? If, as a citizen, you become involved in an act of violence, you are not going to worry about whether the individual concerned meets a particular category of terrorism. What you want is immediate action and somebody coming to protect you. The Bill is about trying to prevent that initial act of violence. This amendment adds nothing and is pointless. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, whom I respect on so many issues, said that the Opposition’s purpose is to get the Bill implemented as soon as possible. I suggest that introducing amendments like this will not add to that cause.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, made one point with which I agree. It is that there is a need for focus. Unfortunately, this amendment is not focused. He talks of the threat of terrorism: the Long Title and the text use the term “acts of terrorism”, and that is where the focus needs to be.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, this has been a short debate on Amendment 1. If the Committee will indulge me, I am keen to very briefly set out an overall approach from these Benches to Committee stage. I reiterate that we support the Bill. We recognise that families and survivors have already had to wait a very long time to get this important legislation on the statute book, but we believe it is also important to get clarity on certain areas of the Bill and to probe the thinking behind some of the drafting, so that it can be the best Bill possible. I also pay tribute to Figen Murray and the campaign team. They have done an amazing job, but there remain areas in the Bill that are very much a framework. Greater clarity, as well as reassurances from the Minister, would be helpful.
I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, regarding Amendment 1. In fact, I was sitting in my office this afternoon thinking, “Isn’t that exactly what the Long Title of the Bill says, so what is the added purpose?”. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, but I am afraid that I too did not really hear the additional purpose of his amendment. As I see it, the purpose of the Bill is about public confidence and public protection, as well as the protection of premises. In other words, it should be about people as well as just premises.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, it is about people taking responsibility for themselves. It is about making sure that people feel safer when they go to a venue or an event. On Saturday, I happened to go to a theatre in central London where I was asked to open up my rucksack. I also went to a very small private museum on Sunday, staffed by volunteers, where I was not only asked to show my rucksack but had it confiscated and put in a locker. These things do not necessarily cost money, since at that museum they were volunteers.
The Bill should be about introducing measures that minimise the risks, making sure that venues and events have a plan in place and a person responsible for implementing that plan
“to reduce the vulnerability of the premises”
as it says in the Long Title of the Bill. The Bill is also about making sure that there is a plan in place in the tragic event that an attack happens. One of the main problems that I see with this amendment is that it sets out only part of what the Bill aims to do. Yes, the Bill is about protection of premises from terrorism, but it is also about having plans in place to minimise the number of casualties in the extremely unfortunate case that an attack occurs. We should remember that people who are involved in an attack have injuries for life—and not just physical injuries. They can also have emotional and mental health injuries. For that reason, from these Benches, I am afraid that we cannot support this amendment.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for this short debate on Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower. He was right, at the start, to remind us of the reason why this Bill has been put in place, as did the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. That is because of attacks on Borough Market, on Manchester Arena and on London Bridge. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned a death today in Sheffield, about which I pass on my sympathies to the family. I cannot comment in any more detail at this time, but ongoing investigations will take place.
I understand the intention of the amendment, but, if I may, the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey have endorsed what I would have said from this Front Bench about the Bill. The Bill has a Long Title, which I which will not read for the convenience of the House, but it is on the face of the Bill, and that is relatively clear as to what the purpose of the Bill is. The Bill is designed, as has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, to ensure that premises and events in scope are better prepared for an act of terrorism, should one occur. We have taken some expert advice on what that should be, and the consideration is that there are certain measures that could be put in place which, if they were in place prior to a terrorist attack occurring, could potentially save lives.
For ease of Members, although we are jumping ahead slightly, I refer them to Clause 5, which sets down a number of public protection measures that are required. This goes to the heart of what of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, mentioned about what we should do in the event of an attack. In Clause 5, the Bill sets down a range of measures, including
“evacuating individuals from the premises … moving individuals to a place on the premises or at the event where there is less risk of physical harm … preventing individuals entering or leaving the premises or event … providing information to individuals on the premises or at the event”.
They are specifically in Clause 5 and, later on, in Clause 6, setting out clear objectives for both public protection procedures and measures. Those procedures are designed to reduce the risk of physical harm being caused to individuals if an act of terrorism were to occur.
I am straying into the sort of Second Reading debate area that we have had, which I do not want to do, but the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, and others mentioned the issues around the scope of the Bill, the cost of the Bill and other issues there. We have taken a measured approach and have made some changes, based on consultation, raising the level of the threshold in the Bill from 100 to 200, with a later second tier of 800. That will reduce the number of venues taken into the scope of the Bill from 278,900 down to 154,600, with 24,000 in the higher tier; so we are cognisant of the fact that there were, potentially, a number of areas where that would have brought a lot more premises into scope and created much more difficulty for people.
What we are trying to do with this legislation is to establish the principle that we have requirements in place which are there for low-level training and support for individuals to be able to understand what happens in the event of a terrorist attack. Again, I said at Second Reading that, downstream, we have to undertake a lot more work to prevent any attacks in the first place; but, in the event that one happens at a premise in scope, we have to ensure that measures, as in Clauses 5 and 6, are in place. I think that the Explanatory Notes, the Long Title and the clauses that I have mentioned meet those objectives, but that is for the Committee to determine.
I will add one more point, if I may. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, talked about the two-year period for implementation. By all means, let us have a debate about that downstream, but, again, what this Committee is trying to do—and what the Government are trying to do in supporting this House and supporting the objectives of Figen Murray and the campaign—is to make sure that the measures in place are effective; are implemented in an effective way; have proper oversight and regulation from, as we will discuss later, the Security Industry Authority; and that we give consideration to all other bodies impacted by the Bill to allow time for them to undertake the training, undertake and understand the legislation and put preparations in place.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the participation of noble Lords in relation to this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, talked about it being tautological, but it is not intended that it should be a repeat of something. As I said, the idea is to make it a Bill that has clarity, with an articulated objective. That is the purpose of the amendment and, indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, said that it ensured the point of the Bill. Clearly, there is a disparity of opinion in the House, but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Davies of Gower
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment brings the definition of a “building” in line with other areas of legislation.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, this amendment seeks to bring the definition of “building” in this Bill into alignment with the definition provided in Section 121 of the Building Act 1984. At first glance, this may appear to be a purely technical adjustment, but it is one that holds practical significance and improves the coherence of our legislative framework. Consistency in legal definitions is essential for ensuring that legislation is clear, workable and enforceable. By adopting a well-established definition already enshrined in the Building Act 1984, this amendment offers several distinct advantages.
First, it ensures legal certainty. The term “building” appears across numerous pieces of legislation that deal with construction, planning, safety and environmental concerns. Diverging definitions introduce the risk of ambiguity and could result in unintended consequences or legal disputes.
Secondly, it supports efficiency and clarity for all stakeholders—whether they are local authorities, developers, legal practitioners or enforcement bodies. A single, consistent definition avoids the need for unnecessary cross-referencing and interpretation, reducing administrative complexity and the scope for conflicting judgments.
Thirdly, this amendment aligns with wider efforts to create a streamlined and harmonised regulatory environment. With the increasing need for integrated approaches to construction and building safety, clarity in our definitions becomes all the more vital. Moreover, this amendment ensures continuity. The definition under Section 121 of the Building Act 1984 has stood the test of time and has been tested in practice. It is familiar to professionals across the construction and legal sectors and therefore provides a trusted and robust foundation for any regulatory measures contained in the Bill.
In conclusion, this amendment may seem modest, but its impact on the clarity, coherence and efficiency of the legal framework is significant. I urge your Lordships to support this sensible and pragmatic change, which would uphold the principles of legal certainty and good governance. If the Minister is unable to agree with my proposed definition, I hope that he will at least take on board our concerns about the definition of premises and look to bring forward an improved definition on behalf of the Government so that we can get the Bill right.
I will now speak to Amendment 3, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. This amendment proposes to include in the definition of building any permanent or temporary structure. This amendment draws inspiration from Section 30 of the Building Safety Act 2022. It seeks to clarify that the public protection requirements should apply not only to permit edifices but also to temporary structures, such as those erected for events such as Christmas markets or other seasonal activities.
I commend the intention behind this amendment. The safety and protection of the public must be at the heart of any legislation concerning the built environment. Temporary structures often serve as focal points for large gatherings, where the potential risks associated with terrorism can be just as significant, if not more acute than in permanent buildings. When saying this, I have in mind the horrific terrorist act on 20 December 2024, in which a large 4x4 was driven into a crowd at a Christmas market in Magdeburg in Germany, killing six people and injuring at least 299 others. Equally, we saw over the Christmas period a vehicle attack in New Orleans. I can fully understand why the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has tabled his amendment, which is similar to mine, and aims to probe whether the scope of this Bill will apply to temporary structures.
I will also speak to Amendment 20, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to Clause 5. This amendment seeks to leave out the words “immediate vicinity” and replace them with “or at the event”. This is a probing amendment, intended to clarify the scope and meaning of the term “immediate vicinity”. I commend the noble Baroness for bringing forward this important question, as the phrase “immediate vicinity” is inherently vague and open to interpretation.
When drafting legislation, particularly provisions that relate to events, gatherings or the use of premises, clarity is paramount. The lack of a clear definition raises several practical concerns. First, from an enforcement perspective, ambiguity around the term “immediate vicinity” may cause confusion for regulatory authorities and event organisers. How far does “immediate” extend—is it 10 metres, 100 metres or further? Does it take into account natural barriers, such as walls, fences or roads? Without clear guidance, there is a risk of inconsistent application and potential disputes.
Secondly, for those responsible for ensuring public safety or compliance with regulations, the lack of a defined perimeter could lead to uncertainty. Event organisers need to understand precisely which areas fall under their responsibilities for security, crowd control and other measures in this Bill. A clearer definition would also aid in drafting licensing conditions and emergency response plans.
Thirdly, we must also consider the practical realities of modern events, which are often sprawling and multifaceted. Many public events, such as festivals, markets and sporting events, naturally extend beyond a single well-defined boundary. In such cases, the concept of “immediate vicinity” may prove too narrow to cover all relevant areas where public safety measures are required. By replacing “immediate vicinity” with “or at the event”, this amendment seeks to broaden and clarify the scope, making it more effective for the diverse nature of events and gatherings.
In the context of this discussion, we need to be very clear about which premises will be affected by the Bill. I have used my amendment to probe this, alongside the other noble Lords who have tabled amendments in this group. There may be existing regulatory frameworks that adequately address the safety requirements for temporary structures, such as those enforced by local authorities or event-specific safety regulations. Care must be taken to avoid unnecessary duplication which could impose additional and potentially disproportionate administrative burdens on organisers of short-term events.
In conclusion, I wish to use my amendment to open a discussion on the nature of a premises. I commend the spirit of the amendments from other noble Lords, which also seek to address this issue. I look forward to hearing from them and would encourage ongoing dialogue with stakeholders to explore how best to address the safety concerns around temporary structures, without placing undue burdens on event organisers or enforcement bodies. I beg to move.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 3, which is in my name. Like the amendment which has just been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, my amendment addresses the definition of qualifying premises in Clause 2. My amendment proposes that the definition in Section 30 in the Building Safety Act 2022 is the more appropriate place to look for guidance, given the nature of this Bill.
The definition in Section 121 of the Building Act 1984 was designed for a measure which laid the basis for a wide-ranging system of building regulations relating to the construction of the buildings themselves, whereas the focus of this Bill is rather different. As the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said, it is concerned as much with the people as it is with the buildings. That suggests that it is better to look for a shorter definition in the Bill itself, rather than borrowing from the 1984 Act, so that we know exactly what we are dealing with.
It seems to me that a definition is necessary here to make it clear—if that is what the Government wish—that the protection of the Bill should extend to temporary buildings. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, has done quite a lot in introducing the purpose of this amendment for me in his introduction. Like him, I have in mind the horrifying episode in Magdeburg in December, when a lorry drove into a crowded market and caused appalling injuries to people. When that happened, we had a market in Edinburgh, which was set up as temporary buildings in a fairly crowded space; it was full of people. If you are a terrorist, you look for a soft target and it struck me that that was another extremely vulnerable target, because people would be in considerable difficulty unless arrangements were made for evacuation in a hurry and so forth, and unless there were other measures to avoid the perpetration of acts of that kind.
To an extent, my amendment is a probing amendment. On the one hand, I am seeking an assurance that the Government have considered this problem, given the paramount purpose of the Bill. It must be beyond argument that the purpose extends to securing the safety of members of the public who gather together to visit markets of that kind, where what is on offer is displayed in hastily erected facilities that are here today and will be gone tomorrow. As I said, those who are planning acts of terrorism may see these as soft targets and exactly the places they would want to go. If the protection of the Bill is to extend to these places, it is better that the Bill should make this plain.
There is another reason I suggest that it would be helpful to include the words in my amendment. The public protection measures provided in this Bill need to be enforceable if they are to be effective or, to put it another way, they must be capable of being enforced. It would be unfortunate if attempts to extend these measures to temporary buildings of the kind that I have in mind were to be frustrated because it was open to argument in a court that they did not fall within the meaning of a building for the purposes of this Bill. One wants to avoid uncertainty of that kind, which is why it is better to spell it out in this Bill in the very few words I suggest.
I also have in mind the point the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, mentioned when discussing Amendment 1. One has to be very careful not to overload the people who are trying to provide entertainment services to the public with measures that make these enterprises either too difficult or too expensive to operate. There is a real question for the Government to consider on whether temporary situations of this kind are to be protected in the way the Bill is designed for.
My amendment is probing because I suggest that this issue is one that needs to be carefully thought about. I look forward to the Minister’s reply. It may well be that he will return on Report with an amendment, if he thinks that is right. It might be my amendment, or—the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, might be fond of this—it might be that it does not extend to temporary buildings, which is another way of looking at the problem he has raised.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, we are with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on this. If the market to which he is referring is the one I am thinking of, dispersing people from that site would be very difficult, with a bloody great rock and a castle in the way.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for his support of my amendment, but I am afraid I am going to question one part of his amendment. The section in the Building Act 1984 refers to a
“permanent or temporary building, and … any other structure or erection”,
including
“a vehicle, vessel … aircraft or … movable object”—
there is mention in the section of hovercraft. I find it difficult to see how this would be quite the right reference for the Bill.
We have Amendment 20 in this group, which seeks to take out the reference to “immediate vicinity”, and is a probing amendment. This would mean that the objective would not include reducing the risk if an act of terrorism occurs in the immediate vicinity of premises or an event. That is not what we are aiming to achieve; we are aiming to understand, and allow interested organisations to understand, what “immediate vicinity” means. A lot of organisations that briefed us are concerned about this; owners and operators want to comply with the law, take all reasonable steps and do the right thing, but they are not quite sure what that means.
We have heard about grey space, which is the public space outside a building where, by definition, event organisers and security personnel have no control, and only the police can control them—for instance, an area where people queue on a pavement to enter premises but are outside neighbouring premises, or queues which cross over one another.
I assume that the words
“so far as is reasonably practicable”
are the key to what immediate vicinity means in any given situation. Does that phrase mean only what is physically practicable, as a matter of physical layout and the scope for protective measures, or where it is appropriate for an owner to control what goes on, or is it also what is financially practicable, and is that related to the scale of an event or the activities taken over a period as a whole, or to the financial position of an owner of operator? The Explanatory Notes say that what is reasonably practicable is to put in place particular procedures, but I am not quite sure that that answers the point.
It strikes me that what is in the immediate vicinity of any building may affect insurance issues, such as the premium payable by the owner or whether a claim by an owner is met by insurers.
As well as the Minister clarifying the point today, if he is able to, can he tell us whether the Home Office has considered the need for guidance, perhaps with examples of what is in the immediate vicinity? However, as I typed that, I thought that that could be confusing, because if an example is not there then people may think that it would not apply. What help can the Home Office give, or ensure that the Security Industry Authority gives, to help the assessment of whether an area is within the immediate vicinity of premises?
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I will deal with Amendments 3 and 20; I do not wish to say anything about Amendment 2.
So far as Amendment 3 is concerned, I am sure we have all attended many events that have taken place in large, demountable premises. It is a long time since I have been to the International Eisteddfod in Llangollen, but certainly the last time I attended the arena was a demountable premises—I would have called it a building—that could be packed up on lorries, taken away and stored somewhere. We have all been to sporting events in premises like that. It is a bit of a puzzle to me as to why, in Clause 2(2), the Government diluted the word “premises” by referring to buildings in Clause 2(2)(a). I urge the Government to consider, before Report, putting a definition of premises and/or buildings in the interpretation section at Clause 33. It is my belief that, subject to whatever decision we reach in your Lordships’ Committee about the number of people attending an event which brings those premises within this Bill, we need to include demountable premises.
I turn next to Amendment 20. I mean it when I say that anything that the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee or Lady Suttie, say, I treat with great seriousness, having known them for a very long time. When I hear the noble Baronesses say something together then I treat it with even more respect. However, I have looked at their amendment, alongside Clause 5(2). I urge the Government to consider whether their amendment dilutes the effect of this Bill, rather than achieves their aims—and I do not wish that to happen.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I will respond to that very quickly, because I was waiting for the “but”. It is a probing amendment. I looked for ways to introduce the concept of immediate vicinity in order to question it, and this was the first time where I could do so. I hoped that that would be clear. I certainly am not seeking to dilute the Bill, merely to seek clarity.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I understand and accept what the noble Baroness was attempting, but Clause 5(2) refers to
“if an act of terrorism were to occur on the premises, at the event or in the immediate vicinity of the premises or event”.
