House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
I thank my hon. Friend for his continued support for people with Parkinson’s disease, a condition that I know is close to his family. This Government inherited long waits for neurology services, with only 53.4% of patients, including those with Parkinson’s, waiting less than 18 weeks for a referral in June. Our elective reform plan will free up over 1 million appointments each year for those who really need them, including patients with Parkinson’s, and NHS England’s Getting It Right First Time programme continues to work with 27 specialised centres in England, including at University Hospitals of North Midlands.
Adam Jogee
I thank the Minister for her answer and congratulate her on her appointment. Will she join me in paying tribute to my constituent Julie Hibbs, from Bradwell in Newcastle-under-Lyme, who has long campaigned for support for people with Parkinson’s, like her? Will the Minister meet me and Julie to discuss the merits of adding Parkinson’s to the medical exemption list, and to discuss how we ensure that those with Parkinson’s get the support they need and deserve?
Ashley Dalton
I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and his constituent to discuss all of those matters of concern—I look forward to doing so as soon as my diary will allow.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
The eyes are not only the windows to the soul, but a window to our health. Last week I had the pleasure of meeting the team at Moorfields eye hospital who, alongside a team at University College London, have done some work on a simple retinal scan that can detect Parkinson’s disease seven years prior to any symptoms. Does the Minister agree that optometry, eye care and eye health should be at the forefront of NHS England’s plan for integrated care, and that we should bring forward a national eye health strategy?
Ashley Dalton
Yes, I would be more than happy to support that. That is part and parcel of this Government’s aim to shift the NHS from hospitals to community.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
After 14 years of Tory neglect and incompetence, we inherited a broken NHS, and nowhere is that more apparent than in our mental health services. Too many people are waiting too long to access the care they need. To fix that, we will recruit 8,500 more mental health workers; provide access to specialist mental health professionals in every school, as the hon. Member has called for; roll out Young Futures hubs in communities; and modernise the Mental Health Act 1983.
Munira Wilson
With the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill being amended to include a panel that will involve psychiatrists who will determine whether a request for assisted dying should be granted, as well as a number of cross-party amendments rightly calling for the involvement of mental health professionals earlier in the process, what assessment have Ministers made of whether there is sufficient capacity in mental health services, which the Minister has just noted are overstretched, to meet those demands, and on the potential knock-on impact on both waiting times and treatments for those with mental health conditions?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Lady will know that the Government’s position on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is one of neutrality. I am on the Bill Committee simply to speak about the Government’s position on the workability and operationalisation of the Bill. We look forward to seeing the amendment that will be brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater). Any comment we make or position we take will be based on the operationalisation of that amendment, should it become part of the Bill and, ultimately, should the Bill gain Royal Assent.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
Thurrock community hospital does fantastic work on integrated care, particularly on integrated mental health care. On a visit, representatives said that what makes the hospital successful is a commitment to working across integrated care boards, the local authority and other relevant partners in the community, as well as a commitment to meeting people where they are, finding out what is important for them and working from there. Does the Minister see that model as integral to the reform of mental health care in this country? Will he join me on a visit to Thurrock community hospital to see what it does and what can be learned from how that work is undertaken?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is a doughty campaigner on this issue in her constituency. She is right that the integration of services is crucial to ensuring that we get the best possible outcomes for people who are struggling with their mental health. I would be very happy to discuss with her the possibility of me visiting her constituency.
Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
Is the Minister aware of the brilliant work done by Mersey Care NHS foundation trust in reducing in-patient mental health suicides to zero, which is an extraordinary achievement. Under a former Health Secretary, who may be standing not a million miles away from where I am standing now, that became an objective for all mental health in-patient units across the NHS. Will the Minister look into whether that objective still stands? If not, can it be reinstated?
Stephen Kinnock
I am not familiar with the detail of the case that the right hon. Gentleman mentions, but it sounds like a positive and interesting development, and I would be happy to consider it further. The Government are committed to delivering the cross-sector suicide prevention strategy for England, published in 2023. The 8,500 new mental health workers who we will recruit will be specially trained to support people at risk.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
I am regularly contacted by constituents who are concerned that their children are not receiving the mental health care they need. Having met GPs in Winsford, I know that there are clear concerns that access to child and adolescent mental health services is being rationed to the point that it has become almost inaccessible to all but the most severe cases. Will my hon. Friend tell me what progress has been made towards our commitment to provide specialist mental health professionals in schools, ensuring that there is early intervention that prevents issues from escalating?
Stephen Kinnock
After the disastrous 14 years that we have had, we are facing a very serious situation in terms of mental health provision. It will take some time to get the workforce in place, but we have a clear commitment to having a specialist in every school. The appointment and training of those specialists will take some time. We are also rolling out open-access Young Futures hubs in every community. I am confident that the combination of those two interventions will get us back to having mental health services that this country can be truly proud of.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), to her place. I look forward to working with her, as I do with other Ministers.
As the Minister for Care will know, 20% of the burden on the NHS is due to mental health, yet only 10% of the budget is allocated towards it. The mental health investment standard has been a welcome maintenance under this Government. However, the Select Committee heard from Amanda Pritchard the other day that the standard is guaranteed for only the next two years. Does the Minister agree that the standard has had a positive effect on mental health community services, and would he commit to protecting it?
Stephen Kinnock
The Chair of the Committee will have seen that we have made an explicit commitment to the mental health investment standard—we are absolutely committed to that. In addition, we have to drive reform in the system so that it is about not just the amount of investment going in, but how we ensure that it is working properly. I am absolutely confident that the commitment to 8,500 new specialists, the Young Futures hubs and having a mental health specialist in every school will facilitate the delivery of services in a far more effective way than is currently the case.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Minister for his continued commitment to supporting mental health in this country. Does he also recognise that mental health involves supporting NHS frontline staff? I had the wonderful opportunity of spending time with the East of England ambulance service on Saturday morning. They work incredibly long hours and work incredibly hard. Obviously, we need to think about their mental health as well.
Stephen Kinnock
We in this Chamber should, whenever possible, pay tribute to the people providing those frontline services, who every day work heroically in very difficult circumstances. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the pressures on the workforce—we are very conscious of that. We will bring forward a workforce plan in the summer, and we are working at pace to recruit the 8,500 mental health workers.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Last week, the Secretary of State issued a new mandate for the NHS in which a number of mental health targets were dropped. I accept that targets that drive perverse behaviours should be dropped and that some sharpened focus is necessary, but mental health waiting lists are at a record high, huge numbers of people are not at work because of poor mental health, and our young people are being let down badly by CAMHS, not least in my constituency of North Shropshire. Does the Secretary of State accept that mental health targets should be reinstated and that mental health should be treated with equal priority to physical health?
Stephen Kinnock
What we know about targets is that if we try to overload a system with too many targets, it causes confusion and ends up with, as the hon. Lady rightly says, perverse outcomes. We are clear that we do not want to have a system based on just making policy by press release, as was the case under the previous Government, putting out press announcements about loads more targets. It all makes for nice front-page headlines, but it does not lead to any serious delivery of the strategy that we need to deliver. I am with her on the point about focus. We are absolutely committed to mental health, as is set out in the planning guidance. It is also one of the priorities in the planning guidance, and we will continue to deliver on that priority.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
UK leadership on global health is critical to safeguarding our national and international health security, building resilience and creating prosperity. I work closely with my counterparts across Government. I recently met the Foreign Secretary to discuss these issues, which are also high on the agenda of the Minister for Development. The UK has one of the largest vaccination programmes in the world, and our confidence and uptake rates are among the highest globally.
Monica Harding
The NHS and the UK reap the benefits of our work in global health. Gavi is one of the UK’s greatest success stories: it has inoculated 1 billion children worldwide, but it has also strengthened our health security, keeping us safe from diseases such as Mpox and Ebola. What leadership will the Secretary of State and his Department take to strengthen organisations such as Gavi to keep us safe here in the UK?
Wes Streeting
The hon. Member raises an important point. I know that my ministerial colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office are looking at the investment cases for Gavi and the Global Fund as part of the spending review. I will ensure that her representations are relayed to the FCDO, and she is very welcome to make those points during oral questions to that Department.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
There were almost 67,000 cases of serious antimicrobial-resistant infections in the United Kingdom in 2023. War is increasing such infections globally; 80% of patients in one Kyiv hospital in Ukraine are said to have such infections. The Conservative Government had a plan to tackle that. Do the Labour Government plan to follow that plan, are they on track to meet those targets, and if not, what will the Secretary of State do about it?
Wes Streeting
I am delighted that Dame Sally Davies continues her work on antimicrobial resistance. That is an absolutely critical issue, and I pay tribute to the previous Government, particularly Minister Quince, for their work on it. It is in the national interest that we maintain not just the national focus but the international focus on antimicrobial resistance, which is why UK leadership in those global fora is so important.
Dr Johnson
Another time when it is important to work together is during a pandemic, such as by sharing research. Unfortunately, recent history tells us that when Labour negotiates, Britain loses out. Can the Secretary of State confirm that, whatever emerges from discussions with the World Health Organisation, he will not reduce the UK’s capacity to take decisions in the interests of the British people.
Wes Streeting
May I just say how regrettable it is that a sensible shadow Minister is sent along to parrot the absurd lines of her leader?
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
As I am sure the hon. Member knows, Hinchingbrooke hospital is in wave 1 of the new hospital programme, and his constituents can now look forward to a new hospital under this Labour Government. The hospital has received over £44 million to deliver RAAC mitigation safety works, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has commissioned a site-by-site survey of RAAC hospitals, which will ensure that individual development plans address the highest-risk elements as soon as possible.
Ben Obese-Jecty
Last July, Deborah Lee, the senior responsible officer for the Hinchingbrooke hospital redevelopment programme, stated that the deadline for the new hospital was 2030. In a written answer to me last year, the Minister confirmed that, even after the mitigation measures of failsafe steelwork, the lifespan of the remaining RAAC buildings would run only until approximately 2030. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the rebuild, and all waves of the new hospital programme, will not be delayed by the review of building safety regulations guidance announced by the Deputy Prime Minister in December? Will he assure my constituents that the RAAC buildings at Hinchingbrooke will be safe to use beyond 2030, and if so, will he publish the risk assessment that he has conducted to confirm that?
Karin Smyth
The hon. Gentleman has outlined the shocking state of some hospitals. I confirm again that we want a site-by-site report of those hospitals for exactly that purpose: to ensure that they are safe and to understand any critical issues before the schemes go forward. We expect that report in the summer.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Given that the Tory predecessor of the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) failed to mention RAAC once, and mentioned Hinchingbrooke hospital only five times in 23 years, does the Minister agree that people in Huntingdon and across the country need a Labour Government committed to rebuilding the NHS, not a Tory Government who pay lip service but fail to back it up?
Karin Smyth
I commend my hon. Friend on his research into the previous Government, and for the hard work that he is doing on behalf of his constituents. We are committed to the rebuild of Hinchingbrooke and have put the new hospital programme on a sustainable footing, which is something that his constituents can look forward to.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
This Government inherited a waiting list with a staggering 7.6 million people on it. Since July, that waiting list has already been reduced by almost 145,000, and ensuring that the NHS once again meets the 18-week standard for elective treatment is at the heart of the Government’s plan for change. Our elective reform plan sets out how we will meet that standard by the end of this Parliament, through a combination of investment and reform that Labour knows from past experience delivers results.
Ellie Chowns
I get regular messages from constituents facing terrible waits for care with potentially serious consequences, including a one-year delay for an early dementia referral and an 18-month delay for a cardiology review. Although I understand the case for the short-term, one-off use of spare private capacity to tackle the backlog while the NHS is rebuilt, can the Secretary of State please outline his longer-term thinking regarding privatisation of the national health service? In particular, why is he encouraging the development of long-term relationships with the private sector?
Wes Streeting
The NHS has always worked constructively with the independent sector, and I do not believe that ideological hobby horses should come before patients getting faster access to care. This Government are investing in our NHS, and before the hon. Lady complains about that, I would just point out that the Green party’s manifesto on the NHS said that it would require an
“additional annual expenditure of £8bn in the first full year”
of this Parliament, rising to £28 billion later. The Chancellor has just delivered a Budget that delivers £26 billion of additional investment, and the Greens complain about it.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I welcome the new Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), to her place. Hundreds of my constituents are on waiting lists for knee and hip operations, and while the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) says that she would like to see those waiting lists reduced, the Green party has done everything it can to oppose Labour’s plan for change—it opposed our Budget, with its record investment in the NHS, and it opposed our agreement with the independent sector to bring down the backlog. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is time for the Opposition parties to stop wishing for a reduction in waiting lists and start backing Labour’s credible plan to make a real difference?
Wes Streeting
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. As we know from the Greens’ experience in local government, they cannot clear the bins, let alone the waiting lists.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Labour Government’s elective reform plan says that there are plans for 10 straight-to-test pathways. Can the Secretary of State name them, or give one example?
Wes Streeting
It is absolutely ridiculous, Mr Speaker. Conservative Members turn up, criticising and carping about this Government’s elective reform plan, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that when his party was in office, it delivered the longest waiting lists in the history of the NHS. If he wants to do a pop quiz, he can use Google.
Dr Evans
This is the Secretary of State’s own plan. There was one example in the plan, but as an article in The BMJ on 17 January helpfully pointed out, that one example—which featured Sarah, who had sinus pain and hearing issues—was quietly removed from all online and future drafts after
“a flurry of GPs pointed out that her treatment”
was “wholly inappropriate.” That article went on to say that
“Sarah can pick up her dose of unnecessary radiation along with her weekly shop.”
On this part of the Government’s plan, The BMJ concluded:
“Sarah’s story is one of over-investigation, fragmented and inappropriate care, spurious choice, and a lack of senior decision making at first presentation. Activity for activity’s sake has little to do with high quality care.”
Does the Secretary of State agree with The BMJ, and if not, why not?
Wes Streeting
I always believe in holding our hands up when mistakes are made. I am happy to say that the reason that case study was removed from the published elective reform plan is because it was a genuine mistake, for which I accept responsibility as the Secretary of State. Now, maybe the Conservative party might like to accept responsibility for the highest waiting lists and lowest patient satisfaction in history, and finally have the decency to apologise to the country for the mess it left us in.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
Kate Osamor (Edmonton and Winchmore Hill) (Lab/Co-op)
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
Hospices provide vital care and support for patients and their families at the most difficult time. I am very proud that this Government have provided a £100 million capital funding boost for adult and children’s hospices over this year and next. We are currently finalising the delivery mechanism for this funding, and we are pleased that Hospice UK is standing ready to distribute the money to local hospices across England. We are also providing £26 million of revenue funding for children’s hospices in England in 2025-26.