To me, that seems to fulfil all requirements.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am slightly wary, because I want to probe what we mean by the definition of buildings. I find these issues interesting. but I am less interested in them technically and will probably be accused of steering into Second Reading territory.
I genuinely think that trying to clarify what we mean by “building” is important. It speaks to my fear that the Bill might unintentionally dampen down civil society, have an impact on grass-roots activity and lead to a hyper-regulation of public spaces. I do not think that is what it intends to do, so I urge the Government not to expand beyond a narrow view of what a building is.
I was struck when a village in Lincolnshire was forced to cancel its Christmas fair, after it had been told to block off roads due to the risk of a potential terrorist attack. In a discussion on this, somebody noted that it was because there were worries about the impact of Martyn’s law, when it becomes law. I did a little digging and discovered a number of organisations that said that councils and other organisations were citing Martyn’s law guidelines—as we know, it is not a law—in a risk-averse way, pushing back against large gatherings such as bonfires and so forth.
My nervousness is that this law will be used to push a precautionary principle when it comes to civil society. I get anxious about that, so the last thing I want to do is to interpret any gathering, temporary or otherwise, where there are a lot of people, as a building or structure. Somebody just made a point in relation to markets and Christmas markets. One organiser said, “If this carries on, I doubt we will continue, as it takes all the joy out of it”. I just remind the Committee, to go back to the Home Secretary’s point, that the aim of the Bill is not to destroy the capacity of ordinary people to gather, because that would be to let the terrorists win. So, whatever way we come down on our definition of buildings, let us not forget that there is a cost to pay if we overinterpret this to say that, “There is a large group of people; terrorists can attack them; close everything down”. In which case, the terrorists will have won, and what is the point of that?
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, whichever way we look at this, I suggest that it is absolutely plain that we need a clear definition of “building”. A number of good points have been made. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, made a good suggestion. The amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is also a good one. There is merit also in taking at least part of the Building Act, but “building” needs to be defined. Thus, I think it must be clear, when one considers it, that Section 121(2) of the Building Act is not completely apposite, because it does include the words,
“a vehicle, vessel, hovercraft, aircraft”.
One could include the definition there but exclude expressly those words or any other bits. One could do it by reference to the Building Safety Act, or it may be that the best route is to go to the definitions section at the back, look at the two existing statutes that are in place and take a good definition combining those where appropriate. I suggest that we certainly need a proper definition of “building” at the back, which must include demountable, collapsible buildings—things that very often look almost like a tent. Are large tents to be included, or a circus site event which could hold 500 people? If we are going to protect people, let us get it right.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, has put his finger on it. It seems to me that, if it is a large tent and 500 people are gathered within it, then somebody ought to be making arrangements to ensure that people are protected. That is what the Bill is about. I have listened with great fascination to the discussion about where we draw the definition of “building”. I always tend, because I am prejudiced that way, that when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, gives us a view on definitions, we should take serious note of that, because in my experience he is usually right. I leave it to the Government to come forward with what they think is a satisfactory definition that embraces what we need.
Ultimately, what we are trying to say with this legislation is that people who organise public events, whether they are formal events, community events, concerts or whatever else, should be thinking in advance, “Is this going to be secure?” That also means thinking about what I will do if somebody over there commits a terrorist act that has an implication for the people who are gathered in my event. I hope that my noble friend, when he replies, will say that the Government will look again, will gather together all those with strong views on the definition of “building”, temporary or otherwise, tents or not, and work out what works best. I think that our objective here is quite clear: that people should have a responsibility for the protection of people when they have gathered them together for whatever purpose.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 20. First, I say in passing, on the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, about the scope of the Bill, that terrorism is very well legally defined. It is either violence or the threat of violence for a political purpose. How that is interpreted depends on the political purpose and the act. It is a broad definition, and some may wish to change it, but it is well understood within the criminal law.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
My Lords, I may be accused of intruding, because I have not been here for the whole thing. It just interests me that, on one side, we are talking about what is in Clause 5, what we do when a terrorist incident takes place, and on the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was mentioning how we prevent it. From a Northern Ireland perspective, we had places and events every day of the week that were open to terrorist attack. Yes, having the facilities in place to enable us to take action if it takes place, but then there is also what we do to try to stop it taking place, making it more difficult for the terrorists to do it. We therefore channelled them, unfortunately, into working around what we have put in place.
When we are talking about buildings—I am sorry that I am not technical enough—what about the places outside where people are waiting? I do not understand why we need a building, alone, for the Bill, because people are under threat when they come together in large numbers. That is crucial. We had many events that did not involve buildings at all. Listening to this, I just think that we are not quite linking the two things together to make a good argument, a good reason and a good result for, first, trying to prevent it and then making sure that our protection is far enough away that it does not endanger people.
I shall give a simple example and then I will stop. We had vehicle checkpoints on the border, and they were easy to bomb and blow up to begin with, because people drove into them. It was not suicide, so it is not that far different, but proxy, where people drove into the middle and blew it up. Then we started using electronics—I know these cannot be used for every event—where we moved the protection further away, so that people had to come through that first. But then you create a queue on the other side. All I am saying is that to me, the lay person, I am not sure that we are not slightly confused about where this terrorist attack is going to take place. I cannot think that they consider only buildings.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I was not going to be involved in this, but I have a history of ministry in this country, including over the summer months, and after Easter, there are many gatherings that all meet in large tents. Big tops can house up to 10,000 people. If the clause is limited to buildings, so many vulnerable places and open spaces will be left out.
In this country in the summer, there are incredible gatherings—particularly of young people—that do not take place in what you would call a building. They will be in the big top. Subsection (5) tries to define “premises”, which is a much more flexible word than concentrating on “buildings”. Of course, some meetings will be taking place in buildings. The heart of all of this, however, is large gatherings of people—particularly of young people in the summer. Noble Lords would be absolutely surprised by how farmers lend their land for these kinds of concerts, which can go on for a while.
The people who organise these events, such as spring harvest, hold the responsibility for the protection of people, as laid down in the Bill—not because it takes place in a building but because of the event itself. So I would want to look for a tighter definition than what a building is, because I think we know what a building is. I want the events, where they take place and those responsible to have the same due regard as those who have big theatres. So, will the Government continue their flexibility in their definition as they did in subsection (5)? They may borrow some of the phrases from these amendments, but just remember that we get gatherings that are just so vast, you would not actually be providing protection against terrorism for that many people.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I have three brief points to make in response to this rather interesting short debate. My first point relates to Amendment 20, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. As my noble friend said, it is very much a probing amendment that resulted from organisations that organise events and have premises but are unclear as to the definition. They are people who want to do the right thing but want a greater explanation on the record from the Government as to what it actually means in practice.
My second point continues the flattery of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. If the noble and learned Lord is asking a question, I feel it is one that has to be answered. He is asking the right question although, as he acknowledges, perhaps he has not come up with the right answer yet in terms of the wording. I hope the Government will return to this before Report with some of the suggested wording, taking on board the various points that have been raised.
My third and final point relates to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. In many ways, the noble Baroness hits the nail on the head; we should not let the terrorists win. But that is what the Bill is about: it is about getting the balance right between not letting terrorists win and yet letting the public feel safe to go to events and public buildings and not worry, because they know that somebody, somewhere has thought about what to do in the case of an attack.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That was an interesting group. I thank noble Lords for tabling the amendments; they are worthy of discussion and I hope I can answer each point in turn.
Essentially, there are two issues: the definition of “building” and the definition of “immediate vicinity”. I will try to answer the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Suttie, in their amendments.
Amendment 2, in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord De Mauley, seeks to amend the definition of “premises” in Clause 2(2) so that the term “building” refers to the definition at Section 121 of the Building Act 1984. The Bill has carefully defined qualifying premises and qualifying events to ensure that it is able to appropriately catch the wide range of premises and events that there are, and the definition in the Building Act sadly does not align with this.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, sort of stole my notes on this, because she commented that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, includes a number of moveable objects, such as transport items and transport purposes. I confess I did not know that before the amendment was tabled, but research helps on these matters. Having looked at what the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, has said, there are parts of the definition in the Bill that are not replicated in the Building Act. The term “building” is commonly used and the Bill relies on this ordinary meaning. We do not want to over-define terms that are already well understood, particularly where doing so may create confusion or indeed loopholes.
For those reasons, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the extension to transport objects—including hovercraft—means that the definition of “building” in Section 121 of the Building Act 1984 is not really appropriate for this definition today. I hope the noble Lord can accept that and I hope my comment reflects what has been said in Committee today.
I turn now to Amendment 3, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. It was interesting, and I understand the intention of his amendment. I have not been in this House long, but I sense that the noble and learned Lord’s contributions are ones the House listens to; so I understand and accept the point he has brought forward today.
Clause 2(2)(b) specifies that “qualifying premises” must be wholly or mainly used for one or more of the uses specified in Schedule 1. These uses cover activities where the premises are accessible to or used by the public. I hope I can reassure the noble and learned Lord that temporary buildings can form part of such premises. I hope that will give him the reassurance he seeks in relation to his amendment.
The amendment would extend the scope of Clause 2 to include temporary buildings or structures even if they are not a feature of the usual activities undertaken at the premises. For example, where a field is not in scope, erecting a very temporary structure for the purposes of an event, such as an annual village fete, could draw the field into scope of Clause 2 under this amendment. It may not normally meet the conditions elsewhere, by the very nature of the building being put up, but it would then be drawn into scope by his amendment.
The Government are mindful of the many temporary and one-off events that occur across the UK, many of which will draw large crowds and consist of temporary structures such as tents and staging areas. It is the Government’s intention to capture these events under Clause 3. We have carefully designed the criteria to do so, in a way that strikes a balance between achieving public protection and avoiding undue burden on businesses, organisations and local communities, as we have heard from a number of noble Lords, again including the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst.
To that end, we are not looking to legislate for all events and Clause 3 carefully clarifies this. As such, open access events that do not have such checks in place will not be in scope of the Bill. The Government do not consider it appropriate or practical for events that do not have these types of controls and boundaries in place to be in scope. Again, I understand why the noble and learned Lord tabled his amendment, but I hope that on reflection he can accept the points I have made and will not take his amendment further.
Amendment 20 is important, because it asks for genuine clarification. I hope I can give clarification to both noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Suttie, on this amendment, which seeks to examine the meaning of “immediate vicinity”. I want to first reassure that the duties under the Bill do not require responsible persons to implement procedures or measures that are beyond their control. Self-evidently, there are some things in the immediate vicinity that will be beyond their control: for example, erecting safety equipment on pavements or other land for which they are not responsible outside the premises.
As I have already set out, the purpose of the Bill is to require people in control of qualifying premises and events to take steps aimed at reducing the risk of physical harm to people in the event of a terrorist attack that might directly impact their venue. An act of terrorism close to a building may also result in physical harm to people inside that building, as well as to people queuing, entering, exiting or even just passing by. Therefore, when considering appropriate procedures and measures to reduce physical harm from, and vulnerability to, terrorism, it is right that duty holders also think about what they should do for their premises in the event of an attack taking place just outside.
We have not deliberately chosen not to define “immediate vicinity” for the purposes of this Bill. The Bill relies on what we term the ordinary meaning of those words. What constitutes the immediate vicinity of a premises or event will depend on its specific circumstances. If the Bill were prescriptive and, for example, to stipulate a certain distance from the premises, it would undermine the flexibility with which requirements can apply to a range of venues in an array of different places. For example, the procedures appropriate for an inner-city pub are likely to be quite different from those for a sprawling visitor attraction in the countryside.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
I am grateful. Will the Minister undertake to think again on the point I made about certainty when you meet resistance from people with a temporary facility wondering whether they have to go through all the trouble and expense of complying with the measures in the Bill. The problem is that it is quite easy for a lawyer to construct an argument to point to the Building Safety Act, which says that “building” means any “permanent or temporary” building. It does not say that here, so it raises a question as to whether temporary things are covered at all. The way to cut out that argument completely is to include those few words, which I am not sure would do any harm at all to the Bill.
I am not asking for an answer now, but I would be grateful if the Minister would consider very carefully whether there is an advantage in certainty, given that it is important that these measures are capable of being enforced, to avoid arguments going round in circles as to what “building” really means.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I have tried to impress on the Committee that we think that the type of circumstance that the noble and learned Lord has suggested is covered by the Bill. I will obviously examine Hansard and the contributions again in the light of the discussion, but I remain convinced that the Bill meets the needs that the noble and learned Lord is concerned about. However, reflection is always a good thing and I will certainly examine his comments in detail.
I had a sense of a looming intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, before I sit down, but I am obviously just generally nervous of his potential interventions coming my way.
I hope I have satisfied noble Lords and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Suttie. With that, I hope that the amendments are not pressed. I will look at Hansard and at the comments made.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I will not try to answer any points about Amendment 20. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, mentioned it but did not really emphasise whether his amendment, or a similar amendment referring to temporary structures, would do any harm in this context. I do not think it would, but it is a discussion that we should have.
The Minister is quite right to be wary of any body language demonstrated by the noble Lord sitting immediately opposite me—you never know what is coming.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has made his case and I have made mine. His words are always worthy of examination, and that I will do.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, Section 30 of the Building Safety Act 2022 or Section 121 of the Building Act 1984, that is the question.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, makes some strong points, particularly in regard to whether it is capable of enforcement. That is an extremely important point. A number of other important points have been made by noble Lords. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, about people attending events without having to worry and having a relaxed time is very important. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, makes an extremely helpful point about wanting a good definition, which includes collapsible buildings, and he talked about circuses with up to 500 people. All in all, this is a definition that requires some further discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, is right that it is for the Government to come forward with a definition that satisfies us all. On that basis, perhaps we can go away, have a discussion, and come back at Report with something that satisfies all of us. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Sandhurst
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and the other in the name of Lord Sandhurst to Clause 2 seek to remove the reference to “from time to time” and provide a benchmark by which the attendance at a premises may be measured.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I can be quite short on this. The purpose of this amendment is to address the use of the words “from time to time” in the context of defining the premises to which the obligations will apply—whether from time to time 200 or more individuals may be present or, in the case of the enhanced duty, 800. It is a probing amendment. I acknowledge straight away that “not less than once a month” may not be the right definition, but there had to be something, and “from time to time”, I suggest, is simply too vague.
Is it to be once a year? If you have an event every year, that is “from time to time”. As is presently defined, the premises are caught if
“it is reasonable to expect that”
a given number of individuals may be present “from time to time”. An annual event might be caught, but what happens if it is just someone who does something from time to time? As a lawyer, I am very uncomfortable with this, and I can see the arguments that lawyers much cleverer than me will produce.
The premises are ordinarily qualifying premises only in the sense that they have a capacity of 200 or 250, but they may have an annual day to which 750 come one year and 900 come another. Will that come into this category? They may even have an annual day to which a bit over 800 might be expected. If that is so, the full panoply of the Act will fall: not just to the qualifying premises events but to the enhanced premises events. It is important to be clear about what you want to catch, who will be subject to enhanced obligations, and what is proportionate and necessary to keep people as safe as we reasonably can without creating unnecessary barriers and boundaries. I ask the Government simply to look very carefully at the words, “from time to time”, and to consider whether a better definition could be employed.
Amendment 11 suggests a provision that, where premises are
“assessed as low risk by an independent safety assessor”,
they are to be
“exempt from the duties imposed under this Act”—
in other words, you can have an opt-out. It might be that that would be applicable only to lower categories of events, but it is certainly worth looking at. If you have a good record, you would not do it tomorrow. However, in a year or two, everyone will have experience of how this works—the regulator will have that experience—and, if they see that a given place is well regulated and well run, it will not need to be within the full panoply of the Act.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, despite supporting the Bill in general, I strongly support Amendment 11, which I will speak to. An assessment of risk, which is generally agreed to be appropriate in all aspects of modern life, seems to be absent from the Bill. Any premises or event, regardless of the real risk of it being attacked, must take a series of potentially very costly precautions.
It is worth noting that of the 15 terrorist attacks to which the impact assessment seems to refer as the main basis for the Bill, six were in London, two in Manchester and one in Liverpool, and all were in urban areas. In fact, all of them were in areas that had tarmac underneath them; not a single one was in a rural area. Does that suggest that it is right to treat events in rural settings as being as high risk as those in urban areas? It is like applying 20 miles per hour speed limits throughout the entire country: it might marginally improve safety, but at a cost of bringing the economy to its knees. In their search for economic growth, is this really what the Government want? I urge them to introduce a little good sense and allow there to be an assessment of risk in these situations.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will be very brief. I urge the same in relation to that amendment: having a specific risk assessment and some flexibility and common sense. I will ask the Minister about how you can have that flexible attitude to buildings.
I was very impressed by the letter from the Minister on places of worship. It was very sensitively handled, and it understood, as it said, the unique work of faith communities and so on. It did not say that no faith community buildings would be exempt, but it understood that they could be treated differently, with a certain sensitivity for what their roles are. We heard a number of very good speeches on that at Second Reading which asked the question, “Well, if you can look at a church or another place of worship in that way, why can’t you look at somewhere else like that?”
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I too shall be very brief. We believe that all three amendments would have the effect of watering down this draft Bill and reducing the number of premises that would be covered by it. These amendments are working on the assumption that smaller events and venues are less at risk. Can the Minister say whether the Home Office has done any analysis on whether it is indeed the case that smaller venues are less at risk from terror attacks? Is that not, in itself, an assessment of the unknown? It seems to be the case that terrorism and extremist-related attacks are increasingly unpredictable and random in nature.