James Naish
While I wholeheartedly welcome the £100 million capital funding boost for hospices announced before Christmas, 17 members of staff at Nottinghamshire hospice, which is a large community-based hospice serving my constituency that provides care for family members in their own homes, have recently been told they are at risk of redundancy. Can the Minister please expand on how the Government will support organisations such as this to continue to deliver excellent care in the community?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank my hon. Friend for this important question, and I commend the work of hospices such as Nottinghamshire hospice in his constituency, which I know does a wonderful job for people in his area. The investment I referred to in my earlier answer will help hospices such as Nottinghamshire hospice to provide quality end-of-life care to patients and their families this year and next. It can be used to improve IT systems, make it easier for GPs and hospitals to share vital data on patients, and help to develop and improve outreach services to support people in their own homes, when needed.
Kate Osamor
North London Hospice in my constituency has a site in Winchmore Hill that receives one third of its funding from the NHS, with the rest coming from the generosity of the public. Many of its services, such as out-patients and wellbeing, are funded entirely by donations. While it welcomes the announcement of the £100 million in funding, what assurances can the Government provide about long-term hospice funding, given the significant delays in accessing funding from integrated care boards this year? Hospices are anxious to seek clarity about the allocation and distribution of this funding.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. On her point about long-term funding, last week I chaired a roundtable with key stakeholders from the sector, and we were absolutely focused on developing a plan to secure the long-term sustainability of the sector. We cannot go back to the cliff edge that we have had over the last few months, primarily due to the utterly chaotic and shambolic way in which the Conservative party managed our system in the past.
Harpreet Uppal
I have had the privilege of witnessing at first hand the exceptional work of my local hospices, Forget Me Not children’s hospice and the Kirkwood. However, as my hon. Friends the Members for Rushcliffe (James Naish) and for Edmonton and Winchmore Hill (Kate Osamor) have stated, they are also struggling with long-term funding pressures and have had to make the difficult decision to reduce services and staff. What further work are the Government doing to ensure that hospices thrive, and to ensure that end-of-life care is included in the 10-year NHS plan?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. One of the three shifts that the 10-year plan will deliver is shifting more healthcare out of hospitals and into the community. In the context of the plan, we are having discussions about the long-term sustainability of the palliative and end-of-life care sector, including hospices. As we develop the plan, we will be carefully considering policies in this area, with input from the public, patients, health staff and our stakeholders. As I mentioned in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton and Winchmore Hill (Kate Osamor), last week I was pleased to chair a roundtable to discuss long-term strategies for hospices to get palliative and end-of-life care, including hospices, on to a more sustainable footing after 14 years of Tory neglect and incompetence.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Leicestershire is home to some superb hospices, such as Rainbows and LOROS, both of which are set to be massively impacted by the hike in national insurance contributions. Given the important work that these hospices do, particularly for people at the end of their lives, will the Minister urge the Chancellor to reverse this pernicious tax rise?
Stephen Kinnock
I am once again struck by the fact that Conservative Members seem to welcome the additional investment that the Chancellor has put into our health and care service, but do not seem to have any plan or proposals at all about how the revenue should be generated for that funding. Until we get an answer to that question, we will struggle to get much further in this House, although I note that Toby Porter, the chief executive of Hospice UK, has said that the
“funding will allow hospices to continue to reach hundreds of thousands of people every year with high-quality, compassionate care. We look forward to working with the government to make sure everyone approaching the end of life gets the care and support they need”.
Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
First, may I pay tribute to those who work in hospices? I think we can all agree that they do an astonishing job. The Minister will agree that the national insurance hike has had an impact on those who work in hospices. Can he assure me that when it comes to the Scottish Government’s funding—I acknowledge the 14 years of Tory misrule and the funding settlements that were handed down—any Barnett consequentials will be passed on in full to the devolved Administrations?
Stephen Kinnock
We have seen the biggest settlement in many years for our health and care system across the country. It is now up to the SNP Government in Edinburgh to absorb and deliver that funding in a way that will actually improve services in Scotland—something that we have not seen for a very long time under the misrule of the Scottish National party.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The magnificent work done by those who work in hospices, including the four in Northern Ireland, needs to be reflected in the funding formula. Will the Minister undertake to discuss with ministerial colleagues the need for the Treasury to review that funding formula, particularly in relation to devolved settlements?
Stephen Kinnock
From the roundtable discussions, and from subsequent discussions we have been having with the sector, it is clear that we need to look at the long-term funding issue. We faced a cliff edge towards the end of last year. That is not the right way to do things. We must start getting the funding discussions moving so that, well in advance of the end of this financial year, the funding situation for the palliative and hospice sector is much clearer.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
Lord Darzi’s report laid bare the shocking health inequalities in our country. It is completely unacceptable that in Britain in 2025, maternal mortality rates for black women are more than double those of white women and life expectancy at birth for females in Blackpool is eight years less than in Kensington and Chelsea. Reducing inequalities in elective care was identified as a key priority in the planning guidance and mandate that the NHS published last month, and further measures to address these inequalities in our country will be at the heart of our 10-year health plan, which will be published in the spring.
Debbie Abrahams
In 2013, the then coalition Government reduced the health inequalities weighting in the NHS formula, with the result that less money went to deprived areas. That was despite evidence that between 2001 and 2011, every £10 million invested in such areas resulted in four fewer men and two fewer women dying early. Can my hon. Friend reassure Government Members that that health inequalities weighting will be reinstated so that we can ensure that deprived areas get the funding they need and that lives are saved?
Ashley Dalton
The Government mandate to NHS England was published on 30 January and makes the importance of tackling health inequalities clear. NHS England has an existing programme that targets the most deprived 20% of the population, with the aim of reducing health inequalities. I can reassure my hon. Friend, who has been a determined campaigner on inequalities, that the health inequalities weighting has not been withdrawn. The funding in question, which amounted to £200 million, has been incorporated into the main integrated care board allocation. The weighting of that health inequalities adjustment has been increased from 10% to 10.2%, so that the ICBs still benefit from that extra investment, with funding redistributed to areas with the poorest health outcomes, based on measures of avoidable mortality provided by the Office for National Statistics.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I welcome the hon. Lady to her position. She may be unaware of the number of debates that I have led into women’s health and endometriosis and pelvic mesh, and there is an inequality in the health service with how women are treated. Many women are deeply concerned by the announcements and statements about how the concentration on women’s health has been reduced. Will the Minister speak to the president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists? Following that meeting, will she speak to the Secretary of State, who rightly says that he recognises when mistakes have been made, about reconsidering the approach to women’s health taken in the statement the other week?
Ashley Dalton
The Darzi review highlighted that there were too many targets set for the NHS, which made it hard for local systems to prioritise actions. There has been no reduction in women’s health services. The Government are committed to prioritising women’s health as we build an NHS that is fit for the future, and women’s equality will be at the heart of our missions. Women’s health hubs, which provide integrated women’s health services in the community, have a key role in tackling the inequalities faced by women. The Department has invested £25 million over 2023-24 and 2024-25 to support the establishment of at least one pilot women’s health hub in every integrated care system.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I thank my hon. Friend for his ongoing work in raising awareness in maternity services. We are committed to improving maternity care for women and babies. Evidence does not currently support screening for vasa praevia in the UK, but we have asked the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to review the guidance around this issue.