Noble Lords have talked about the compliance burden. Again, I would like to know a little more about how the Minister would see that in reality. Am I right in assuming that, in the 24-month rollout period before the Bill is implemented, the Government will continue to carry out extensive consultation with the sector and adopt a pragmatic, realistic and common-sense approach, following their consultation with the industry?
As I said earlier to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I feel that this is about striking a balance between not discouraging creativity and not causing a considerable financial burden to small venues and small events, while maintaining a sense of security in the public. Public confidence and a sense of security play a huge role in people’s minds when they consider whether they will go to an event or venue. People feeling unsafe is not good for business.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 11, standing in my name, as well as Amendments 4 and 9 in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst.
Amendment 11 seeks to establish an exemption for premises which have been assessed to be in a low-risk category by an independent assessor. As the Minister knows, we have concerns about which premises will be required to implement security measures under the Bill, and we feel that there should be some flexibility for the premises that are affected by it.
It may be that the correct flexibility would be delivered by Amendment 22, in the name of my noble friend Lord De Mauley, which will be debated later in Committee, or by Amendment 8, in the name of my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth. However, the overriding point here is that there must be some flexibility in approach.
Not all premises that are currently caught by the Bill are in need of these additional measures, and it equally may be the case that the Bill as drafted will miss a number of premises that are in need of them. We hope the Government will listen to these concerns and engage positively so that we can ensure that the right premises are required to put in place the appropriate measures to protect the public from the risks of terrorism. This amendment would make this judgment an independent one, taking the discretion out of the responsibility of the department and giving premises that are at low risk access to a route to exemption. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s remarks in response to this debate, and I hope he will engage with me as we seek to deliver the flexibility I have spoken about today.
I will now speak to Amendments 4 and 9 in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandhurst, which seek to clarify the Bill’s language around the frequency of a premises breaching the capacity threshold. As drafted, the Bill says that the measures will apply when a premises reaches the threshold in the Bill “from time to time”. This is far too vague, and the organisations affected by the Bill need clarity now. My noble friend Lord Sandhurst has rightly seized on this point and argued forcefully for the need for clarity today. While I expect that the Minister will tell us that this can be addressed through guidance, it is important we get clarity in the Bill.
To establish a way forward, I ask the Minister to set out what timeframe the Government expect to appear in the guidance. If the Government can answer that question today, can he explain why that timeframe cannot appear in the legislation itself? It is our view that setting the timeframe in law would give businesses and other organisations which will be regulated under the Bill certainty that this definition will not be altered through guidance. I hope the Minister can see how the lack of clarity on this point in legislation could leave space for the timeframe to be changed over time, which could see more venues caught by the rules than is appropriate, and Parliament would have no input in that process.
As I said in the opening debate in Committee, the seriousness of the issues involved in this Bill means we must get the legislation right. We will listen carefully to the Minister’s response to this probing amendment and look to table constructive amendments to Clause 2 where necessary at Report.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am again grateful to noble Lords for the constructive way in which they have approached the amendments before us. If I may, I shall start with Amendment 11, which is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. The first and foremost point I want to make on Amendment 11 is the one that is made to me as Minister by the security services. The threat to the United Kingdom from terrorism is currently substantial. Terrorists may choose to carry out attacks at a broad range of locations of different sizes and types, as attacks across the UK and around the world have shown. As I have explained during the passage of the Bill, the Bill is not about preventing terrorist attacks—that is the job of our security services and the police. The objective of the Bill is to ensure that public protection procedures and measures are put in place to reduce the risk of physical harm if an attack occurs and the vulnerability of premises and events to attacks.
The key point for the noble Lord is that this is not related to the particular premise or a particular time, be it rural or not and inside or outside the scope of the Bill. It is about ensuring that the threat, which is substantial, is recognised, and that can happen at any premise and at any time. That is why we believe the amendment to be well-intended but not in keeping with the objectives of the legislation, so the Government cannot support Amendment 11 for those reasons. If the Government took a position on setting a size threshold in the Bill and considered the noble Lord’s amendment the right approach, we would end up discarding a large number of premises that could, due to the threat being substantial, be subject to attack. That point was made very clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, in her contribution.
Amendments 4 and 9 have been tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. They would change the provision of Clauses 2(2)(c) and 2(3)(a), which provide that, to be in scope as qualifying premises, 200 or more individuals must be reasonably expected to be present on the premises at the same time in connection with uses under Schedule 1 “from time to time”, as we have stated. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord would change “from time to time” to refer to the number of individuals expected “not less than once a month”. This would change both the number and range of premises caught by the Bill either at all or at enhanced duty premises.
The Government’s intention in bringing forward the Bill is to ensure that we examine that, where significant numbers of people gather at premises, steps have been taken to protect them against terrorism. This should be the case whether the relevant thresholds are met on a daily or monthly basis or less frequently. An assessment based on the number of people expected at least once a month would not take into account the myriad ways in which different premises are used and attendances fluctuate over the course of a year. For example, there is the seasonal nature of sports grounds and visitor attractions, and a monthly assessment would take those premises out of the equation.
Therefore, I hope the noble Lord is again offering me a probing amendment to examine, but I cannot support its current phraseology.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We are trying not to define what “from time to time” is because, for example, if a premise on one day of the year met the threshold, that would be from time to time, or it might be monthly or daily. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, would mean a prescriptive assessment on a monthly basis, and that in my view would not be sufficient, given the substantial level of the threat.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
I understand the difficulty that the Minister is in, but the point I am trying to make is that it is important that those operating the premises know what they are required to do. Unless they know what “from time to time” means, it is very difficult for them to do that.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Without straying into other parts of the Bill, I would hope that people and premises that fall within scope of the Bill, be it a 200 or an 800 threshold, would have clarity over their responsibility areas. If they look at Clause 5, “Public protection procedures”, they will know exactly what is required of them for those public protection matters that fall within the scope of the Bill. So, whether it is “from time to time” as in one day a year or as in every week or every month, if we are more prescriptive, as would be the case under the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, we would take out a number of premises that—even if it was only one day a year, as the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, mentioned—would still meet the criteria of the scope of the Bill. My judgment is that the measures in Clause 5 are important but not onerous. They are about training, support and examination of a number of areas. Therefore, if from time to time, one day a year, a premise falls within scope to meet the objectives, the responsible person needs to examine the premise and look at the measures needed in place. That is the reason.
I say that not because I want to impose burdens on a range of bodies but because the terrorist threat is substantial. While the terrorist incidents have occurred in large cities, there is no likelihood that they may not occur in other parts of the country. Therefore, those measures are required within the scope of the Bill. From my perspective as the Minister responsible for taking the Bill through this House, it is important that they are required on a “from time to time” basis, not on a very prescriptive monthly basis. That is why I urge the noble Lord not to press his amendments.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
In the case of an enhanced premises, where there is an event of 1,000 people once a year but for the rest of the year there are never more 200 or 300 people going through, does that bring it into that category? You are normally just “qualifying” premises and so must have the facilities and systems in place to deal with a terrorism event if, heaven forbid, such happens, but if, now and again, you get to 800 people, does it mean that you have to search everyone coming and going throughout the year or is it only when there is the event? That is where I have concerns.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I hope that I can help the noble Lord. There are two categories. There is a 200 threshold and an 800 threshold. If a premise crosses the 200 and/or the 800 threshold, it will be responsible for undertaking certain activity as prescribed by the Bill, common to which are the items in Clause 5. From time to time, if an event is over 800, it will have to go to the levels of the Bill for those thresholds of businesses and premises over 800. That is the nature of the proposal before the House in this Bill.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, regarding Amendment 4 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, we need to define exactly what we mean by “from time to time”. Is it a decade? It must be defined if organisations are to understand their responsibilities. At the moment, it is unclear. In my Amendment 11, I seek merely to establish an exemption for premises that are assessed to be in a low-risk category by an independent assessor. We have genuine concerns about which premises will be required to implement security measures under the Bill.
I have heard what the Minister has said, but I am not entirely convinced. This is an issue that we will take away and consider before Report. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, the amendment leading the group was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, so he should have replied and he must formally withdraw it.
Lord Frost
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would raise the minimum threshold for a premises to be a “qualifying premises” to 300.
Lord Frost (Con)
My Lords, without making this a Second Reading debate, as we have discussed, I want to repeat the degree of scepticism that I expressed at Second Reading about the value of this Bill. Of course, the threat of terrorism is real; of course, it is important to deal with it by every possible means, but it is equally possible that this Bill will end up with a lot of bureaucracy, paperwork and assessment without doing anything to deal with the threat of terrorism whatever. However, it is the Bill that we have, and we need to do all that we can to make it workable and get the detail right. That is why I have tabled Amendment 5.
I can be quite brief, because this is a fairly simple concept and a core provision in the Bill—as to where premises are caught and affected by the standard duty. This threshold will determine the success or failure of the Bill; it is this threshold that will capture popular opinion about the Bill when it eventually comes into force, and it is this threshold that determines whether, if you are a volunteer or run a business of any kind, you can carry on as you did before, being prudent about the terrorist threat, or whether you have a new set of formal legal duties that you must pay attention to. As I said at Second Reading, when you make something law, you are telling people that they must pay attention to that above the purpose of their organisation. That is what making it law means.
This is where the Bill is going to bite. This is the area where volunteers may decide that they no longer want to continue in what they are doing. It may be the area where they give up. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, said, it may be the area where it takes away the fun, the point, the raison d’être of the activity from those who do it. Therefore, it is important to get the threshold right.
As I said at Second Reading, I accept that the Government have taken a step, raising the threshold from 100 to 200, which has significantly improved the Bill. However, my Amendment 5 would raise that threshold to 300. I have two points to explain why that higher threshold is worth considering.
First, I do not think that we have had a proper explanation yet of why 200 is the right number. The shadow Minister raised this question in Committee in the Commons. The responding Minister’s only explanation was that
“300 would significantly impact the outcomes of the Bill, and particularly what the standard tier seeks to achieve”.—[Official Report, Commons, Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill Committee, 31/10/24; col. 68.]
That is obvious, but why? We need a little more understanding of why it is 200 rather than 300 and why it is any particular figure other than the arbitrary seeking of a number. One Minister said something like that in the Commons: “We’ve got to decide a number, and this is that number”. However, it is such an important number that it deserves some proper thought.
Secondly, lots of activities are still caught by this 200 threshold. The impact assessment says that it is 154,000. That is down by nearly half from what it would have been at 100, but it is still a lot—that is one premise for one activity for every 450 people in the country. For a threshold of 200, that is quite a significant figure. An occasional capacity of 200 people is quite a small number of people. One in eight village halls are still caught by this threshold. The Music Venue Trust says that a sixth of its premises are caught between the 200 and 300 thresholds. These are not small numbers, but they are still relatively small activities. That is the point. We must try to set the threshold at a point where we are not capturing those who do not need to be caught by it.
Is the Minister confident that the threshold really must be so low? Can he give a clear explanation for why it has to be set at that level? Can he go beyond explaining that it is simply arbitrary, that it has to be set somewhere and that 200 is the right number—end of discussion? We need a little bit more debate than that and I hope that we might get it now.
Lord Udny-Lister (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 6 and 7, in my name, follow a similar line to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Frost. His request is that the threshold moves to 300; mine is that it moves to 400 or 500. The truth is that I do not think there is a magic number. I think the number was first 100, and I am grateful to the Minister for moving it to 200, but as the noble Lord, Lord Frost, said, there is no particular reason for this number. It can be almost any number; it is just that you capture more and more businesses, village halls and voluntary organisations by going for the lower number. I want to push for this to be debated fully this evening, because this is one of the core issues within the Bill and something that needs a lot of time.
The amendments seek to increase the threshold and exempt smaller venues. That would be so important for so many of them. It is about viability and costs, as many businesses are struggling with all the costs that face them. The Government should be trying to protect them and these premises from further resource pressures. Therefore, it is the damage that is going to be done that I ask the Government to think about. By raising the threshold, these amendments would alleviate the administrative and financial responsibilities involved and associated with implementation, while concentrating resources and efforts on larger premises, which will always be higher-value targets for terrorist activities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made a very important point in an earlier group. Every time we do anything like this, we say to the terrorists that they have had another victory and done something more, by making us start to change our lives—that is what is happening here. I feel very strongly that we need to minimise the effect on the people of this country, as much as we possibly can, and go for the largest number that can possibly be considered. I cannot believe that there is not an argument we could have which would enable the Government to accept a number of 400 to 500; they may wish to consider the 800 number, but that is another issue. I am less concerned about that; I am concerned about smaller organisations—the voluntary organisations and smaller business—and the chilling effect that this will have.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, when I heard about this Bill originally, one could see and understand that it made sense for Wembley Stadium or somewhere of that nature. But when under the last Government, not this one, I saw that the figure of 100 was being used, I realised how many small businesses and small organisations such as church halls would be affected. It made me ask a question, which the Government have rightly answered. All the consultations and pre-legislative scrutiny, and all the trade organisations that were asked, have said there is very little evidence that, for the safety of small venues, this legislative regulatory framework will keep people safe. What it is guaranteed to do is stymie entrepreneurship and volunteering in local areas, and make people think that it is just not worth organising events or staying open.
I congratulate the Government on having listened to that and for raising the standard tier from 100 to 200 people. Having done that, the question is why they stopped at 200—why not 300 or 400? These numbers are not rocket science, and this is not a glib or silly point or playing games. That is why I raised—rather badly, a moment ago—that, on the numbers game, education settings and places of worship are classified as standard duty premises, regardless of their capacity, because they are different kinds of premises.
We know that it does not have to be this number or that number otherwise people will be killed in terrorist offences. The Government are prepared to be subtle and flexible, and this Bill can be the same. It is worth us probing why the Government stopped at 200. I would go higher, because I am very worried that it will stymie community organisations and small businesses, which will just fall apart.
The Government have a mission of growth and keep saying that they believe in it. They do not want to be saying to new companies or to the hospitality industry that they are going to have to fulfil overregulatory bureaucracy to survive. It is not that such organisations do not care about their clientele or staff; it is that this Bill does not just demand that they think about that but that they must fulfil, under threat of law, a particular set of regulatory mandates. It is difficult; that is what they have all said.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 8 similarly seeks to raise the threshold for mandatory compliance with the requirements of the Bill to
“300 people, or, if smaller”,
where
“the Secretary of State determines that the premises are at a heightened risk of terrorist attack”.
This is a more flexible measure than the amendments proposed by my noble friends, although I entirely agree with the sentiment of the speeches that we have heard from my noble friends Lord Frost and Lord Udny-Lister, and in an earlier group by my noble friend Lord De Mauley.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, observed a moment ago, the Government were entirely right to increase the threshold from 100 to 200, but I suggest that 200 is still too low and will cause disproportionate expense and disruption to small businesses. In particular, I will focus on the potential impact on community volunteering.
In engaging in the balancing act of the protections which this Bill will afford, one must look at the history of the type of terror attacks that we seek to address. As my noble friend Lord De Mauley observed in his remarks, they are largely urban and at large venues. While the Minister is right to say that attacks can happen at any premises at any time, it is also right to say that there is a greater risk at certain types of venues and in certain locations, and that is borne out by the history of terrorist attacks. It is therefore incumbent, I suggest to the Committee, that this legislation adopts a flexible approach to risk. I have sought to reflect that in my Amendment 8.
I suggest that we must have a proportionate approach, or this legislation will have the effect of closing largely community venues, much valued by people up and down this country. One needs look only at the Home Office’s own impact assessment, produced with the Bill. At page 9, the authors note that among respondents to the survey of premises with a capacity of 100 to 299—the owners of smaller premises, places of worship, village halls and community centres—only four in 10
“agreed that those responsible for premises within the standard tier should have a legal obligation to be prepared for a terrorist attack”,
and
“Around half … reported that the revised requirements would be difficult to take forwards … Six in ten … were at least somewhat concerned that the cost of meeting the standard tier requirements will affect their organisation’s financial ability to continue operating”.
This Bill is a sledgehammer that is going to crack the nut of our village halls. I ask the Minister: if, two years down the line, after the implementation of these procedures, we find it is very difficult for village halls to find trustees and volunteers who are prepared to take on the legal obligations of the enforcement regime that this Bill imposes and those village halls start to close, what will the Government do to undo the damage wrought to our communities by the closure of these much-valued venues?
I strongly commend my amendment and a measure of flexibility to the Government and the Committee this evening.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, not for the first time in a debate on terrorism in your Lordships’ House, I have to say that I do not want to be the person who in a few years’ time says, “I told you so”. This Bill is about terrorism. If a terrorism act resulted in the deaths of 20, 30 or even two or three people in a hall that was holding a qualifying event that had 232 people, for example, in the audience, in both Houses we would be saying, “Something’s got to be done. We got this wrong”.