Connor Naismith
My constituent Cate Maddison suffered with severe vasa praevia in childbirth. This condition causes severe bleeding and can often result in the death of infants in childbirth and complications for the mother. However, the risks are significantly reduced when identified during pregnancy. Thankfully, Cate’s child survived, but she is campaigning to reduce unnecessary complications and deaths arising from the condition. Will the Minister meet me and Cate to discuss how we can tackle this important issue?
Karin Smyth
I am incredibly sorry to hear about Cate’s experience. We want to ensure that women receive safe, personalised and compassionate maternity care and that women with the condition are supported. That is why we have asked the college to look at the guidance. I will of course be happy to meet my hon. Friend and his constituent.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There is clearly a need to consider vasa praevia as part of antenatal care. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) set the scene very well and the Minister responded in a good fashion. This issue, which the hon. Member was right to highlight, is also an issue in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister share what is going forward here with representatives at the Northern Ireland Assembly?
Karin Smyth
I thank the hon. Member for that point. As he knows, I am always keen to ensure we share good practice across the United Kingdom so that his constituents, like mine, can benefit. We will work through the usual processes to ensure that happens.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I thank the hon. Lady, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), for her continued support for Stepping Hill hospital. I know that she is working hard on this issue. We are backing the NHS with over £4 billion of funding for integrated care boards for capital priorities, with a dedicated £750 million estate safety fund next year to address the poorest quality hospitals. I am pleased that the replacement of Stepping Hill’s outpatient facility is already under way, backed by £11.5 million this year. I look forward to visiting as soon as my diary allows.
Lisa Smart
I am grateful to the Minister for her response and our ongoing correspondence on this issue. I very much look forward to meeting her on site at Stepping Hill so that she can see for herself the reported £134 million repairs backlog at the site. The most recent board papers mentioned a £19.9 million significant risk backlog, which is having a detrimental effect on the hospital team’s ability to see and treat patients. What hope can the Minister give that there is a plan for the funding of buildings at Stepping Hill so that my constituents get the treatment that they deserve?
Karin Smyth
The hon. Lady outlines for her constituents what many across the House will recognise: the state that the last Government left the capital estate in. The autumn Budget committed over £13 billion into next year, with £4 billion for ICBs to start prioritising some of this work. We have allocated £1 billion for critical backlogs, maintenance and upgrades. A longer-term capital plan will follow the 10-year plan that we are currently developing to offer the hope for her constituents that she asks for.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
Children and young people with special educational needs are waiting too long for the NHS services that they need, in large part because local authorities have been hollowed out by 14 years of austerity. We are supporting earlier intervention through the partnerships for inclusion of neurodiversity in schools—PINS—programme, which is backed by £13 million of funding. NHS England has also launched a taskforce to look at how support can be improved for people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. We look forward to its report later this year.
Charlotte Cane
Cambridgeshire has some of the lowest funding in England for GP practices and schools. Given the Government’s focus on growth for the area and the record demand for special educational needs and disabilities and young people’s mental health services, will the Minister work with colleagues across Government to ensure that high-growth areas no longer suffer lower than average funding?
Stephen Kinnock
Our commitment to improving SEND conditions is universal. We are looking at this from the point of view of improving provision right across the country. I am very pleased that the PINS programme is making progress. I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the early language support for every child—ELSEC—programme, in which nine pathfinder sites over two years will provide early identification, and targeted and universal support for children with speech, language and communication needs in early years and primary school settings. We are working very closely with colleagues across the Department for Education and NHS England on that.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
Local authority resources are a big driver of some challenges in the SEND system, but it is clear to anyone working in it that a systemic under-prioritisation of children’s health, all too often by local NHS trusts, is a big contributing factor. Young people right across my constituency waiting for assessment and lacking support are paying the price. As part of our 10-year plan to reform the NHS, how will we ensure that children’s health is front and centre again, with much more support for people with additional needs?
Stephen Kinnock
I am working very closely with colleagues in the DFE on how we mainstream SEND provision more effectively, get more rapid education, health and care plans and autism diagnoses, and on a whole range of issues that require strong cross-party work. I would be happy to brief my hon. Friend on that separately.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
The dementia diagnosis rate target was not met for the last five years of the Conservative Government, and it declined over the course of the last Parliament. This Government are committed to ensuring that at least two thirds of people living with dementia receive a diagnosis. The Government are investing in dementia research across all areas, from causes, diagnosis and prevention to treatment, care and support, to help people live with this condition.
Joe Robertson
Nearly 1 million people are living with dementia—it is the biggest cause of death in the country today—and by the end of the 2030s that figure is set to rise to 1.4 million. Early diagnosis is one of the best things we can do to support people living with dementia, so will the Secretary of State explain why the dementia diagnosis target no longer features in NHS England’s priorities, as published two weeks ago? Will he commit to reinstating both dementia and the commitment to a diagnosis target in NHS England’s priority guidelines?
Wes Streeting
I just restated the Government’s commitment to ensuring that at least two thirds of people living with dementia receive a diagnosis. Our investment and reform agenda will speed up diagnostics across the board. Under the last Government, NHS planning guidance was a wish list of fantasy targets, most of which were never met. As the NHS got worse and worse, they piled on more targets to make themselves look busy. This Government are ending the micromanagement, turning our NHS around and clearing up their mess.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
My dad was a GP in Hartlepool for over 30 years—the Secretary of State was kind enough to meet him the last time he was in Hartlepool—and he has Alzheimer’s. Every day, I think about why we did not spot the signs early enough to get the treatment that he needed at an earlier stage. The Alzheimer’s Society estimates that only 29% of social care workers have any form of dementia training. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is critical that we up that number and ensure that all social care workers have dementia training, to ensure early diagnosis?
Wes Streeting
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question—I know how personal this issue is for him. I was delighted to meet his father on my visit to Hartlepool, and wish him very well. I take very seriously what my hon. Friend has said about the importance of workforce training. He mentioned training for health and social care staff, which is important, but I would argue that the point applies more broadly across our society. On 6 September, the Department launched the adult social care learning and development support scheme, which allows eligible employers to claim for funding for certain training courses and qualifications, including relevant dementia training, for eligible care staff. We will continue to keep this under observation and review.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I know that this issue is close to my hon. Friend’s heart, after his years of service as a nurse in the health service. We have to ensure that the NHS is an attractive place for nurses to work, and that they can progress. We hear directly from staff through our 10-year plan, and work closely with the Royal College of Nursing, Unison and other trade unions through our social partnership forum.
Sojan Joseph
I must disclose that I worked as a mental health nurse in the NHS for the past 22 years, and that in my career, I progressed from nurse to head of nursing.
Recruitment and retention of nursing staff across the health and social care sector is key to delivering an NHS that is fit for the future, but the most recent NHS staff workforce survey showed that just 56% of staff felt that the health service acted fairly when it came to career progression. What steps will this Government take to address this issue, and to ensure that our nursing workforce feel valued and feel a sense of purpose in their wider work?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the issue is key, and that the results are worrying. I know how proud my friends and family members were to become nurses, and what a great career nursing offered them. We have to deliver on the promise of a good career, and build on that pride in being a nurse. We absolutely recognise that we cannot rebuild the NHS without their skills and their high-quality critical and compassionate care.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)
Does the Minister believe that the NHS should expect biologically female nursing staff to get changed in front of biologically male colleagues who identify as female?
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
I was delighted to work closely with the hon. Gentleman when he was Minister for Health for Northern Ireland, and I am delighted to work with his successor. I have met regularly with my counterparts in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales since I took up office. The Chancellor’s recent Budget meant a massive £26 billion-a-year boost for the health and social care services; thanks to the Barnett consequentials, the devolved Administrations will benefit from a major increase in their budgets—the biggest since devolution began.
Robin Swann
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Just over a year ago, the former Health Secretary wrote to counterparts in the devolved Administrations to offer patients from Wales and Scotland who were experiencing lengthy waits the option of treatment by providers in England. The offer was declined, as it was seen as a political stunt. Would the Secretary of State consider reviewing that offer, but this time including Northern Ireland, so that his call to offer the best of the NHS to the rest of the NHS can be shared across the entire nation?
Wes Streeting
I am absolutely committed to our working across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on cross-border working and co-operation, where we can. I have had constructive conversations, particularly with my counterpart in Wales, to that effect, and I would be delighted to work with my counterpart in Northern Ireland in the same spirit. Despite our differing views on the future of the United Kingdom, I have had equally constructive discussions with my counterpart in Scotland, although he may not thank me for mentioning it.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Wes Streeting)
Yesterday, we kicked off National HIV Testing Week. Getting tested for HIV is quick, free and confidential. I pay tribute to the leadership of my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister, who became the first leader in the history of the G7 to take an HIV test. As a former member of the independent HIV Commission, I am determined that this Government will deliver on our commitment to end new transmissions of HIV in England by 2030. We will set out our aim shortly in our new action plan, which will be developed by me and my brilliant new Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton).
Brian Leishman
Fourteen years of austerity have created a new stratum of society: the in-work poor. Recent talk of ruthless cuts to social security is beyond alarming. Does the Secretary of State agree that having a welfare system that covers the cost of essentials, as proposed by the Trussell Trust and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, would alleviate hunger and hardship, and therefore relieve considerable strain on the NHS?
Wes Streeting
I am a product of the welfare state, and I remember the benefit system putting food in the fridge and money in the electric meter. I also know from lived experience that people who are trapped in the benefits system want to escape. The best way out of poverty is not through social security, important though that is, but through fair, decent work that pays. That is the Government’s agenda.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) on her promotion to the Front Bench.
Eating disorders affect over 1.25 million people, and this is the last Health and Social Care Question Time before Eating Disorders Awareness Week, which starts later this month. The Secretary of State will be aware of the amazing work done by the eating disorder charity Beat, which I met a few months ago, and to which I pay tribute. Will he back Beat’s call for broader access to intensive community and day treatment for those with eating disorders—there are limited places currently—and set out a timetable in which that will be delivered?
Wes Streeting
I really welcome the shadow Secretary of State’s raising that important issue. Too often, even when patients with eating disorders are in health settings, they do not receive the right care or support at the right time. I would be delighted to receive representations from Beat on how we can improve the situation.
Edward Argar
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. He will know that osteoporosis impacts 3 million people. He is aware of the campaign by the Royal Osteoporosis Society, and the powerful parallel campaign led by The Mail on Sunday and the Daily Mail, for access to fracture liaison services across the country. Pre-election, he committed to support that, and a roll-out plan. People will look for an answer that looks to the future, not the past, so when will he publish the fracture liaison services roll-out plan, to ensure that all who need to access those vital services can, and will he work with campaigners and me to achieve that roll-out before 2030?
Wes Streeting
This is unusually consensual today. The Government are committed to rolling out fracture liaison services across every part of the country by 2030. I promised that before the election, and that is what we are delivering. In fact, we have already started by investing in 14 hi-tech DXA—dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry—scanners, which are expected to provide an extra 29,000 scans to ensure that people with bone conditions get diagnosed earlier. I note that the shadow Secretary of State does not want to look to the past—I am not surprised, given the Conservatives’ record—but I am sure that we can work together in the future.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
I holidayed in my hon. Friend’s constituency this summer—it is a very beautiful part of the world—so I understand some of the rural challenges. It is a matter for local integrated care boards how they organise ambulance services. There are many problems that we want to resolve, and I would of course be very happy to meet him.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I, too, welcome the new Minister to her place. This morning’s oral health survey revealed that more than one in five five-year-olds in England have experienced dental decay, affecting their ability to smile and socialise, as well as causing pain and distress. Will the Secretary of State guarantee the Government’s commitment to tackling the problem, and back Liberal Democrat calls for an emergency scheme that guarantees dental check-ups for children?
Wes Streeting
This is an issue that the Government are prioritising. The hon. Member will be aware of the commitment we made to provide 700,000 urgent dentistry appointments. We are ramping up to deliver on that commitment, as well as to deliver supervised toothbrushing in our schools. Further wider-ranging reform is needed; I am working closely with the Minister for Care to rebuild NHS dentistry, after the rot left in it by the Conservatives.
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ashley Dalton)
Increasing HIV testing is a vital step towards meeting our goal, and it will be a core element of our new HIV action plan, which will be published later in the year. We are investing more than £4.5 million in delivering a national prevention programme, and, with backing of an extra £1.5 million, we will extend the programme for a further year, until March 2026.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Wes Streeting
The hon. Member is right to raise this serious and important issue. We want to ensure that we improve diagnostics, access to treatment and research, and I can think of no better person to lead the work on this area of the national cancer strategy than my hon. Friend the Minister for Secondary Care, who has lived experience, and who demonstrates that people can live well with cancer.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
Karin Smyth
I entirely appreciate the frustration and distress caused by medical supply shortages. We are working intensively with industry to resolve the HRT supply issues, and the problems with the supply of Estradot are expected to be resolved by the end of the month. Meanwhile, we have issued a serious shortage protocol to allow community pharmacists to supply alternative brands of the same medicine, and those remain available.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Wes Streeting
If the hon. Member is so committed to that project, perhaps he can explain why his party did so little about it in government.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
Since April, Crawley’s urgent treatment centre has been temporarily closed overnight because of low staffing levels. What do the Government intend to do to ensure that normal services are resumed for communities such as mine?
Karin Smyth
We are absolutely committed to urgent treatment centres, which play a vital role in supporting patients, especially during periods of high demand. I understand that this is temporary, and that the centre is running a pilot. I know that my hon. Friend will work closely with his local integrated care board to ensure that it serves his constituency adequately.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Wes Streeting
Where have I heard that before? The hon. Member knows that I will agree with him on the matter of the Union, but I also believe that we should work cross-border wherever we can, especially when it comes to important issues such as Parkinson’s. We have to make better breakthroughs in research, treatment and, hopefully, finding a cure.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
After 14 years of Conservative government, 77% of people in Derby cannot access an NHS dentist. Can the Minister tell us what caused the rot to set in and how we can fill the cavities in provision?
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I see what my hon. Friend did there, and she should brace herself as we drill down into this answer. The Conservative party is the cause of the rot: spending on NHS dentistry fell by a staggering 18% between 2010 and 2024, so it is little wonder that dentistry is on its knees. We will shortly set out plans to introduce supervised tooth brushing for three to five-year-olds in the most deprived communities, and we are working with the dental sector to implement our rescue plan.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Stephen Kinnock
It is vital that we have a palliative and end of life care service that works and is on a sustainable footing. I have had discussions with the sector. We want to ensure that we do not have the cliff edge that we had at the end of last year. The hon. Gentleman is right to point to this, and we will report back in due course.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister will be aware that the contract uplift for dentists is facing a near 11-month delay. Can he confirm that dentists will be receiving their uplift? What will be done to make sure that they receive enough money to cover the costs of NHS dentistry?