I remind your Lordships that one of the most notorious and most damaging terrorist attacks this country has ever seen took place in a public house in Birmingham. So the idea that we hold a sort of numbers auction on the capacity that qualifies under the Bill is, I am afraid, foolish and wrong. Indeed, I am very concerned about this debate on numbers, because it runs the risk of being part of a playbook for terrorists to read—and many terrorists do read very carefully, both on the internet and elsewhere, when they are making their decisions.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
On that basis, there would be no numbers, no tiers and no distinctions at all in this piece of legislation. One of the most shocking and barbaric actions happened recently with the group of—what was it?—40 young children at a dance class. Those of us trying to seriously probe what regulation would mean based on numbers—because there are numbers in this Bill—does not mean that we want to encourage terrorists to go in and kill people in any circumstance. It is wrong, because a lot of the terrorist things that have happened recently have happened because we did not do something before, not because of the numbers of a venue and regulation—for goodness’ sake.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
If the noble Baroness had waited until the end of my next sentence, I would have answered her question. I recognise that we have to set some number. It was suggested that there was no reason for a figure of 200. Can I just remind your Lordships—because it has not been mentioned yet in this debate—of part 8, volume 1, of the Saunders report? Sir John said, at paragraph 8.43, which I am sure all noble Lords will have read with care:
“An important question for the government will be whether setting the level for the Protect Duty in the first category at venues with a capacity of 100 or more is workable. Very different issues will arise for venues capable of accommodating an audience of only 100 people and one capable of accommodating many thousands such as the Arena”.
That is the Manchester Arena.
The stated aim of the consultation on which those comments were based, said Sir John,
“is for ‘light touch’ regulation. While that may be justified when dealing with smaller venues, it seems to me that different considerations should apply to larger commercial premises. Not only are the potential consequences so much more serious but, for that reason, these premises are more likely to attract the attention of terrorists. They are also likely to have greater resources to put protective measures in place”.
In the final part of what I regard as a very important quotation from Saunders, he says, at paragraph 8.45:
“I recommend that when considering the shape of the legislation, the government considers whether it will be necessary to have further categories above the 100 capacity. While categorising by capacity may be the most straightforward way of deciding on the nature of the Protect Duty to be imposed, there may be other factors that need to be considered. For example, it may be appropriate to use different capacities depending on whether the venue is indoors or outdoors. This will need to be considered”.
I also know, as many other Members of this Committee will know, that Figen Murray and those such as Brendan Cox, who have been the backbone of her campaign, have researched these matters with care, and they were asking, on the basis of the evidence they obtained, for a lower figure of 100. I accept that we have to have some figure, but it must not be one which is part of the encouragement or playbook of terrorists.
The Government have accepted that that figure of 100, which Sir John Saunders had in mind and which was adopted by Mrs Murray, should be raised to 200 and have nuanced the legislation in various parts of this Bill, exactly as Sir John Saunders anticipated and recommended should be done. I therefore believe that this is a reasonable balance and that we should now recognise that this is a proportionate and nuanced provision and stop playing about with these numbers.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
My Lords, I too recognise that inevitably we have got to fix a figure, and that is for this House and/or another place to do. I would just like to say one thing about Amendment 8, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murray, where he says,
“if smaller, the Secretary of State determines”.
One has to see the reality of that, which is that this would probably happen anyway—although I support his amendment—to the extent that how or why would the Secretary of State intervene? He would intervene only because of intelligence.
We have to remember that it is not just what we all think in here. Our intelligence services have kept us safe—touch wood—we are told from many planned incidents over the last few years. Therefore, regardless of the number being six or 800, we rely on them to come through and tell us where the threat is. We have been talking about whether it is a small premises that is attractive to terrorists or a large one, or whether it is a significant name of an event or whether it is the people attending. They will go first to find a target that will gain them the maximum amount of attention. They then say, according to what happened with us and I am sorry to go back to it, “Which one is easy for us to go for?”.
We cannot decide that in here. But we must put the numbers down. I agree with Amendment 8 from the point of view that it recognises that the Secretary of State must have the power to intervene on any event, and not just necessarily the Secretary of State but the police and the intelligence that leads to some form of action on it. So I do support the amendment.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased that we are having this debate. I am not going to decry the three previous groups, but this actually comes to the nub of what I suspect what this Committee stage will be about.
I listened very carefully to what the noble Viscount just said. I have to say that it is quite possible that, under any set of circumstances, the police or the security service will have identified a high risk. Under those circumstances, I hope they would intervene and I hope the organisers would take it extremely seriously and respond—and actually, I suspect that in every single case they would. But the fundamental issue, which is raised by this set of amendments, is not what is the burden of this but what is the risk appetite that the people who are organising this event, and that we as a nation have, about the event concerned?
Every organisation, when it considers its risk register, will consider its risk appetite: what are we prepared or not prepared to tolerate? This figure is, of course, arbitrary. It could be 100; my personal belief is that it should have remained as 100, but the Government consulted very widely, listened to the views that were expressed and came up with this number. So we are presented with 200. A terrorist attacking a premises of 199 is potentially going to kill a very significant number—as many as were killed at the Manchester Arena. They may not be able to injure quite as many as at the Manchester Arena, but they could cause immense damage.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
What is the noble Lord’s risk appetite for closures of community venues and village halls as a consequence of these provisions if the threshold is set too low?
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
That is what it means to consider your risk appetite: you consider the risk of something dreadful happening and the risk and the consequences associated with trying to address it. That is the choice we must make. I suspect that ultimately we are going to disagree on this. My risk appetite, because I do not really like being killed in the name of some terrorist or other ideology, is that I would prefer the number to be smaller; I would prefer it to be 100. I accept that some noble Lords opposite would rather see the figure set higher. We have a different view of the risk appetite.
My answer to all these amendments is that the Government have consulted widely and responded to that consultation. They have increased the number from 100 to 200. Personally, I am prepared to accept the risk judgment made by Government Ministers on that basis. That is the way in which we should approach it. We will all have different numbers in mind and different views of risk appetite, but ultimately we expect our Government to take a sensible, balanced risk appetite, and I believe that this is it.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, at the risk of incurring the ire of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, while we are on the subject of nickel-and-diming over numbers, how did the Minister settle on a figure of 800 attendees, above which an event becomes a qualifying event and compliance becomes significantly more expensive? It is quite a specific number. One might have expected a round number, such as 1,000. What specifically led the drafters to go for 800?
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, as other noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Carlile, have said, there are many who feel that 100 would have been a better threshold, including many of the families of the victims. There is no amendment to reduce the threshold to 100, which is a shame, not least because I know it is what many in the Martyn’s law campaign group would have liked to see.
We should recall that the House of Commons backed 200, which is probably an acceptable compromise because, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, we ultimately will not agree on this, but it has to be about a compromise and the House of Commons overwhelmingly supported 200. Pushing the threshold up to 400 or 500 would destroy the whole purpose of the Bill.
It is, of course, important, as some noble Lords on the Conservative Benches said, that we do not overly add to the burden, or add unnecessary obstacles to creativity or to developing a sustainable business model. But encouraging people in charge of venues or events to think through what they would do in the event of a terrorist attack surely makes good business sense. There is in what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, proposes the risk of unintended consequences. There is a risk that raising the threshold would put people off going to small venues and small organisations of, say, under 200 or even under 100, because they will know they have not been covered by the Bill.
We on these Benches will support the Government in their threshold of 200 unless, in the course of further debate, there can be really compelling reasons to change our minds.
Viscount Goschen (Con)
My Lords, when the Minister comes to answer this short group of amendments, could he comment on what assessment there has been of the SIA’s capacity to advise and regulate these potentially hundreds of thousands of applications, and on the capacity of the security industries and consultancies that will provide expertise to assist applicants in putting forward their detailed plans?
We have had a very emotive discussion on these amendments, which I regret to a degree, because this is an incredibly important discussion about where the line falls. There does have to be a line, but one consequence of moving it from 100 to 200, or 200 back to 100, or to 500, or whatever it may be, is around the actual pragmatic capacity of the regulatory body, the Government and the industry that will provide consultancy services to enable what everyone in this Chamber wants to happen. I would be grateful if the Minister would address that point when he comes to respond.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments to Clause 2 tabled by my noble friends Lord Frost, Lord Udny-Lister and Lord Murray of Blidworth. I am sorry that the Government have declined to give this group a proper title and referred to it as the “degroup”. For the benefit of the Committee, it would have been better for this group to have been given a proper title, such as “capacity of premises”. I hope the Minister will take this back to officials, so that we can have proper titles for groups of amendments going forward.
These amendments collectively seek to adjust the minimum threshold for qualifying premises under the Bill and to ensure that the legislation strikes a careful balance between security and proportional regulation. Amendments 5, 6 and 7 propose raising the threshold from the current 200 person capacity to 300, 400 and 500 respectively. These are important proposals that merit some serious consideration. The current threshold of 200 people is relatively low and risks imposing unnecessary and disproportionate burdens on small venues, community spaces and independent businesses.
I particularly have in mind when communities come together to protest at public meetings called at short notice in community halls, often with more than 200 and perhaps more than 300 people—I see the Minister smiling; we have all been there.
Small and medium-sized enterprises, including restaurants, cafes, independent theatres and community halls, are vital to the social fabric and economic vitality of our communities. Many of these premises operate on razor-thin margins and simply do not have the financial capacity or staffing resources to implement the comprehensive security measures that may be required under this legislation. Compliance with the regulations could entail significant investment in security equipment, personnel, training and operational changes—costs that could be ruinous for smaller businesses.
It is also worth considering the administrative burden that a low threshold may impose on both the businesses themselves and the enforcement authorities tasked with overseeing compliance. By setting the bar at 200 people, the current provision potentially captures a vast number of venues that pose a relatively low security risk. This dilutes resources that could be better focused on higher-risk premises where security efforts would be more impactful. Moreover, we must take a proportionate and risk-based approach to security policy. If we overburden smaller venues with costly and complex requirements, the unintended consequences may be that many of them are forced to reduce their operations or even close altogether. That would deprive communities of essential spaces for social, cultural and economic activities, particularly in rural and underserved areas where small venues play an outsized role.
Raising the thresholds to 300, 400 or 500 people, as proposed by these amendments, would ensure that security requirements are applied where they are most necessary—namely, at larger venues with higher footfall and greater potential risk. It would also signal that this legislation is responsive to the concerns of business owners and recognises the practical realities of running a small venue in today’s challenging economic climate.
It is crucial that we approach this matter with pragmatism and proportionality. A higher threshold would help protect businesses, community spaces and cultural venues from unnecessary regulatory burdens while maintaining a clear focus on enhancing public safety where it truly matters. We must recognise that many smaller establishments operate on tight margins and have limited resources. Mandating extensive security measures may be feasible for larger venues but could place an unsustainable financial and administrative strain on smaller premises. Raising the threshold would help to ensure that security requirements are applied where they are most necessary: namely, at larger venues with higher footfall where the risks are more significant.
That said, I appreciate the wisdom in Amendment 8, tabled by my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth, which he spoke to with some passion and which takes a nuanced approach. This amendment proposes a dual system where the default threshold is raised to 300 people but the Secretary of State retains the discretion to designate smaller premises as qualifying if they are at
“heightened risk of a terrorist threat”.
That flexibility is crucial. Although larger premises are generally more attractive targets, we must acknowledge that smaller venues can also be vulnerable under specific circumstances, whether due to their location, the nature of the events they host, or intelligence indicating a credible threat. Granting the Secretary of State this discretionary power ensures that the legislation remains responsive to evolving security challenges without imposing blanket requirements on small businesses.
Furthermore, Amendment 8 reflects a thoughtful understanding of the need for a risk-based approach to security. Security should be proportionate to the threat, and, by incorporating an element of ministerial discretion, we can achieve a more targeted and effective framework.
In conclusion, these amendments collectively represent a pragmatic and balanced approach to enhancing public safety while safeguarding the viability of small businesses and community spaces. I urge the Government to give serious consideration to adopting a higher default threshold alongside a discretionary mechanism to ensure that security measures are applied where they are most needed.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Again, I am grateful to noble Lords. A range of amendments have been brought before the House and the nub of the arguments is about the threshold for qualifying premises. That issue was quite rightly debated in this House at Second Reading and was also debated in the House of Commons.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Sorry, I left north Wales at 7 am, so it has been a long day already. The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, mentioned the figure of 800. Why have we come to our figure? I can make all sorts of justifications. Two hundred takes into account the greatest number of large premises, so it is a figure that we have determined accordingly. We have to set the figure at a certain level and we have done so following the wide range of consultation that has taken place.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
To what extent has the department made an evaluation of the impact on volunteering of the measures as they are currently proposed, with a threshold of 200? Does the Home Office have a threshold for the number of trustees that they think will go unfilled, or the lack of volunteering in community ventures and village halls, as a consequence of the threats and burden imposed by these measures?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The measures that we have accepted are part of the consultation that we have undertaken. The noble Lord was a Minister standing at this Dispatch Box in this department during the genesis of this Bill, so he will know that there has been wide consultation on these matters. Again, I point him to Clause 5 on public protection measures. Clause 5(3) refers to
“evacuating individuals from the premises … moving individuals to a place on the premises … preventing individuals entering or leaving the premises … providing information to individuals on the premises or at the event”.
Are those onerous issues? Or are they things that, even in our own assessment, are relatively low cost in terms of training? That relatively low cost is, essentially, in person hours when determining what those requirements are.
Again, we could fix a number. If I fixed the number at 300, 400 or 500, we would take even more premises out, but that would dilute the purpose of this legislation, which is to set good practice for the prevention of an attack when an attack is occurring and the steps that can be taken to save lives. People’s experiences—not mine, but those in the consultations of the public inquiry—mean that the 200 figure we have now settled on is the right one. I commend that figure to the House and hope that noble Lords will support it in due course when it comes to the final decision by this House before Third Reading.
Lord Frost (Con)
I thank everyone who contributed to this section of Committee. I thank the Minister for his thoughtful comments. I appreciate that there is a degree of arbitrariness in this number, but, equally, it is our task to try to make it as non-arbitrary as possible and make sure that the number we eventually choose is as well grounded in reality as it possibly can be.
Perhaps I might be permitted just one remark before sitting down. I say that because there is pressure for risk aversion, and we have heard some of that in your Lordships’ House today. It is important to be careful what we are doing here. We need to keep in mind what the threshold number means. If we set it at 200, for example, we are not saying that we are prepared to tolerate the risk of 199 people being killed in a terrorist attack. That is not what the threshold is about. The risk that we want to tolerate of that is the number zero.
What we are saying is that there is a trade-off. The costs to businesses and society of complying with these measures are justifiable above a certain number when we take the broader risk of terrorism into account. As the Minister said, the risk of a terrorist attack is unlikely in any individual case. We have to be able to debate this number prudentially while understanding exactly what the threshold means. We have debated it and I suspect we will so again. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Stock Market: First-time Investors
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lee of Trafford
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to encourage first-time investors in the stock market.
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
My Lords, it is a privilege to open this short debate on encouraging first-time investors. I have been a private investor for 65 years, investing solely in United Kingdom companies. Through books, articles and platforms, I like to think I have been something of an evangelist for the private investor. I am also privileged to be the patron of ShareSoc, the premier body representing private shareholders.
We all know the problem. Research by Abrdn, the old Aberdeen fund manager, has indicated that, whereas one-third of Americans’ personal wealth is in equities and mutual funds, the comparable figure here in the United Kingdom is only 8%. Yet there is no shortage of money here: 22 million people have £120 billion in premium bonds, and research by Barclays, using FCA data, estimates that, after contingencies, there is no less than £430 billion in cash held by 13 million individuals.
So we have to change the climate and the culture of investing and encourage new investors, break down barriers and be much more creative. The consumer duty Act of 2023 made it very unattractive for traditional stockbrokers to take on new clients, so I welcome the Chancellor’s determination to move the dial, telling regulatory bodies to deliver
“a mindset shift on regulation”.
Indeed, I have to say that, had we been able to buy shares in the regulators, they would have been great growth investments.
I have seven specific suggestions. The first deals with young people. It is absolutely ridiculous that grandparents are not able to take out junior ISAs for their grandchildren. At present that has to be done through parents, and that restriction should be abolished immediately; I see no merit in it.
The second is on financial education in schools, which has been and is abysmal. The Government still own something like 8% of shares in NatWest. When the previous Government were in power, I and a number of Members of your Lordships’ House wrote to Jeremy Hunt with the idea of gifting £5,000-worth of NatWest shares owned by the state to willing state secondary schools, to be held for the long term. The idea was that this £5,000 would deliver a £350-a-year dividend and the pupils themselves—this was the whole point—would decide how to spend that dividend. That would be transformative and of modest cost, and for the first time it would make youngsters aware of what a bank, a dividend and the stock market were. There are only approximately 4,000 state secondary schools in the country, so the cost would be a relatively small £20 million.
Unfortunately, of course, the general election intervened, but Rachel Reeves could still deliver this, because the Government still have 8% of NatWest, as I previously indicated. Parallel to this, I would like to encourage regional public companies to gift shares or cash to their local schools—schools from which they will recruit and where perhaps their employees’ children go to school—to enable those schools to become shareholders in those local companies, thus building bridges and raising awareness.
So far, I have discussed it with only one public company, the flavours and fragrances company, Treatt, based in Bury St Edmunds, where I am a shareholder. It gives something like £100,000 a year to charities. It is considering this approach and applauds the concept. It is happy to be quoted on this. I hope that the Quoted Companies Alliance, the trade body for smaller regional public companies, will support and promote this idea and take it forward.
Next, I come to television. There has been a near failure—indeed, a total failure—of television over the years to cover the stock market or investment opportunities. We have so many exciting UK companies to invest in. On television, we have any number of gambling advertisements and advertisements for medallions of dubious value, but virtually nothing on the stock market. I think television producers and similar are fearful of the regulations. I urge the Government to call in television and media chiefs and challenge them to deliver programmes to encourage private investors and, in the nicest way, to tell the regulators to back off.