Stephen Kinnock
I can reassure my hon. Friend on that point. We implemented the contract uplift on 29 January. Dentists will therefore be receiving their uplifted payments in March, backdated to 1 April 2024. For the first time in more than a decade, we have also increased payments for practices training a foundation dentist.
Sir John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)
Stephen Kinnock
We are in negotiations about the future contract with the General Practitioners Committee England of the British Medical Association. Those negotiations are proceeding, and the right hon. Gentleman is right that we need serious reform; we will be pushing reforms through on that basis. On his point about the estate, we have a £102 million commitment on capital for the primary care estate, which I think will go some way towards reassuring him.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for all the support he has given the University of East Anglia to set up its dental school, but he will be aware that all those shiny new dentists coming out in a few years’ time will be going into the private sector, not the NHS, unless we can sort out the NHS dental contract. Can he give us any kind of timeline for when we can expect to hear an announcement on that critical factor?
Stephen Kinnock
I wish my hon. Friend all the best with his efforts to get that dental school up and running. As for the need for serious reform, there is no perfect payment system, but we have to get a payment system in place that makes NHS dentistry attractive—at least as attractive as doing work in the private sector. We are working at pace on that, and I will report back on that as rapidly as possible.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Wes Streeting
The hon. Member is absolutely right to put the spotlight on paediatric health. Mental health is important for children and young people, but physical health is too. This Government are committed to dramatically reducing waiting lists and returning to the 18-week standard by the end of this Parliament, but we should aim to go even harder after those childhood waiting lists, because many children waiting in pain and agony are losing valuable years of their childhood that they will never get back.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The Government know how hard I have worked as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for medical cannabis on or under prescription. I am pleased to hear that there is a trial, but I urge the Minister and her team to make sure that it actually goes ahead, as others have not because of Brexit, covid and elections. Can she please meet me to ensure that the APPG and I are kept up to date on the work of the NHS?
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend has been a strong campaigner on this issue on behalf of her constituents, and I congratulate her on that work. We are confident that the randomised trial will go forward, and we have invested over £8.5 million in it. I am very happy to meet her, and I urge people to come forward and support the trial. That is the way forward on this issue.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
The new Health Minister has stated that it is okay for a human being to present as a llama. If I have a family member who presents as a llama and suddenly becomes ill in the middle of the night, should I send for a doctor, a vet or a straitjacket?
Wes Streeting
I can say to the hon. Member that my hon. Friend the Minister believes in treating every human being with the dignity and respect they deserve—even the hon. Gentleman.
Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)
Shortly after the election, the new Government announced £4.3 million for a new community mental health hub in Whitehaven. Unfortunately, the local mental health trust followed that decision by announcing the closure of the Yewdale ward for acute mental health services. Does the Minister agree that we need to get early intervention right before we close acute services, and will he bring together a meeting to scrutinise that decision?
Stephen Kinnock
Integrated care boards are responsible for providing mental health services to meet the needs of their local populations. As part of our plan for change, we will reduce delays and provide faster treatment. We are working with NHS England to transform mental health services, shift care from hospitals to local communities, and increase access to support for people across the country, including in rural areas.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Insomnia affects many patients, including my constituents, who are being advised by their GPs to try cognitive behavioural therapy as an alternative to medication. However, digital CBT programmes are not available on the NHS, leaving many without access to drug-free treatment. Will the Minister outline what steps the Government are taking to ensure that patients have access to digital therapies, so that more people can get access to evidence-based, drug-free support?
Wes Streeting
The hon. Gentleman hit the nail on the head when he mentioned the importance of evidence-based treatment. As part of the Government’s shift from hospital to the community, from analogue to digital and from sickness to prevention, the NHS absolutely should be in this space, and we are considering those issues as we develop our 10-year plan for health.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
The NHS South East London integrated care board provides services to my constituents, and I have discussed some ways in which we could better deliver services by redeveloping the Erith community hospital site in Northumberland Heath. Is the Minister able to provide an outline of the Government’s plan to provide capital funding for expanding community services like those at Erith hospital?
Stephen Kinnock
I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend so that we can get into a bit more detail about what is happening in his constituency, but he is absolutely right to point to the need for more and better community health services. That will be at the heart of our shift from hospital to community in the 10-year plan that we are delivering.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Health authorities in Devon are set to trial the relocation of a vital coronary service from Torbay to Exeter, which is 24 miles away. Will the Minister meet me and fellow south Devon MPs who have grave concerns about the impact on patient safety?
Wes Streeting
It is important that people are able to get the right care in the right place at the right time, and I recognise the challenges, particularly in geographies such as Devon and Cornwall, which have more rural and remote communities. In the first instance, I encourage the hon. Gentleman to take this issue up with local health leaders and his integrated care board, but Ministers are always open to receiving representations beyond that if he needs further reassurance.
Clonoe Inquest
(1 day, 9 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
Mr Speaker
Before I call the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) to ask his urgent question, I must remind hon. Members of the House’s rule relating to matters sub judice: Members should not refer to any matter that is currently before the courts.
On 19 November, I granted a waiver in respect of the case of Dillon and others v. the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, given the issues of national importance raised by that case. The waiver is ongoing, and Members may refer to the case in the House. Given that the coroner’s verdicts and findings in relation to the Clonoe inquest have been published, I am content for that case to be discussed in the House. However, Members should take care to avoid referring to any other active civil or criminal cases.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make a statement on the coroner’s ruling in the Clonoe inquest.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
On 16 February 1992, a heavily armed unit of the Provisional IRA carried out an attack on Coalisland police station armed with a 12.7 mm heavy machine gun and three AKM rifles. Approximately 60 rounds were fired, but thankfully no one was injured. Following the attack, the IRA unit proceeding to a car park where they were engaged by soldiers of the Army’s specialist military unit. This resulted in four men, Patrick Vincent, Sean O’Farrell, Peter Paul Clancy and Kevin O’Donnell, being shot and killed by the soldiers.
On 6 February, Mr Justice Humphreys, sitting as a coroner in the inquest into the circumstances of those deaths at Clonoe chapel, found that the use of lethal force by the soldiers was unjustified and that
“the operation was not planned and controlled in such a way as to minimise to the greatest extent possible the need for recourse to lethal force.”
The coroner further found that the soldiers did not hold
“an honest and genuinely held belief”
that the use of force was necessary to defend themselves or others.
These are clearly very significant matters that require careful consideration. I know that the Ministry of Defence is considering the coroner’s finding. Therefore there is, unfortunately, a limit to what I am able to say in relation to the findings themselves, particularly given that there is also an ongoing civil case relating to these events. However, it is clear the Government must take such findings very seriously. We owe a great debt to our armed forces—
Mr Speaker
Order. There is no sub judice to the case that you have just mentioned. We must be clear on that. So please let us not try to use that as a barrier. I just want to be clear on that.
Hilary Benn
I accept that entirely, Mr Speaker. I was merely pointing out, as I think your statement alluded to, that there is an ongoing civil case.
We owe a great debt to our armed forces. The vast majority of those who served in Operation Banner during the troubles did so with distinction. They operated in the most dangerous and difficult circumstances to protect the citizens of the United Kingdom. During the troubles, over 1,000 members of the security forces lost their lives in that endeavour. It is right that we hold our armed forces to the highest standards. We must also recognise the extreme circumstances that they faced. That is what sets them apart from the terrorist organisations who indiscriminately murdered over 3,000 people during the troubles.