Fifthly, we should aim to encourage and increase employee share ownership. The Government should take up the sensible and positive recommendations of ProShare, and encourage companies to disclose the level of employee share ownership in their annual reports.
Sixthly, in parallel to notifying premium bond prize-winners, as currently, that they have won a prize and that they have the choice of taking cash or buying more bonds—unless they have the maximum number—I suggest that we could, and should, inform them of the possible routes to stock market investment, giving information on possible investment platforms and such things as ISAs.
Finally, I come to ISAs themselves, which have been such a wonderful tax-free wrapper over the years. They have been a huge success, and I am certainly a grateful beneficiary. However—and I know this will be controversial—I would suggest that all future ISAs should be restricted to only UK-quoted shares. If people want to invest overseas, that is fine, but why should we give them tax relief to enable them to do so? To be clear, I am not suggesting that existing ISA holders should have to divest their overseas holdings; that would be retrospectively unfair and administratively messy. Perhaps, it is also time to look at cash ISAs. Is there a case for making them less attractive, taxation-wise, than stocks and shares ISAs?
These are very much personal ideas of mine, and, I repeat: I am sure that some of them are controversial. I very much look forward to hearing contributions on boosting share ownership from other colleagues in the short debate this evening.
In the nicest way, I do not expect the Minister to be able to answer in detail a number of these specific points. However, she is a Leeds lass and a very respected former Leeds City Council leader. Therefore, she will certainly know the Chancellor, who of course is a Leeds Member of Parliament, personally. All I would ask of her is that she endeavours to draw the attention of the Chancellor to the suggestions that I am making and that other colleagues will be making during this debate. It would be very disappointing if our ideas were lost in a Treasury in-tray or, even worse, perhaps, in a Treasury wastepaper basket.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, I very much thank the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford, for introducing this short debate and I look forward to hearing other speakers.
I have been reading the Financial Times for nigh on 60 years and, for many years, one of the highlights was the columns written by the noble Lord about investing on the stock market. The headline on his last column—which, unfortunately, has now ceased—was:
“The first ISA millionaire says there are only two essentials in investing: common sense and patience”.
Clearly, he knows what he is talking about, but there is a problem: an inherent conflict is involved.
I am going to put words into the mouth of the noble Lord now but, as I understand it, what the noble Lord, Lord Lee, advocates for investing is patience, resilience during market downturns and an unwavering commitment to high-quality companies, reinforcing the belief that wealth is built over time rather than through frequent trading.
That is clearly right, but it is not easily transferable. Investing is a skill that, I suspect, is not readily available to large numbers of people in our country. I am not against people investing in the stock market; if people choose to do so with the necessary knowledge and information, that is good. However, the Government should not put themselves in the position of, in effect, proffering financial advice. That is not the Government’s job because, while the potential gains are real, so are the risks of the downside.
Everyone needs to start from somewhere, and training and education are clearly important, but the key is that we need people to understand that, while investing in the stock market offers opportunities to grow your money and build financial security, the risks are just as real. There are so many stumbling points at which people will lose out. The previous debate was about risk; another key to successful investment is understanding the risks.
I return to the point that I made initially, which is exemplified by the noble Lord’s own career: the need to understand that investing takes time. There is no quick fix to successful investment on the stock market. It is not a shortcut to wealth; it requires patience, learning and discipline.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the much respected and admired noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford—no relation, I add—on securing this debate. It is an issue on which he has campaigned tirelessly and ceaselessly with good reason, and we wish him well with it.
Our whole system of capitalism, which has served us so well for hundreds of years, needs to be explained to our fellow citizens as early as possible in their lives, with every effort made to include them all so that they can benefit from its success and determine for themselves who to back with their own savings.
“Capitalism” has become a word that some regard as a negative—nearly always people who are employed by the state and regard equality as the most important focus. They fail to recognise that all our prosperity is enhanced by a market system that rewards success and, yes, allows for failure, which is sometimes painful. The incentivisation to succeed is a basic, natural desire of us all to do better for ourselves, our dependants and our communities.
Some critics complain that the drive to capitalism is the enemy of the environment, but they are so wrong. The market created Outlook for email to replace paper. The market created electronic vehicles to replace the combustion engine. For further prosperity, which we have to accept will not necessarily be spread equally, we need to encourage investment. The current discussion by left-wing politicians seeking to penalise people who have what they call “unearned income” is a flashback to the dark days of the 1970s, when two classes of income were taxed differently and, in my view, unfairly. In particular, we need to teach kids that so-called “earned income” is paid, weekly or monthly, without any risk whatever, while “unearned income” is typically generated from an investment, which involves risk to capital and, therefore, deserves greater reward.
As interest rates begin to fall again, we must make the case for people to move out of cash into riskier but more rewarding investments, and, in that respect, stop putting people off with all the mandatory and unnecessary disclaimers. It is as if when people are buying shares in companies, they are at the same time lighting a cigarette and inhaling deeply. They are not.
By the way, the same damaging and discouraging risk could be said for the mountain of bumf which public companies, even AIM ones—I declare an interest as the chairman of one—have to include in their annual reports. This just serves to frighten off anyone, in the unlikely event that they actually read it. It is another barrier to an efficient market, as huge resources are spent providing irrelevant information on issues irrelevant to success; it just highlights incredibly unlikely risks.
In 2017, an aspiring young MP wrote a paper for the Centre for Policy Studies. The author, a Mr Rishi Sunak, pointed out that 55% of the US population was then invested in the stock market, as opposed to 19% in the UK—broadly similar to the figures of the noble Lord, Lord Lee. As a result, our markets are currently failing us. I declare an interest as the senior partner of Cavendish, and my investments are as in the register.
The Conservatives had an excellent idea to facilitate investment with the proposed British ISA. Labour abandoned plans for it last September, which was a shame, because before the election a Labour spokesman said that the party had no plans to drop it. There was justified criticism of the British ISA, but it needs another look. I urge the Minister—who has been outed as part of the Leeds mafia—to look at this again through the spectrum of investment by young people, possibly as an extension of the junior ISA. Children should be taught how investment creates growth, which can help them as the economy grows but, more excitingly, can benefit them as investors.
The current Government are on a dangerous course of sucking money out of British business, through initiatives such as the much-reviled national insurance scheme, to spend on public sector initiatives. There is no chance of economic growth with this route. What we need to do is create interest, connection and passion in the free markets and capitalism, and investing in businesses at as early a stage as possible.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, I have to go briefly to a report from the Intergenerational Foundation, which notes that the current UK tax regime strongly favours unearned income over earned income.
I thank the other noble Lord, Lord Lee—with a different spelling—for securing this already interesting debate. I invite noble Lords to imagine seeing billboards on their trip home this evening, whether on the Tube or along the side of the road. They will find advertisements directed towards retail investors for investments in the stock market or elsewhere. They might see a widely smiling young woman from a minoritised community, holding the latest iPhone and looking like she has just won the Esports championship, even though the advert is for an investment app. They might see signs on these adverts saying, “Earn up to £100 as a welcome bonus”, “No minimum balance”, “Robo-advice” and “Coaching services for all”, or perhaps they will feature the old traditional piles of spilling gold coins. There is no hint here of the skills and patience to which the noble Lord, Lord Davies, referred as a necessary part of retail investing; you will not find that in those adverts.
If noble Lords have a quick look at the work of the Advertising Standards Authority, they will find plenty of rulings against companies that are not even following our limited law. They are not putting—in a small and hard-to-read font in the most obscure corner—a warning about the initial investment being at risk, or an acknowledgement that the product is not covered by protective legislation. It is the Wild West out there, and I have not even got to TikTok and Instagram, where our regulators are at least starting to catch up. Last year, there was a crackdown on so-called finfluencers, a handful of whom, with a collective Instagram following of 4.5 million, were finally caught up with. I do not have time to go into the issue of greenwashing, on which, again, our regulators are just starting to catch up.
As we were reminded just this morning, we live in an age of shocks—geopolitical, political, climate and health—which can have massive impacts on even the most apparently solid investments. What is solid today? As our always clear and succinct Library briefing says:
“Retail investors are often advised not to buy shares unless they can afford not to access that money for more than five years, to give stock prices time to recover if they should fall”.
But that assumes, in this age of rapid technological, social and political change, that they will recover. I start in this debate from a position of concern about the existing vulnerability, under current arrangements, of so many retail investors in today’s world. I do not think that we are in a position to boost, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies, suggested; rather, we should be thinking about better protections.
There is one thing that the noble Lord, Lord Lee—to my left—and I can certainly agree on: that financial education in UK schools is abysmal. I have noted already that the Financial Times regard it as so bad that it made it the subject of last year’s Christmas’s appeal. But I suspect the noble Lord might find that financial education would not have the effect that he desires. Understanding of the financial system might well produce more concern about it—a rejection of it, as much as engagement.
I certainly hope that is the case with cryptocurrencies, on which more education is urgently needed. This was demonstrated by the newsworthy fact today that, as calculated by three blockchain analysis firms, entities behind President Donald Trump’s crypto coin have accumulated close to $100 million in trading fees in less than two weeks. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of small traders have lost, if not quite their shirts, two-thirds of their “investments”.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford, for this debate and for his excellent opening speech. This debate comes on a day when stock markets are tumbling and hedge funds have bet billions on a market crash triggered by trade wars unleashed by US President Trump. These events further highlight the casino nature of stock markets, which can easily burn first-time investors. Woe betide any Government which encourage people to gamble on the stock market, especially if people incur losses.
Due to inequitable distribution of income and wealth, most people simply do not have the cash to gamble on the stock market. One recent survey suggested that 34% of adults either had no savings or had less than £1,000. Another reported that 66% of adults had average savings of less than £10,000, so buying and selling shares is not really a priority for most people, and they will inevitably look for safer investments.
A key requirement of risk management is to hold a diversified portfolio. That means holding securities that are negatively correlated—a correlation coefficient of minus one would be ideal, but nevertheless they have to be negatively correlated. However, that is not easy to achieve for first-time investors if they are directly investing. Institutions have lunch-table meetings with companies to extract information, but individual investors have no power to extract any information, and they cannot even analyse the publicly available information. The annual report of HSBC is over 400 pages long. I do not how many investors are going to pour over that to make any sense of it, even when this information is publicly available.
Before any Government encourage shareholding, they need to look at the impact of the shareholder model of corporate governance. Shareholders focus on the short term and have no loyalty to any business or community. Some time ago, the Telegraph reported that the average shareholding duration in the US was just 22 seconds. Can the UK really be that far behind? How would that stabilise investment and companies? Shareholders really want to resolve uncertainty as quickly as possible, and the way they do it is by demanding returns very quickly. Andy Haldane, one-time Bank of England economist, noted that in 1970 major UK companies paid out about £10 of each £100 of profits in dividends; by 2015, that amount had increased to between £60 and £70, and this was accompanied by a squeeze on labour and investment. Basically, the country’s corn seed was being destroyed.
Most corporate investment these days is funded by debt or retained earnings. Annual share buybacks exceed the IPOs. The net result is that the UK languishes near the bottom of the OECD league for investment in productive assets. Much of the daily churning of share transfer money is really transfer from A to B; hardly any of it goes directly into the productive assets of the company.
Therefore, I do not think that the Government should encourage first-time investors to gamble in the stock market without improving people’s disposable income and rethinking corporate governance and powers and the rights of all stakeholders, not just shareholders.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of the London Stock Exchange. I commend my noble friend Lord Lee of Trafford for securing this debate and for his enlightened vision on school investment portfolios.
For anyone starting to invest, perhaps with an idea or two but wanting diversification, a go-to investment for 144 years was listed closed-end investment companies, which offer a treasure chest of good things. Some offer portfolios of other quoted equities, both UK and international, but over half invest directly into social infrastructure such as hospitals, homes, schools and renewable energy. Some have local connections. How inspiring would that be to be able to visit projects or attend a shareholders’ meeting showing, for example, how unrecyclable waste wood is turned into energy instead of landfill? Can we not just get this off the ground? This requires listed investment companies to still be around to inspire all investors, especially in the infrastructure sector.
Let us remind ourselves why they were the jewel in the crown of the City for so long. They are diversified and can hold a wider range of assets than open-ended mutual funds—notably, real assets such as vital infrastructure and housing. They provide permanent capital to the underlying investment because, when investors buy and sell listed investment company shares, the manager does not need to disturb the underlying asset; nor are they exposed to run withdrawals. There are no deductions from investor share value, with market share prices already discounting expected expenses from net asset value. The wisdom of markets scrutinises and sniffs out performance and all other issues with alacrity; they are transparent public listed companies with audited accounts.
Unfortunately, the Government are contributing to killing them off. How? They are doing this by legislating that listed investment companies must be double-regulated; growing the mountain of lost investment to £100 billion while we wait for FCA rules; undermining the stock market and its reputation; opening the door to attack by Saba and their ilk, and not being internationally competitive.
Why? It is because we cling to EU legislation that, since 2022, we alone enforce, counterproductively, so that listed investment companies’ internal expenses—already discounted in share prices—are presented as additional deductions to be paid directly by shareholders, when they are not.
The FCA is consulting on change, with products such as open and closed-ended funds being described as substitutable, when they are not. It continues its obsession with comparing costs as the yardstick for selection. Open-ended funds have different mechanisms behind their costs. They have to continually rebalance portfolios. They cannot use leverage. They do not have maintenance cost for real estate. The list goes on, so why compare? It is far better for each to explain what each does.
It is easy for a Government who need growth and a stock market recovery to do one simple thing: end double regulation and return listed investment companies to their original status, when they made small fortunes for countless private savers while supplying essential capital to British infrastructure and industry.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, such is the reputation of the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford, that when a couple of colleagues heard I was speaking in this debate, they said, “We’ll see you tomorrow and get a few good tips”.
In the noble Lord’s opening remarks, I think he listed seven points, which I obviously cannot deal with tonight, but there were some good ideas. One point he touched on was education. One thing we do not do in this country, generally speaking, is teach our children practical examples of the world they are entering into. We read recently—I think it was last week—that Generation Z do not know how to change a lightbulb. We do not teach people how to interact with their own Government—with Revenue and Customs—and practical things like that. But there are examples, even at primary level, where some far-seeing teachers—even for primary school kids—get them organised to run little businesses in their own schools. We should teach people where money comes from. People assume that it is just there; it is the Government’s, and they will provide it.
There is a difference between this country and the United States in the availability of investment. Understandably, we have to protect people, and we know that the stock market is a form of gambling. But we do nothing about the real gambling. When we had the Budget, we had the opportunity to tax the gambling companies; we did not. Instead, we taxed the pensioners, and these people get away with it. We know what the risk is, as the chances of winning are miniscule. At least with a share, there is a chance of a long-term investment and there is usually some asset—not always, but usually.
We have this perverse situation where we put the most vulnerable people in our community at the mercy of companies that are fleecing them. They even have people knowing what to do at 3 am when a certain demographic is unsettled and are watching their programmes. They came and gave evidence to a committee I was on in your Lordships’ House and openly told us.
We have to educate, and that has to go right down to the schools. People have to understand where wealth and jobs come from. They do not come from the Government. The Government are taking that money from people who make it, quite rightly, and spending it on public services. We do not connect the dots. If people are not taught that through their education, we lose it.
There is also the fact that there is a vast amount of capital that is unproductive. In some US states, they even forced their pensions to ensure that a certain percentage of their assets were invested in women’s businesses, so that women were encouraged to become actively involved in business, and it was quite successful. But we are not focused on business. We are not focused on the competition we are facing. We take this very lackadaisical approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Lee, has raised a flag for a number of issues. It does not simply apply to first-time investors. I think we have our whole reward scheme system completely wrong, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, has just told us with some specifics. I hope that the Government will look seriously at ensuring that our education system teaches our children about some practical things they can do in business.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, this has been one of the most enjoyable debates I think I have ever been part of. Let me congratulate my noble friend Lord Lee on grasping a key issue and finding creative solutions. As the noble Lord, Lord Davies, said, his newspaper columns and his children’s books on investing are some of the best around. He is both an expert and a communicator, and I love his faith in the young.
I am particularly taken with his proposal to engage young people in investing, or understanding investing, by persuading the Government and companies to donate shares to secondary schools. Youngsters can then, in a very real way, learn the practicalities, opportunities, pitfalls and risks of investing, by managing the portfolios in a place where support and advice are available. This is surely a far better way to build financial literacy than abstract theory, and it can build that confidence which extends into many other areas of finance: understanding the risk-reward spectrum.
Your Lordships will be aware that 18 to 34 year-olds are far less intimidated by financing than older people and have a greater risk appetite, but their knowledge is dangerously limited. Some 46% of young people report holding cryptocurrency—I am shocked by that number—typically with no understanding of the asset they have just put their money into. Young people are now a major target for financial scams, primarily via the internet.
There are good courses in schools. My youngest granddaughter took business A-level and we were really impressed by the sophistication of the finance segments, so it is possible to get it into a curriculum. But most youngsters do not take the relevant courses, and I hope the Government will take that on board when they look at the new curriculum proposals that we expect in the next few months. I suspect we all agree that financial savvy is no longer needed only by a small handful of wealthy people but, frankly, by everybody. At the very least, every youngster will eventually be engaged in pensions.
I also support the noble Lord, Lord Lee, in his proposal for grandparents to be able to set up junior ISAs. But I am unpersuaded by the proposal to limit ISAs to UK stocks. When people need to build a financial bedrock—if they can—they should, to my mind, be able to balance risk effectively and without bias. The lack of current interest in UK stocks is a different and complex issue which we do need to tackle. My noble friend Lady Bowles talked about the travesty of what is happening with disclosure rules that distort the picture on closed-end limited-investment companies. This is an area where we really need the Government to move, and move fast. If the economy is to grow and strengthen, we need to increase our understanding and communication. The appeal of UK stocks will come, not with a kind of special intervention for the UK but with broader education and proper economic recovery and growth.
We have talked for a long time of the need for financial literacy, proper advice, ways to expose scams, and helping people understand risk and their own appetite for risk, and their need to seize opportunity. If we can demystify investment and get people to invest with knowledge, and to start acquiring that knowledge in a very real way when they are young, we will have effectively contributed to the future.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the respected and engaging noble Lord, Lord Lee, for such an interesting debate. In my view, our theme today has two aspects. The first is helping individuals to build their own individual wealth—a worthy endeavour—and the second, equally important, is achieving this while strengthening the British economy. Investing in the stock market offers an important way for people to grow their savings, plan for the future and gain financial independence—all important in a free country and a free economy.
In 2024, some 23% of Brits—roughly 12.5 million people—said they had invested in the stock market, making stocks and shares the most popular investment type. This is a notable increase from 18% in 2023, partly reflecting the fact that last year was a good year for stocks and, of course, in the long run equities yield more than bonds or interest-bearing accounts. It is, however, under half the proportion in the US, as my noble friend Lord Leigh pointed out.
Before addressing the imaginative proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Lee, we should remind ourselves that, for most working people, pensions are the best investment. This is because employers usually at least match individual pension contributions, and because pension savings have tax advantages—albeit that the Chancellor’s Budget decision reduced those benefits. I had an interesting meeting with the Pensions Management Institute last week about how defined contribution pensions might be adapted to encourage more savings into both short-term and lifelong national savings plans, in partnership with business. This would also benefit the UK stock market. I understand that the Resolution Foundation has developed some similar ideas. Will the Minister get the new Pensions Minister to meet them, particularly given his Resolution Foundation background?
I strongly believe that we need people to save and invest more, which brings me to the innovative suggestions from the noble Lord, Lord Lee, on how we can encourage young people to invest. The first is to give schools shares in government-owned NatWest stock, or in regional public companies, so that the pupils can use the dividends to invest elsewhere and learn about risk and reward from their experience. He is absolutely right that financial matters need to become part of the school curriculum. This was indeed one of the secondary recommendations in my review of the state pension age.
Some 47% of UK adults do not feel confident about making financial decisions, and 61% of young adults do not recall receiving financial education at school, so they do not understand the glories of compound interest or the associated importance of investing early and of not putting all one’s eggs in one basket—the diversified portfolio that the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, talked about. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government will commit to improving the financial education of young people? I sense support for this across the House, from the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and even from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who rightly spoke of the dangers of bitcoin.
A second idea relates to ISAs. I have to say that it was disappointing that the new Government decided to abandon Jeremy Hunt’s plans for a British ISA. I think that the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Lee, of linking future ISAs more closely to UK investments merits consideration, and I agree that grandparents as well as parents should be able to take out ISAs. However, I am against the idea, mooted in the papers, of abandoning the cash ISA, which is a good savings vehicle for those who want to take less risk. I would add that the lifetime ISA, introduced under the previous Government, has seen a notable increase in popularity.
As for the other ideas of the noble Lord, Lord Lee, on non-executive directors, premium bonds and company reports, I understand his good intentions, but they are all new regulatory requirements and we need to be lifting the burden of regulation to drive growth. We need to reduce, not increase, the burdens, a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, with her stock exchange and European background, was making. The path to growth is laden with good intentions and, without great care, new legislation becomes a Christmas tree of burdens, as we are seeing with so many of the new Bills.
However, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lee, and I believe that we should encourage first-time investors, especially the young, to invest in our stock market.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, I start by sincerely congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Lee, on securing this debate. I agree that it has been an enjoyable exchange of views. It is a very important matter and one that does need discussing. As so many noble Lords have mentioned, I recognise his passion as a real advocate for the benefits of retail investment, and I thank him sincerely for sharing his insights with the House. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Davies expressed very well the respect that is held for the noble Lord. Of course, how could I fail to be taken by his comments about Leeds and my former role there? I will not mention the football result from the weekend. I also thank other noble Lords for their contributions this evening. I am sure we can all agree on the importance of encouraging newcomers to engage with the world of investing in the appropriate way. Getting this right will of course help savers make their money work harder, but it will also drive economic growth.
The Government want to see more people taking part in capital markets and benefitting from the long-term financial security that investing can provide. We know that more people in this country could potentially benefit from moving out of cash and dipping their toe into investing. The Government want to see an investment environment that enables the broadest range of people possible to invest confidently and grow their long-term financial resilience, although I recognise my noble friend Lord Sikka’s comments about those who are currently excluded from this area altogether.
As noble Lords may know, the Government are taking forward work to improve the support available to consumers to help with their decision-making when it comes to investing. The Treasury is working alongside the Financial Conduct Authority and the financial services industry to review the regulatory boundary between financial guidance and advice—an area we have heard a great deal about tonight.
The case for change is clear. In the 12 months to May 2022, only 8% of adults received regulated financial advice, as the noble Lord, Lord Lee, mentioned. With the cost of living being high, financial advice and guidance from trusted professionals is critical to help people make their money go further. That is why, at Mansion House, the Chancellor reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to driving forward the advice guidance boundary review, and I welcome those comments.
Together with the FCA, the Government are developing a proposal for a new regime called targeted support, which would allow authorised firms to provide suggestions appropriate to consumers in similar circumstances. For example, financial services firms could suggest that an individual with substantial savings considers opening a stocks and shares ISA. The FCA is currently consulting on high-level proposals for targeted support. This would not only benefit consumers in making better informed decisions but help them engage in UK markets, boost productive investment and support growth.
Our capital markets are at the heart of the UK’s economy and our growth mission. Last year, more equity capital was raised in London alone than in the next three European exchanges combined. The UK is one of the largest centres for international bond issuance, with more than 16,000 active bonds trading on our markets, representing over £4.1 trillion across 55 currencies.
At Mansion House, the Chancellor launched a call for evidence to kick-start the co-design process for the first ever financial services growth and competitiveness strategy. The strategy will focus specifically on how to deliver long-term, sustainable and inclusive growth of the sector. The call for evidence, which closed in December, identified UK capital markets and increasing retail participation as a priority growth opportunity. The call for evidence welcomed further information on how to improve consumer engagement with investing, and the Government are considering the feedback provided.
Alongside our work to set a long-term strategy for UK markets and retail investment, the Government are continuing an ambitious programme of reforms, to make our markets more competitive and ensure that we tackle the existing barriers to retail investment. I am sure noble Lords will be aware of the work that is being done around the listing review of the noble Lord, Lord Hill, and the success that has led to.
The Government legislated to empower the FCA to rewrite the rules for prospectuses. The new regime will be simpler and more effective, giving investors access to better quality information and allowing companies to raise funds more quickly. Access to information is one of the key ingredients to ensuring greater and better retail access to markets. That is why, beyond the reforms to prospectuses, we have legislated to enable the FCA to reform the UK’s retail disclosure regime for more complex investment products. This will ensure that consumers have access to the most useful information—including on risks, costs and performance —to support their investment decisions. The FCA’s consultation is currently open for views, and the Government look forward to seeing the final rules later this year.
A great deal of the discussion tonight has focused quite rightly on financial education, with contributions from the noble Lords, Lord Empey, Lord Leigh of Hurley and Lord Sikka, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady Bowles and Lady Bennett—so many I cannot possibly do them all justice tonight. I want to stress that financial education is central to the Government’s thinking on how we can help prepare the next generation for financial capability.
We know it is part of the school curriculum in all UK nations. In England, it is a compulsory part of the national curriculum for citizenship education at key stages 3 and 4. However, we know that it goes beyond the curriculum; Money and Pensions Service research found that 102 financial education programmes are taking place in the UK beyond those delivered by teachers and practitioners. But the emphasis on developing a financial inclusion strategy has to run alongside this. I know the pressure that is on teachers at the moment in all of our schools, and the extra support that will be needed to make this area of work successful.
We know that 6 million children and young people annually are being reached by these programmes and that there is excellent support, as we have heard tonight. Many of the biggest banks provide free financial education resources, as well as financial literacy lessons to children and educators. In 2023, UK Finance members delivered financial education lessons to over 4.1 million children and young people in schools and community settings, as well as providing training for teachers, which is fundamental. I acknowledge that there is still much more to do, and I am grateful for the comments that have been made.
In closing, I will address some of the specific points raised by noble Lords—although I will confess now that I will not reach all the points that have been made. I am happy to respond to the challenge of the points of the noble Lord, Lord Lee, and will respond in writing to those that I do not reach.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, is quite right to note the important role that pensions play in building long-term savings and ensuring that citizens have a secure retirement. She will know that the Government’s pensions investment review is under way. On the specific point she raised, I note that phase 2 of that review will consider further steps to improve pension outcomes and whether further interventions may be needed to ensure that these reforms benefit UK growth. I am sure that DWP and the Treasury will consider any representations that are made.
The noble Lord, Lord Lee, is right, generally, about the whole aspect of financial education and the need to be creative. However, with regard to the specific proposal about the NatWest shareholding, he will not be surprised that the belief of the Government is that it would bring significant delivery challenges, with the additional resources required to implement such an approach likely to be disproportionate to its benefit. Furthermore, this approach would complicate the objective of achieving a full exit from the Government’s NatWest shareholding, as it would leave a portion of NatWest shares in ongoing public ownership.
We have heard various comments tonight from my noble friend Lord Davies and other Members about the concern around the media, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, raised some graphic examples here. We believe strongly that regulation is important to take it through, and that this should not present a barrier to educational information. We also heard a lot about junior ISAs going forward.
I will quickly pick up the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, some of which we have discussed in Grand Committee. It is right that the investment trusts, like other products that directly market to retail investors, must provide tailored disclosure on costs, risks and performance to support informed decision-making. The FCA will use the flexibility provided by the statutory instrument to ensure that disclosure is tailored to reflect UK markets and firms, and to meet the needs of investors. I emphasise that I welcome her contribution to the debate, as well as that of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and I encourage the conversations to continue so that we can achieve the best possible outcomes.
My time is up, and I apologise for not reaching all the contributions that I would have liked to have responded to. I repeat my sincere thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Lee, for his continuing championing of retail investment. I assure him and this House that the Government will reflect very carefully on the points raised by noble Lords in this very thoughtful debate.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Watkins of Tavistock) (CB)
Does the noble Lord wish to respond?
Lord Lee of Trafford (LD)
Given the lateness of the hour and the time pressure, there is nothing that I would like to contribute. Obviously, I could deal with a number of the points that have been raised, but I do not think that there is time to do that now.
Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill
Monday 3rd February 2025
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 View all Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 53-I(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (3 Feb 2025)
Lord Faulkner of Worcester
“(3A) In determining the number of individuals who may reasonably be expected to be on the premises of a railway station from time to time, no account is to be taken of the capacity of any railway vehicle used or intended to be used for the conveyance of passengers.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would make clear that the capacity of railway vehicles is not included when calculating the number of people who may be present at a railway station.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 12, 16, 17 and 18. I tabled these amendments with the support of my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, whom I am delighted to see in his place; I hope he will have something to say about them in a moment. I declare my interest as president of the Heritage Railway Association, which is the trade association for 173 heritage lines throughout the United Kingdom and Ireland.
The purpose of these amendments is simply to achieve clarity in the Bill and to avoid, as far as possible, undesirable and unforeseen consequences. There is no question of the heritage sector seeking to be exempted from the Bill’s provisions, particularly those designed to make its operations safe. It takes the duty of care to its passengers very seriously indeed.
The heritage sector is run on a small scale and is dependent on an army of some 22,000 volunteers. It brings pleasure to 13 million visitors a year and contributes hugely to the tourism economy, especially in less affluent rural areas. There could not be a greater contrast between its operations and the premises used for major events which attract large numbers of people to an enclosed space such as a concert hall, which, rightly, are the subject of the Bill.
I shall not repeat any of the arguments that I made on Second Reading, except to say that the purpose of the amendments is to make clear what is actually required so that the railways can direct their limited and mainly volunteer resources to fulfilling the purposes of the Bill in the most effective way possible. Most heritage railways struggle to survive financially and need to manage their limited budgets to allow them to continue to operate in a way they can sustain financially.
The Bill, as the short title makes clear, is related primarily to premises and obviously not to railways. Indeed, the national rail network of Great Britain is excluded from the operation of the Bill, as it has its own National Railways Security Programme, run by the Department for Transport under the expert eye of my noble friend Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill. Your Lordships may wonder why the same programme does not apply to heritage railways, but the legislation as drafted does not allow for that. In view of this, it seems reasonable to make clear what the Bill covers and what it excludes.
My noble friend Lord Hanson has helpfully made clear on more than one occasion to me and others that the Bill is intended to cover stations, not trains and tracks. That seems sensible, and the purpose of our amendments is to put that distinction in the Bill. Further clarity is needed in the case of the 40 or so heritage lines which have a link or interchange with the national network; 10 of those share stations. Amendment 16 is simply to clarify that those stations are not covered by the Act as they are covered under the National Railways Security Programme that I mentioned earlier.
Amendment 18 is necessary because the Bill is drafted to deal with large, enclosed venues, such as the Manchester Arena. Most heritage railways are based at what were originally relatively small country stations, with modest facilities such as a ticket office or waiting room under cover but mostly with open platforms or, in some cases, canopies covering a part of the platform but open on all sides. Here, the risk is significantly less than with enclosed premises such as a concert hall. The amendment makes clear that the Bill applies to the enclosed premises and not to the open platforms.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I was very glad to add my name to the amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, has tabled and has set out very clearly in his contribution. I was glad to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, has added her name to them too.
This issue was touched on at Second Reading. The noble Lord was vigilant in seeking assurances from his noble friend the Minister, and I am grateful for his tenacity in ensuring that we have this tested properly in the way that these amendments seek. He is right to be tenacious on behalf of a sector which is still in many ways bouncing back from the pandemic and which brings a great deal of pleasure to people across the country and is in many areas a linchpin of the local visitor economy, which is so important for restaurants, hotels and so much more.
This year, the sector is marking an important anniversary, Railway 200, which is the 200th anniversary of the first passenger rail journey between Stockton and Darlington. I have said before in your Lordships’ House that the railways were a gift from the north-east of England which have transformed the whole world. This important bicentenary is an opportunity to inspire new generations to learn about our railway heritage and to see how they can contribute to the future of the sector and the innovation that it needs.
As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has said, the heritage railway sector, like so many heritage and cultural organisations, is reliant on what he described as an army of volunteers. That is an important reminder, as we look at this Bill and the duties that it imposes, for us to consider how those duties, including the training of staff, will be applied in organisations which are reliant on a higher number of volunteers. We do not want the new duties, important though they are, inadvertently to deter people from volunteering in the heritage sector. There are already too many barriers, including, as I know from discussions with the Heritage Railway Association and others, the cost of petrol for volunteers who drive many miles to give generously of their time to ensure that these organisations are run—and run well.
It is important that we look at the implications for volunteers—not just in the Heritage Railways Association but across the whole heritage and cultural sphere—of the powers in Clauses 5 and 6 which are granted to the Secretary of State to specify further procedures or measures required for a premises or event to be compliant with this new law. There is also the provision in Clause 32 for the Secretary of State to amend the qualifying attendance number at a premises or event. These are things that businesses and organisations will have to grapple with and could be a particular burden to those that are heavily reliant on the army of volunteers that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has rightly mentioned.
The noble Lord’s Amendment 12 relates to Schedule 1 to the Bill, specifically paragraph 11, which deals with the railway. We should be equally mindful of paragraph 5 in Schedule 1, which relates to libraries, museums and galleries et cetera. In that paragraph, it says a museum or gallery includes
“a site where a collection of objects or works … considered to be of scientific, historic, artistic or cultural interest is exhibited outdoors or partly outdoors”.
That certainly applies to much of the heritage railway sector.
Earlier, I noticed in his place the Minister’s new friend, the noble Lord, Lord Lemos—it was a pleasure to see him introduced to your Lordships’ House today. He is the chairman of English Heritage; I had the pleasure of working with him when I was a Minister at DCMS, and I know he will be a valuable addition to discussions on heritage in your Lordships’ House. I am sure that that definition of “outdoor or partly outdoors” cultural and heritage sites will be of interest to him and many other heritage organisations.
Others have raised the question of whether a ruined building, which of course relates to an awful lot of heritage in the care of English Heritage and others, would count. I do not know whether the Minister would, tonight or subsequently, be able to give a bit more clarification about what the implications would be for something that was a building and is now a ruin but attracts a great deal of visitors. Of course, that sheds light on the fact that heritage buildings, by their very nature, have unique physical characteristics and in many cases have special protections under existing legislation, so it is worth considering the definitions that we are seeing in this Bill and the schedules to it to see what implications that would have for buildings which enjoy protections under, for instance, the planning Act 1990 and the listing regime for scheduled monuments. These are important questions to bear in mind.