David Davis
I thank the Secretary of State for taking this statement personally. I know that he did not have to, so I thank him for that. The Government gave notice at the election that they intended to remove the element of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 that protects soldiers and police who served during the troubles from prosecution. Last week’s frankly speculative judgment from the Northern Ireland coroner into the Clonoe shootings now exposes a number of soldiers to potential prosecution. These are men who served their country with honour, heroism and skill, sometimes in the face of the most incredible danger. They are now mostly in their 60s and 70s and no doubt hoping for a well-earned peaceful retirement. In his statement in December, the Secretary of State of spoke of
“recognising the dedicated service of the vast majority of police officers, members of the armed forces and the security services who did so much to keep the people of Northern Ireland safe during the troubles.”[Official Report, 4 December 2024; Vol. 758, c. 419.]
So precisely what are the Government going to do to stop the vengeful pursuit of decent patriotic people? If the Government leave them open to persecution, it will frankly be shameful and serve only to further the IRA’s attempt to rewrite the history of Northern Ireland.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for asking this urgent question. As he will be aware, this inquest was part of the five-year plan established by the former Lord Chief Justice, and because the hearings were held prior to the legacy Act 1 May cut-off, the inquest was able to be concluded. For the avoidance of doubt, it is not the result of anything that this Government have done.
The Government set out in our election manifesto and the King’s Speech our commitment to repeal and replace the legacy Act, because it did something quite remarkable in uniting the political parties and communities of Northern Ireland in opposition to it. It is a fatally flawed piece of legislation that has been found, in a number of respects, to be incompatible with our obligations under the European convention on human rights. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] This Government believe in upholding our commitment to the European convention on human rights, even if other Members do not share that view.
I set out in my statement to the House of Commons in December the approach that we are taking, and I will bring forward further proposals in due course. I echo what the right hon. Gentleman said about the service of our armed forces, the police and security services during those terribly dark, difficult and bloody days of the troubles.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) for his urgent question and the Secretary of State for his answer. I have a simple question: what does the Secretary of State think this ruling will mean for peace and reconciliation and for bringing communities together in Northern Ireland?
Hilary Benn
That is a judgment that individuals and communities will have to make, having regard to what the coroner had to say. There have been a very large number of inquest findings in relation to the troubles, and the Government and I understand the concerns that have been raised by the coroner’s findings in this case.
The fundamental problem in Northern Ireland remains the legacy of the troubles and the fact that so many people still do not have an answer to the question of what happened to their loved one. I am afraid the previous Government made, in my view, a terrible mistake in deciding that civil cases and inquests would be closed off.
I also have to point out that the legacy Act did not prevent the possibility of future prosecutions, because it is possible, even under the law as it stands today, for prosecutions to be undertaken if the independent commission finds evidence that it thinks should be passed to the independent prosecution bodies.
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
Thank you for granting this UQ, Mr Speaker.
On a February night in 1992, four men—known terrorists—armed with semi-automatic weapons and a Dushka machine gun capable of firing 600 rounds a minute at a range of 1,100 yards had already attacked a Royal Ulster Constabulary police station and were planning further attacks. These terrorists called themselves an army, they carried weapons of war, they sought to kill, and they operated entirely outside the bounds of the law. Yet we are asked to believe that the use of lethal force against them was not justified. I am not a lawyer, but if this is the state of the law, then the law is an ass, and it is up to Parliament to change it.
What if this had not been on the streets of Tyrone? What if it had been on the streets of Birmingham? What if it had been in Parliament Square? Would we be asking why those men had not been arrested? Would we find it acceptable that the courts subsequently sought to punish those forces that had risked their lives for ours?
The consequences of this ruling are potentially very severe: military morale weakened, military recruitment reduced, military effectiveness diminished, and more retired servicemen in their declining years dragged before the courts for trying to protect their countrymen from terrorists. For the record, there is no Defence Minister on the Treasury Bench to hear this urgent question.
The last Government took steps to ensure that a line was drawn under court actions like the one handed down last week. This Government have said they will repeal that Act, but seven months into their tenure, they have brought forward no plans. When will the House see that legislation? When we do see it, will the Secretary of State ensure that it includes provisions to protect servicemen, such as those affected by the ruling, from prosecution?
The Secretary of State will have seen this morning the excellent report by Policy Exchange, which puts the costs of repealing the legacy Act at hundreds of millions of pounds. The return to inquests and civil cases will severely hit the budget of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. Without funding, that will inevitably reduce policing and affect national security. Will His Majesty’s Government commit to underwriting that liability?
I will end by saying that if we in this House think the law is not fit for purpose, it is our job, and ours alone, to change it. That is what parliamentary sovereignty means.
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I completely understand the concerns, which he has expressed with such passion, about our armed services personnel, including in relation to this case. He has just said, “If this is the law, the law needs to be changed.” Is he suggesting that the arrangements for inquests and the way in which they are conducted—coroners sitting, hearing the evidence and coming to a finding—ought to be changed? [Interruption.] That is a very interesting observation from His Majesty’s Opposition.
The legislation passed by the last Government would have given the very terrorists who were killed in the exchange of fire, if they had survived, the ability to secure immunity from prosecution. That is what the last Government’s legacy Act did. It would have given anyone—soldiers, but also terrorists—immunity from prosecution. I am afraid that this Government take the view that that was wrong and the courts have determined that that was wrong. That is why we will repeal and replace the legacy Act.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
Throughout the troubles, both state and non-state actors committed unlawful killings that have created harm and scarred families across both our islands. Does the Secretary of State agree that his Government, working with the Northern Irish parties, must find and build bodies that honour the Stormont House obligations of articles 2 and 3-compliant investigations and ensure that no victim-maker—nobody who carries out an unlawful killing, whether UK state forces, IRA or UDA—has the right to suppress truth from families?
Hilary Benn
As I have previously indicated to the House, I am committed in all my discussions with many of those affected, including veterans, to finding a way forward that can command a degree of consensus in a way that the last Government’s legacy Act failed to do. I understand the strength of feeling being expressed in the House today—I really do—but there needs to be some reflection on how a piece of legislation came to be passed that engendered almost universal opposition in Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland, who, after all, lived through the troubles, did not feel that that was the right way to proceed, and time and again it has been found to be unlawful. In other words, we were left with a mess and we are doing our best to try to fix it.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) for bringing this issue to the House. The Liberal Democrats are firmly committed to the principles of truth, justice and accountability. The violence carried out by the IRA during the troubles was abhorrent and inflicted deep suffering on communities across Northern Ireland. At the same time, upholding the rule of law is a fundamental principle that applies to all, including the actions of state forces.
The findings of the Clonoe inquest highlight the importance of due process and transparency in dealing with legacy issues. It is vital that families seeking answers about the past are able to access justice and that all events are subject to rigorous legal scrutiny. That is the only way to build trust and support a lasting reconciliation in Northern Ireland.
There has been immense progress in Northern Ireland since the Good Friday agreement and that progress was built on the principles of justice, democracy and accountability. We—all of us—must continue to uphold those principles if we are to secure a lasting and peaceful future for all communities.
The Secretary of State recently said that legislation to revoke the deeply flawed legacy Act, which does not command confidence across Northern Ireland, will be introduced when time allows. Will he offer details on when that might be?
Hilary Benn
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations. The answer to his last question is: when parliamentary time allows. As soon as I am in a position to indicate when that will be, I will tell the House.