The amendments in this group relate to mobile heritage, and while I was very glad to add my voice to the cross-party interest in that and hope the Minister can say a bit more to set our minds at rest in relation to railway heritage, I would be grateful if he could also, tonight or subsequently, provide some reassurances about our static and built heritage. Many of the issues which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has drawn attention to through these amendments apply to much more. I know the Minister has a great interest in history as well, and I hope that he can provide some of those reassurances. I was very glad to support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, to Clause 2. These amendments seek to clarify that, in determining the number of individuals reasonably expected to be in the premises of a railway station, the capacity of railway vehicles used for the conveyance of passengers should not be included in that calculation. These are sensible and necessary amendments that will help ensure the effective and proportionate application of this legislation. Railway stations are fundamentally distinct from other types of qualifying premises covered by the Bill and, like entertainment venues, shopping centres or other high-traffic locations, railway stations are dynamic environments where the number of people present fluctuates significantly throughout the day based on train schedules, peak travel times and unfore- seen delays.
As I have mentioned in some of my remarks already today, there is a need for flexibility in this Bill if we are to get the right balance with appropriate protection of premises without prohibitive and overburdensome measures that actually make it difficult for businesses, charities, sports clubs and events to operate effectively. Flexibility is something we will be exploring in Committee, and I hope the Minister will engage with us constructively to deliver a Bill that gets this balance right.
I support Amendment 10. Including the capacity of railway vehicles in the threshold calculation would be both impractical and potentially misleading. Railway vehicles operate as transient spaces that are distinct from the physical station premises. The fact that a station services trains with a large capacity does not necessarily correlate with a high concentration of individuals on the station premises at any given time. This distinction is critical for ensuring that security measures are proportionate and targeted to actual on-the-ground risks.
Moreover, including railway vehicle capacity would create undue complexity for station operators. They would be required to factor in varying train schedules and seating configurations, which could lead to fluctuating security obligations that are difficult to predict and manage. Such an approach risks creating administrative burdens without delivering meaningful improvements in public safety. Of course, our new publicly owned passenger railway operators will be able to bear the burdens of additional protective requirements but, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, has rightly pointed out, the Bill may hit smaller organisations that will be much less able to implement these measures.
It is also worth noting that security requirements for railway vehicles are already subject to separate regulatory frameworks. The focus of this Bill should remain on the physical station premises, where crowd management, access control and other security measures can be more effectively implemented. By clarifying that railway vehicle capacity is excluded from the threshold calculation, this amendment would ensure that resources were directed where they were most needed—on the station premises where passengers congregate and interact.
Finally, the amendment would provide much-needed clarity to station operators and regulators alike. It would remove the ambiguity around how thresholds are calculated and help ensure a consistent and practical approach to security across the rail network.
I will also speak to Amendments 16, 17 and 18. These clarify important aspects of the Bill concerning railway premises, particularly heritage railways, the rail network in Northern Ireland, and open-air or partially roofed railway stations.
Amendment 16 addresses the position of joint stations shared by heritage railways and the national rail network. Heritage railways are an invaluable part of our nation’s industrial and cultural heritage. They not only provide a vital link to our past but serve as tourism hubs that contribute significantly to local economies. These heritage stations often operate under light railway orders or orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992 and are distinct in their function and operations from the national rail network.
The amendment would ensure that these joint stations were not inadvertently caught up in burdensome security requirements that may be inappropriate for their specific operational contexts. Many heritage railway stations are small, community-focused operations run by volunteers who simply do not have the resources or capacity to implement the same security measures as major national rail hubs. The amendment provides much-needed clarity, helping heritage rail operators focus on maintaining their services without undue regulatory burdens.
Amendment 17 seeks to avoid the inclusion of Translink, Northern Ireland Railways, within the scope of the Bill. As noble Lords will appreciate, the railway system in Northern Ireland operates under a different legislative framework; namely, the Transport Act (Northern Ireland) 1967. Including it within the provisions of this Bill risks creating confusion and inconsistency between jurisdictions. By making it clear that Translink is excluded, the amendment helps to respect the distinct legislative and operational framework in Northern Ireland while allowing for a more coherent and targeted application of the Bill.
Finally, Amendment 18 addresses the scope of the Bill concerning railway stations and premises. It rightly clarifies that the Bill applies to buildings and not to open platforms or those covered by canopies with open sides. This is a crucial distinction. Open platforms and partially roofed stations present different security challenges compared to enclosed buildings. They are inherently more accessible and often lack the physical infrastructure required to implement comprehensive access control and security measures. Attempting to impose building-specific requirements on such premises would not only be impractical but be unlikely to yield meaningful security benefits.
In conclusion, these amendments demonstrate a thoughtful and nuanced approach to the complex and varied nature of railway premises in the United Kingdom. They strike an important balance between enhancing security and recognising the operational realities of heritage railways, the Northern Ireland rail network and open-air railway stations. I urge the Government to accept the amendments and commend the noble Lords who have tabled them for their diligence and foresight. The amendments offer a pragmatic and proportionate solution that enhances the clarity and effectiveness of the Bill without compromising security. I urge the Government to accept them and recognise their importance in supporting the safe and efficient operation of our railway stations.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and His Majesty’s Opposition’s Front-Bench spokesman, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for their contributions to this debate. My noble friend first drew my attention to his concerns during the pre-discussion of the Bill, as well as at Second Reading. I wrote to him on his concerns prior to Christmas. I hope that I can again assuage his concerns expressed in the discussions we have had this evening.
Amendment 10 seeks to ensure that railway vehicles, such as trains, that are temporarily stopped at a station are excluded from the assessment of the number of individuals that it is reasonable to expect from time to time at railway stations. I hope I can give my noble friend some assurance that a train that stops at a station as part of its journey does not form part of the station premises. Clause 2(2), which sets out what a qualifying premises is, states that the site must consist of
“a building or a building and other land”.
If I can put it this way, the train has a temporary interaction with the station as it passes through—rather like it does when I travel through Crewe on a regular basis—but the passengers on the train are not “present on the premises” for the purposes of the definition of qualifying premises. The train and the building are completely separate. A train in use as a train is a vehicle, which is not a building, so the train will not form qualifying premises in its own right either. I therefore hope that Clause 2 is sufficiently clear on what constitutes a premises.
Amendment 12 looks at the definition of a railway station in Schedule 1, which has been drawn from Section 83 of the Railways Act 1993—on which I served at the time; that takes me back 32 years, which is a long time ago—which in turn stems from Section 67 of the Transport and Works Act 1992. A station may include some or all parts of the premises that this amendment appears designed to remove. Furthermore, the words that the amendment would remove are a non-exhaustive list. These areas are already capable of falling within the definition if they are used in connection with the station.
I hope my noble friend will understand why I do not think it appropriate to change the definition for the purposes of this legislation, as it may remove some parts of a station which may form part of its premises. Where there is not already a legislative requirement comparable to the Bill, it is the Government’s intention to include such of those parts within scope where they properly form part of the premises for the purpose of the Bill’s objectives. Again, the building and the rail are separate entities.
For station premises which fall under Clause 2, the parts that the amendment seeks to exclude may form part of the premises and therefore may be relevant to taking forward public protection procedures or public protection measures, as far as is reasonably practicable. I know from previous exchanges I have had with my noble friend that this amendment seeks to exclude the specified parts of a station premises in order to provide greater clarity that these would not feature in an assessment of the numbers of persons it is reasonable to expect at a station premises. Locations such as a forecourt or a car park are usually transient locations. It would be difficult to envisage a scenario whereby a car park would have great significance to an assessment of the number of individuals present on the premises.
Therefore, I recognise the intention behind my noble friend’s amendment, but I do not consider it an appropriate approach. I therefore hope that I have assuaged his concerns.
It may be helpful if I put Amendments 16, 17 and 18 in context by setting out the Government’s approach to the application of the Bill to transport premises. Where a transport premise satisfies the Clause 2 premises criteria, it is considered that it is comparable to other publicly accessible premises that the Bill captures, and it is appropriate and necessary, therefore, to include it within the Bill’s scope. Paragraphs 11 and 12 of Schedule 1, therefore, include definitions of relevant transport premises for this purpose.
It is expected that, for example, some airports, railway stations and bus stations will, under the definition in the Bill, be qualifying premises required to take forward the Bill’s requirements. This is considered appropriate, given that the security of the public at those premises is of equal importance to that of the public at, for example, an entertainment centre or a large retail premise. However, paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 excludes those transport premises that are already subject to existing requirements to consider and mitigate terrorist threats. To do otherwise would confuse and duplicate burdens on operators and give no additional public protection benefits. Excluded premises therefore include airports, national rail and underground premises, international rail premises and port facilities, as described in the schedule.
I turn to Amendment 16 specifically, which I know is of concern to my noble friend. Where there are premises that are shared—for example, where a national rail and a heritage railway station are concurrent or form part of the premises—there may be parts of those premises that are subject to legislative requirements related to mitigating terrorist threats, and parts that are not. If there are premises, or parts of premises, that meet the Clause 2 criteria and are not subject to existing legislative requirements, it is considered that they should meet the requirements of the Bill.
I want to pay tribute to the volunteers and those who run heritage railways. The Llangollen heritage railway is not too far from where I live. The Government consider heritage railways, as described by my noble friend, as primarily visitor attractions that help support tourism and the local economy rather than necessarily means of transportation in themselves. They are, by their definition, very different from the rest of the rail network, which is already required to have appropriate security procedures and measures in place.
As such, it is not considered appropriate that parts of the heritage railway premises at shared or joint stations should automatically be excluded from the scope of the Bill where equivalent safety provisions are not already in place. To do so would mean there would be no requirement for parts of these premises to consider appropriate security procedures and measures, and the security of the public at heritage railway centres is just as important as at any other premise within scope of the Bill.
In previous discussions and exchanges with noble Lords, I have emphasised very strongly that the measures required for the above-200 premise in Clause 5 are important but not onerous measures, and ones that volunteers at railway stations or elsewhere would wish to adopt as good practice, as well as being a legal requirement under the Bill. Evacuating individuals, moving them to a place of safety, preventing them from entering or leaving premises and giving them information, is all good practice, but with the legislative back-up of the Bill.
So I hope that the distinction between trains as trains on the move, and buildings as buildings, is one where my noble friend can understand where the Government are coming from and accept. I hope that is sufficient to persuade him and the triumvirate of noble Lords who raised these concerns not to press the amendment. I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, wishes to contribute, so I will certainly let him.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister. Is he able to say anything on the points I raised about the secondary powers that the Bill brings about and grants to the Secretary of State to vary some of the conditions, and particularly how that would relate to organisations such as those in the heritage rail sector that are reliant on a large number of volunteers? Would he accept that there is a difference between a business that has an employee who has an ongoing responsibility for following changes in the law that the Secretary of State makes through secondary powers and the burden that is imposed on organisations where volunteers have to keep abreast of changing laws? They may be following closely the deliberations on the primary Act, but the Act provides for a number of secondary powers that would be more difficult for them to follow than an organisation with full-time employees.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I accept that there will be requirements for guidance. Again, the purpose of the Government is to ensure that we have that guidance in place, and that will be circulated via the Security Industry Association in due course. I hope that will help. The Secretary of State’s powers will be subject to further amendments and discussion later on. Hopefully, I will be able to give some assurances on that.
I thought my time was over, which is why I was sitting down, but instead I shall turn to Amendment 17. By virtue of Section 119 of the Railways Act 1993, such requirements as requested in Amendment 17 apply to railway stations in Great Britain. However, as my noble friend said, Section 119 of the Railways Act does not extend to Northern Ireland. Therefore, where there are stations within the Northern Ireland Railways network that meet the Clause 2 criteria, I consider it appropriate that the Bill is applied to those stations accordingly.
On Amendment 18, I understand from my noble friend’s explanatory statement that the intention behind it is to exclude stations or parts of stations that are not buildings. There are some important factors to consider regarding that intention. First, to be a qualifying premise within the scope of the Bill, the premises must consist of a building or buildings or the land, and if there are stations or indeed premises that do not meet this condition, they would not be qualifying premises. The formulation of the Bill at Clauses 2 and 3 is to capture premises where there is control and ownership of that venue, not to capture freely accessible open spaces. However, there are obviously many premises that are constituted of a building or of the land that fall under premises defined in Clauses 2 and 3. Where that is the case, it is our intention that those parts of premises that constitute land with a building should be in scope. To exclude those premises at stations or other premises would have a detrimental effect on the aims of the Bill.
Again, I draw all noble Lords back to the basic premise of the Bill, which is to provide a basic floor for conditions for premises over 200 and over 800 where we have the appropriate requirement to ensure that we put in protections in the event of an attack on those premises. I hope my noble friends Lord Faulkner and Lady Ritchie, if she is here, will see the consequences of what I have said. As such, I cannot support the amendment, but I hope I have explained the reasons why.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)
My Lords, I start by expressing my deep appreciation to the noble Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Davies of Gower, on the Benches opposite. I think their speeches will be read with great enthusiasm by the members of the Heritage Railway Association, and I am sure that both of them will be welcome at any heritage railway for the next year at least, for understanding so clearly the contribution the heritage railways make to the tourist economy and in terms of increasing general well-being and satisfaction. I thank them very much.
I also thank my noble friend the Minister. I think we are edging towards an understanding where it may be possible to achieve what the Government want to do, while at the same time not jeopardising the financial circumstances of a sector that is finding life very tough, as the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, pointed out.
Some of the answers that my noble friend gave right at the end of his speech are quite technical—I hope he does not mind my saying that—and I am going to read those with great care and take some advice on them. Again, I welcome his support for the principle behind my amendments. Whether or not we come back on Report is a matter for further discussion, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Moynihan
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, the amendments standing in my name refer to sport. The Bill excludes sports grounds that are not designated under the Safety of Sports Grounds Act order and which have no permanent checks that people accessing the ground have paid or have tickets. Designated grounds have a capacity of more than 10,000 for Great Britain and 5,000 for Northern Ireland. I therefore suspect that sports grounds with a proper boundary and paying fans are subject to the Bill, even if they have a capacity of less than 10,000 in GB and 5,000 in Northern Ireland. The Bill uses the Safety of Sports Grounds Act and its order for definitions of both sports grounds and designated sports grounds.
I have worked on an amendment to exclude sports grounds if they are not designated and disapply the provision about paying visitors and permanent checks. This means that sports grounds with a capacity of less than 10,000 in Great Britain and 5,000 in Northern Ireland would be excluded from the Bill. The advantage of this approach is that it relies on fan capacity numbers, which are, first, defined in existing legislation, and, secondly, appear to have been chosen in the past based on whether existing safety precautions should apply.
I fully appreciate that there is a major difference between what this Bill says and what the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 defines—although it is interesting that, on the face of this legislation, the Safety of Sports Grounds Act definition is used to define a sportsground as an outdoor space where people can participate in sport or other competitive activities and where spectators are accommodated. The Act also defines designated sports grounds as those that have a spectator capacity of more than 10,000 people.
These are probing amendments. I will say that I am going back a bit, before even the Minister’s reference to 1992-93, because I am passionately concerned about safety in sports grounds. I had the worst day of my life when asked by the then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to get to Biggin Hill and go up to Hillsborough, and to witness at first-hand the appalling tragedy that was unfolding on that afternoon. It did not take that to change my mind that there was nothing more important than the safety of the public, but it reinforced my belief that safety was a primary concern to all of us involved in sport, and in society in general. The lesson from Hillsborough and the work that subsequently unfolded was repeated in my next ministerial job when, tragically, again, I had to implement the Cullen report following the tragedy of Piper Alpha and the disaster that unfolded.
I am at one with the Minister and everybody who is behind this Bill to make sure that, when it comes to safety, in this case from terrorism, we go the extra yard if necessary to ensure that the public can be safe. I would draw one lesson from Cullen and from that time, which I think is relevant here. It was touched upon at Second Reading. I owe an apology to the Committee that I was not there for the Second Reading debate; I could not be—I wish I had been—but I read it in Hansard and found that some outstanding speeches were made from both sides of the House on that occasion. One point that came through from those speeches was that, as much as we legislate, it is vital to make sure that the public are aware of the risks. It is about people, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said in his opening remarks this evening, as much as premises. Part of what we must try to do through this legislation is create greater awareness of the risks of terrorism. I hope that that can apply equally to sporting events and venues as it does to society as a whole.
I am simply going to ask a series of questions and give some examples. I would be grateful if the Minister could seek to answer them. The first example I want to give emanated from contributions made earlier this evening about the costs of compliance and the resources necessary to comply. One of my greatest friends in politics was Denis Howell. He and I battled for many years, principally in another place, and when we got into this place we were both Tellers on one occasion on the same sporting Bill and saw success. One thing that Denis Howell and I were keen on was an initiative taken by the Labour Party in government to initiate and establish community amateur sports clubs—CASCs. This was back in 2002; these were small groups of volunteers across the country, reaching hard-to-reach communities, supporting grass-roots sport and allowing them, through law, to register as sports clubs and not businesses. That gave them significant benefits: tax reliefs, gift aid and rates relief. There are still some 6,200 of those clubs. They often have numbers that would exceed the threshold to warrant registering, as a result of the legislation before us, but they are at very low risk.
The key point that was made earlier this evening is that this debate is about risk and how proportionate that risk is. In this case, the cost puts at risk those clubs and the people who volunteer. Even on the Government’s own figures, we have a substantial annual cost for those in the first category, and in the enhanced category the costs go up to something of the order of £52,000 over 10 years. That would simply not be tenable for many community amateur sports clubs.
I ask the Minister to take away this challenge to encouraging volunteers in different groups—many groups that find it exceptionally difficult to access the sport and recreation that keeps them fit, which is a saving to society. It is very important, in my view, that in this context we look at those clubs and at the impact on volunteering.
If I can go up one notch to schools, having read the Bill I think I am right to take as an example Monmouth School. Monmouth School would be exempt from this provision if it had a rugby match and 600 or 800 people came—which often happens because rugby is almost religion in Wales and no less so at Monmouth School. If Monmouth are playing Brecon or Llandovery, it is quite possible there would be that many people there. If the school had an exemption and the public could come, they could walk into the ground and watch the game. They could then walk across the River Wye and go to see Monmouth Rugby Club play, and yet that club would be designated. So even with fewer people there, to me there is a concern about the risk of terrorism. There is just as great a risk that an event could take place at a school rugby match of that type, with the same number of people as are over the river at a town game, and yet the town club is not exempt. It is caught by this legislation while the school game would be exempt, despite the fact that the public from the town could, and do, go and watch to support their school as much as they do their town club.
Moving further up, I would like clarification on a question that the Minister can easily answer. From a terrorist point of view, focusing on big and highly publicised events such as a marathon or a triathlon makes them more likely, in my view, to be a target than, say, Monmouth Rugby Club. Yet, if I am correct, a triathlon run in London would not be covered by this Bill—or if it is, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how, so that we can relay back to the triathlon clubs across the country whether they are caught by this legislation. There are, of course, no premises associated with triathlons and those events are organised across the country. Therefore, we need clarity around how the Bill applies to triathlon clubs and to the national triathlon federation. How does it apply to the organisers of the London Marathon, which is a high-profile event?
Other similar challenging questions arise with the boat race—I had the good fortune of coxing in the boat race many years ago. The boat race committee has control over Oxford and Cambridge eights, and it negotiates the television rights, but it has no premises. It is out there in the middle of the river. The riverbank is full: sometimes up to 250,000 people go down to watch the boat race. I know that the Minister will say that it is a major event and the police will be highly proactive at that event, and indeed they are. I am grateful to the police for the enormous amount of work they do at major sporting events across the country every day they occur.
However, the tow-path is not covered, and yet I assume that each of the clubs along the embankment would be covered if more than 200 people came into those clubs that day. The Minister referred earlier this evening to “every so often”; well, that would be once a year—and maybe for another regatta as well—but those premises are there not because of the boat race but to cater for their members. On any other given day, there may be fewer than 200 of the rowing fraternity in their club. But I assume each one of them—the physical premises—would need to be registered and come under this legislation all the way down the tow-path.
There are two things that emerge from that. One is that there is an equally great risk with the public at large on the tow-path as there is inside one of the premises. Secondly, there is a co-ordination point that is important to think through for major sporting events, and that is the co-ordination between the police and a whole host of different people who will be responsible for compliance at each and every one of those buildings. I may have misunderstood it, and perhaps there is not a requirement for each of the clubs—the Thames Rowing Club and the London Rowing Club—to be compliant under this legislation for that event. After all, they are not there because of the boat race. No doubt the Minister will be able to help me by clarifying that position.
Another possibly rather good example is Henley. Quite clearly, the stewards’ enclosure for Henley would need to be compliant with this legislation, but the terrorist risk is greater down the tow-path all the way to the start, because access into the stewards’ enclosure is already vigorously controlled for safety reasons by the stewards. If a terrorist were going to choose the Henley Royal Regatta to create an incident, it is much more likely that it would be further down the tow-path, where a lot more people would be assembled watching the rowing than in the stewards’ enclosure itself. Again, it is about proportionate risk and ensuring close co-operation between the police and those that are compliant, as I am sure all sports clubs will be, with this legislation.
I end by saying to the Minister that I anticipate that there is not absolute clarity on each and every example that I have given. If there is not, will he and his officials work with DCMS in providing guidance to everybody involved in sport—the small volunteer clubs all the way through to the major events and those that do not have premises but organise an event—as to exactly how this legislation is going to work? The world of sport will do what it is told and will be very supportive and will always recognise, as everybody does on this Committee, that safety and awareness and anti-terrorism measures are all laudable and important, but it would be very helpful indeed to the world of sport to understand exactly how the Government see this legislation working and, where possible, whether they will provide financial support to those most in need. I beg to move.
Lord De Mauley (Con)
My Lords, in respect of Amendment 14, which is in my name, I have to say that Schedule 2 is rather tortuous. Having considered it carefully, I am not sure that my amendment, combined with Amendment 19, achieves what I want it to in light of paragraph 3(5)(b) of Schedule 2.
I am involved in helping to run several outdoor sporting and cultural events in rural England which, needless to say, are all run on a shoestring. Suffice it to say that, like the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I am seriously concerned that they will be rendered unviable by the provisions of the Bill because of the significant costs of the requirements that will arise as a result of them—for example, putting in place training, barriers and searching equipment. However, because I now doubt that my amendment would achieve what I want it to, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not pursue it today but return to it later.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, I add my support to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Moynihan. Notwithstanding what my noble friend Lord De Mauley just said about pursing his amendment later, I support the sentiment behind it.
In another Bill before your Lordships’ House, the Football Governance Bill, we are looking at the implications for football clubs, particularly those at the lower end of the pyramid. I was therefore attracted to what my noble friend Lord Moynihan said and what his amendment seeks to do by looking at venues with a capacity of under 10,000—the sports grounds and stadia which attract a smaller number of people but still have sizeable crowds. As we discussed in the previous group, they are run by volunteers as much as, and indeed often more so, than full-time staff, with all the implications of that.
My noble friend, in talking about the London Marathon and the Oxford and Cambridge boat race, brought a number of important examples of sporting events which take place in both private establishments and in public. The growing interest in the parkrun movement springs to mind as another example. I would be grateful if the Minister could say a bit more about whether those more informal but regular sporting events which attract large numbers of people would be covered by the Bill, and if so, how.
I certainly agree with what my noble friend Lord Moynihan said in his concluding remarks. It will be very important to have some guidance here. I said at Second Reading that some more sector-specific guidance is needed. My noble friend’s suggestion of working with DCMS, on behalf of the many and varied sectors which that department has the pleasure of working with, would be very valuable because that can get us into some of the minutiae that my noble friend’s speech just set out. Those minutiae are very important, as the organisations and volunteers that run events are grappling with the duties the Bill will impose upon them.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My Lords, I also support my noble friend Lord Moynihan. I wish to ask the Minister two questions that arise on this topic that I have found in the impact assessment.
At paragraph 68, there is a description of the enforcement regime in relation to the provisions in the Bill:
“Enforcement will be delivered via a mainly civil sanctions regime”.
In respect of a standard duty premises, we can see that there is a fixed penalty and an ability for the regulator to impose a fixed penalty of £500 per day from the date on which the
“penalty is due until the date the contravention is rectified or the notice is withdrawn by the Regulator”.
There is furthermore a power, in the most “egregious cases” according to the impact assessment, of a criminal prosecution of the relevant person. My first question picks up on a theme in an earlier group. To what extent does the Minister think this will have an impact on volunteering and the willingness of people to take on roles where they would be responsible for facing such enforcement?
My second question is in relation to the funding estimates in the impact assessment. One can see, in paragraph 98 on page 23 of the impact assessment, there is a description of how it is that the civil servants have reached their valuation of what the Bill is going to cost. In the previous paragraph, they discuss the impact of outdoor festivals, but in paragraph 98 they say that outdoor events other than festivals
“have not been included in the analysis. These events are not included due to the absence of specific and accurate data about the number of events and their respective capacities. This lack of a comprehensive list of these events means that a reliable estimate of the number of events could not be made. Therefore, outdoor events other than festivals have been excluded from the appraisal analysis”.
I suggest to the Committee that this is simply not good enough. This is an impact assessment which tells us on its first page that the possible financial impact of these measures is somewhere between £1.8 billion, which is the best case, and £4.9 billion. To simply exclude the valuation from outdoor events because no attempt can be made to assess how many people may attend is simply not good enough. We can see this is a policy that has been developed without the needs of the kinds of small sports grounds that my noble friend has identified. Would the Minister agree that the common-sense position would be to consider excluding completely these kinds of small sporting venues from the operation of the Bill?
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I will try to be as short as possible at this time of night. Schedule 2 excludes from the scope of the Bill sports grounds that are not designated sports grounds. So far, so good—but it is not straightforward. The exclusion for recreation and leisure in part 1 of Schedule 2 applies only where those attending are not members or customers who paid. If it is a members’ club, you are not excluded.
Furthermore, a sports ground is defined as being a sports ground within Section 17 of the sports grounds Act, or whatever it is called. The definition in that Act says that it means
“any place where sports or other competitive activities take place in the open air and where accommodation has been provided for spectators consisting of artificial structures or of natural structures artificially modified for the purpose”.
The reference to accommodation for spectators could well include a pavilion or some other fairly relaxed accommodation, with perhaps a bar attached and changing facilities, and so on. It does not have to be a pavilion as I understand it, which would include accommodation for 800 people. It is just a sports ground which has accommodation, because you are looking at the sports grounds Act.
So a question arises where there are quite large playing fields, a pavilion and a members’ club, and 200 people come from time to time to watch the match on Saturday against other clubs. It is not a lot of people, and children come, and everyone else. From time to time—because that is the wording in the Bill—there is a match against their local rivals, and they bring 400 friends along, and the home team have got 600, so you have 1,000. Are they going to have to search everyone who comes, and every car, and so on?
I am not saying that this is entirely wrong, but I do suggest that thought has to be given to how it will bite. What is the definition of an outdoor event or a sporting event of the sort I have in mind, such as football matches between local villages and towns? Cricket matches sometimes attract quite a lot of people. I am not talking about county grounds but just matches between two clubs that are old rivals on a bank holiday or something like that. This is all in the open air, in a completely unconfined space and, one hesitates to say, not on the highest level of the risk register. I am not going to tempt fate by saying anything else. I ask the Minister to consider this, certainly before Report.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, given the hour, I shall be extremely brief. I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, made some very convincing points, but I am afraid we still basically disagree with most of these amendments, because we disagree with the premise that rural sports grounds are less likely to be attacked. I do not think that there is evidence for that—at least, I remain unconvinced that there is evidence.
My second point echoes that of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, about requesting sector-specific guidance. I think that that would be a very useful thing for the Minister to pursue. Having sector-specific guidance for sports grounds would perhaps help with some of the concerns that noble Lords on the Conservative Benches have raised this evening.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I too will be as brief as I possibly can. I support the amendments to Schedule 2 tabled by my noble friends Lord Moynihan and Lord De Mauley. The amendments seek to clarify and refine the scope of the Bill by excluding certain venues used for open-air sporting and cultural activities in rural areas, as well as sports grounds that are not designated under current regulations. Amendments such as these are vital for ensuring that the Bill remains proportionate and practical, while safeguarding essential aspects of our national life, including grass-roots sports, rural cultural activities and events that are deeply woven into the fabric of local communities.
I will briefly address the amendment from my noble friend Lord De Mauley, who I understand will return to it later. Rural venues face a unique set of challenges. They are typically more remote, less densely populated and often lack the infrastructure and resources available to larger urban or suburban venues. Their security needs and operational realities differ significantly from those of stadiums, arenas and other major event locations. So it is essential that we do not impose disproportionate burdens on these rural venues, which are often run by volunteers or small organisations with limited budgets. They bring significant social and economic value to rural communities, fostering local identity and social cohesion. Requiring them to adopt extensive and costly security measures risks driving many of them out of operation, depriving rural areas of vital cultural and recreational opportunities.
Similarly, the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Moynihan to exclude sports grounds that are not designated under current regulations is both reasonable and pragmatic. Designated sports grounds, by definition, already meet specific criteria regarding their capacity and usage, and they are often subject to existing safety and security frameworks. Non-designated sports grounds, on the other hand, are typically much smaller venues, hosting grass-roots and community-level events, so it would be disproportionate to require these smaller, non-designated grounds to implement the same level of security measures as large, professional sports facilities. Such a requirement would likely discourage participation in grass-roots sports and place unnecess- ary financial and administrative burdens on local clubs and organisations, many of which are already stretched thin.
These amendments are not about weakening security provisions, but rather about applying them sensibly and proportionately. By excluding rural cultural and sporting venues and non-designated sports grounds, we can ensure that the Bill targets resources and security measures where they are genuinely needed: at venues that present a higher risk of terrorism and where the scale and complexity of operations justify the investment.
Finally, I commend my noble friends for tabling these amendments and for highlighting the importance of maintaining a balance between security and practicality. I urge the Government to seriously consider these proposals and recognise the value of preserving the unique contributions that rural venues and grass-roots sports make to our society.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the efforts of noble Lords in tabling the amendments we are considering and the points they have raised. The intention of the Bill is to provide a framework for security in the event of a terrorist attack: that is its prime focus. I recognise that there will be pressures on volunteers to come to the table on these provisions, but it is part of the scope of the Bill to ensure that happens and there is good practice.
I can assure the Committee that as part of the development of the Bill, both the current Government and the previous Government have carefully considered where it is appropriate to exclude premises and events from its scope. In particular, we have taken into account the potential impact on smaller community and grass-roots premises. For the reasons the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, mentioned, we have to draw that line in relation to the Bill as a whole.
On Amendments 13 and 15 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, the Government are conscious that there are many types of premises used for sports activities with different operating models. That is why we have made revisions to the previous draft version of the Bill to distinguish between sports premises which are open to the public to access freely and those where there is some form of control of entry, whether a ticket check, swipe card access or other.
Schedule 2 to the Bill excludes open-air premises which might otherwise be captured. This includes parks, sports grounds and open-air premises used for recreation or leisure where there are no measures to control access. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, gave me a number of examples, including the boat race, as it involves buildings and tow paths. I will reflect on his examples. My gut feeling is that buildings are covered, but tow paths and other associated provisions are not, except if—as mentioned in the Bill—payment is made, invitations or passes to access are issued, or individuals must be members or guests of a club or association to gain access. I will reflect on his points, however, and prior to Report—which will not be too far hence—I will make sure the noble Lord has a letter in his hand. He can then decide whether to take action on Report or be satisfied; I hope, of course, it will be the latter.
I have the concern that under the noble Lord’s proposals to remove paragraph 3(2)(d) of the schedule, a non-league football match, such as at Flint Town United in the town I live in, with 8,000 people attending, would be out of scope and its security not considered. That is unacceptable, because the amendments could leave only a few hundred premises across the United Kingdom within scope. Again, the purpose of this legislation is to ensure that we put in a basic minimum, which is to provide protection in the event of an attack and steps that can be taken by the associated individual. That is the bottom line, and sometimes it causes reflections that the noble Lord has made.
The costs were touched on by a number of noble Lords. We have estimated that for a standard duty premises the costs will be around £330 per year. That is not cash up front being paid externally; it might just be an assessment of the time involved by volunteers to undertake the training and be the responsible person. Again, there is a judgment to be made, and we have made the judgment that that is a right level of approach. Noble Lords have expressed concerns about that, but I do not think it will reduce the level of volunteers. Nor, having looked at the impact assessment from the Home Office, do I share the concerns that the penalties set out in paragraph 68, for example—which I agree are heavy—will put people off, because we are trying to instil into the system a level of good practice. Downstream, undoubtedly, that will not be administered as a day one fine—there will be discussion between the authority and the regulated premise in due course. I hope that will not put individuals off, but the noble Lord has made his point.
The noble Lord mentioned that officials have drawn up the impact assessment. I pay tribute to the officials for doing that, as they have worked hard, but he will note that the signature on the bottom is of the Security Minister, Dan Jarvis. Political leadership takes responsibility for this document and will continue to do so with the support of officials downstream.
On Amendments 14 and 19 from the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, the noble Lord himself mentioned that he thinks they need to be reflected on. I will take his word for that and give him the encouragement to reflect on them still further. The Bill sets out that open-air premises which might otherwise be caught are excluded, but he can reflect on his amendments and, if he feels that he wishes to bring them back on Report, a recrafted amendment could be tabled, should he wish to do so. That is his decision and his call in due course.
If I may, I will reflect on all the comments made by noble Lords. There were some detailed questions about the pavilion and reflections on that. I hope that noble Lords will understand that we are trying to achieve a baseline, and we want clarity on that, because clarity means that it serves a purpose so volunteers and others will take the right approach, the SIA will know what it is monitoring, and Ministers and this House will be accountable for the performance. I will reflect on all the points that have been made and, if clarity is required, then we will try and ensure that it happens. I will write to Members and, if noble Lords feel that that clarity is not present in my correspondence, then there will be opportunities later in the day to take action accordingly. With that, I hope noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply. We both share the overall objectives; of that there is no doubt, and I think that applies to everybody in the Committee. I hope that, in addition to the letter, the Minister will give consideration with his colleagues to sector-specific guidance. That would be very helpful in the context of the sport and recreation world.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I should mention that, if this Bill receives Royal Assent, as I hope it will, then there is that potential two-year implementation period, and we will be looking clearly at guidance to make sure that the wishes of the legislation are reflected in how it can be implemented by a range of organisations.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I appreciate that. By “sector-specific”, I was talking about the sport and recreation world, so I hope that that is also taken into consideration by the Minister. My biggest concern by far is the community amateur sports clubs—the CASCs—the volunteers, and the grass-roots sportsmen and sports-women in this country who give so much of their time voluntarily.
We will go away and consider the response that the Minister has kindly given the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.
Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [HL]
Monday 3rd February 2025
(1 day, 13 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 31-I Marshalled list for Special Public Bill Committee - (30 Jan 2025)