I very much agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about the violence inflicted by terrorists being abhorrent. It is important that in this House we make it quite clear that there was always an alternative to violence: pursuing the path of peace. When people finally decided that that was the course of action that they should take, we saw a transformation in the lives of people in Northern Ireland. The tragedy is that so many people were killed and murdered before we got to the point of the Good Friday agreement.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Secretary of State asked rhetorically whether the law around inquests needs to change. The coroner had to answer four questions: where, when, who and how. He had no role in trying to answer why, but we know why: four depraved terrorists for the IRA and their warped ideology tried to destroy society and kill in our country.
Yesterday, the Defence Secretary was clear when he said that those who served in the SAS that day,
“deserve, and they will receive, our fullest support.”—[Official Report, 10 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 21.]
I will not stand for a rewriting of the past. Does the Secretary of State agree with the Defence Secretary?
Hilary Benn
I do not support a rewriting of the past either. Of course we should stand with our armed service veterans, which is what the Ministry of Defence does. I will say, however, that the coroner—a judge—considered the facts of the case and came to an independent judgment about them. We are all of course perfectly free to express a view about the findings but, to come back to my point in answer to the Opposition spokesperson’s earlier comment: if Members argue that the coronial system applying to inquests right across the country should—[Interruption.] If I may just finish the point: if they argue that the system should be changed because there is a great deal of feeling about particular findings that the coroner reached, the House should give that careful consideration before going down that road.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State accept that the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 continues to apply? That means that no soldier and no terrorist, convicted of even the most heinous murders, can serve more than two years in jail. Those are the sort of compromises that have been necessary. When the Secretary of State accepts that the legacy Act would have given immunity to terrorists and soldiers alike, does he not recognise the principle of a truth recovery process, coupled with a statute of limitations, as exemplified by what happened in South Africa? Is what was good enough for Nelson Mandela not good enough for Northern Ireland?
Hilary Benn
The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Societies around the world that have faced terrible conflict have each taken their own path to try to find a way forward. The release of 400 prisoners in the two years after the Good Friday agreement was a very bitter pill to swallow for many in Northern Ireland, but I support that step—it was nothing to do with me at the time—because it was the right one to take to enable the Good Friday agreement to be reached. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I have met people, including the family of a member of our armed forces who was murdered by the IRA, who expressed to me their bitter opposition to the immunity provisions of the legacy Act.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The sharpened tension in Northern Ireland is palpable after the ruling. The day after the shooting, the Provisional IRA issued a statement boasting that the men were in the East Tyrone brigade and on active service. Mr Speaker, you and I know the Bible, and it is very clear: live by the sword, die by the sword. If you live by a machine gun that you use to shoot a police station, you die by a machine gun—that is the way that I see it. For right-thinking people in Northern Ireland, and indeed throughout this United Kingdom, to be told that the use of lethal force was not justified flies in the face of common justice, and feeds the feeling that the judiciary are not just complicit but active in their rewriting of history. What can the Secretary of State do to rectify that situation?
Hilary Benn
The findings of the coroner in this case stand for themselves and are on the record, and all of us are able to read them. In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s direct question about what the Government are doing, as I indicated to the House in my answer to the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), the Ministry of Defence is, of course, giving very serious consideration to what the coroner had to say.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I am astonished by the coroner’s findings. He was not asked to contemplate the question about why—getting inside the head of a soldier who is worried about whether they are going to be shot dead is very difficult. I served in Northern Ireland and some of the decisions that we had to take were instantaneous. There was no time to mull them over—it was either life or death. I lost a very good friend, Captain Robert Nairac. The Secretary of State says that the trouble with the last legacy Act was that it gave immunity to IRA members, but they already had immunity, not just through the letters of comfort but because they kept no records, so they cannot be prosecuted. The only group that will be prosecuted will be soldiers, like myself, who never asked to go to Northern Ireland, but went because we were told to protect civilians, and who served their country. They will be dragged in front of the courts because the Government seem not to care about them.
Hilary Benn
I say to the right hon. Gentleman, who himself gave distinguished service, that I absolutely understand and recognise the point he forcefully makes about the circumstances in which our soldiers found themselves as part of Operation Banner. They had seen their comrades killed and they did not know what they were going to face; as he rightly says, in those circumstances soldiers had to make very hard split-second decisions.
The coroner had a job to do. He expressed his findings, Members of the House are expressing what they feel about those findings, and the Ministry of Defence is considering them. It is right and proper that we stand by our armed forces, which is why the Government and the Ministry of Defence give support to veterans in those circumstances. However, I would point out that many, many members of the Provisional IRA and the loyalist terrorist organisations were prosecuted, tried and convicted.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Based on the Secretary of State’s earlier comments, is it not now clear that the Secretary of State believes the Government cannot stand behind our brave soldiers in this instance because of our membership of the European convention on human rights? Therefore, surely that is a perfect reason why we must leave the ECHR.
Hilary Benn
That is not the Government’s position. The Government’s position is indeed to stand behind our brave armed services personnel—
Hilary Benn
By repealing the Bill, indeed, which has been found repeatedly to be unlawful. I make no apology for saying to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and to the House that this is a Government who uphold the European convention on human rights. I recognise that some people say we should leave, which would put us in the same position as some other countries around the world with which I would not want the United Kingdom to find itself associated. The point about the European convention is that its rights are for every single citizen: those rights may accord people with a decision that Members of the House disagree with today, but tomorrow they may protect the rights of every single one of us. That is why we are committed to the ECHR.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
How will the Secretary of State ensure that veterans who served their country with distinction will not be hounded through the courts over events that may or may not have happened decades before?
Hilary Benn
As history shows, decisions about potential prosecutions are taken by independent prosecutors. Such decisions are not determined by the Government; independent prosecutors have to take decisions on the basis of the evidence and then courts have to decide whether they are going to convict or not. That is called the rule of law. A distinguished former Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, set out very clearly that the British Army believes in the rule of law and is held to the highest standards, and I agree with him. I also agree with what the newly appointed veterans commissioner in Northern Ireland had to say about that in the comments that were reported over the weekend.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
There is tangible anger in Northern Ireland over this preposterous verdict, and the Secretary of State’s limp response today will not assuage that anger. This is a Secretary of State who wants to see IRA godfather Gerry Adams paid compensation because the wrong Minister signed his detention order 50 years ago. This is a Secretary of State who has today defended the retention of a coronary system that, time without number, puts the security forces in the dock, but never the terrorists. Little wonder that confidence in the Secretary of State is haemorrhaging in Northern Ireland, and this response only underscores why.
Hilary Benn
As I made clear at Northern Ireland questions recently, the Supreme Court issued a judgment on the interim custody orders relating to internment in 2020. The previous Government knew there was a problem and, for quite a long period of time, was unable to find a solution. In the end, the solution—sections 46 and 47 of the legacy Act—has been found to be unlawful, but I have given an undertaking from the Dispatch Box that we are looking at all lawful means to prevent compensation from being paid in those circumstances. I believe that we are taking the right approach to the legacy Act.
On coroners, I say for, I think, the third time that if we have an inquest system that we support and that applies right across the piece, it is not possible to write legislation that says, “We will have the verdicts, judgments and findings that we like, but we will not have the findings that we do not like.” That is a decision—[Interruption.] Independent coroners make those decisions in respect of individual cases. I feel the anger of many Members of the House—[Interruption.] Will the hon. and learned Gentleman let me finish answering the question that he put? I feel the anger that is being expressed in the House, but we have an independent legal system in this country, which is one of the foundations of our freedom.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
The IRA itself claimed the terrorists shot by the security forces at Clonoe, describing their actions that night as being “active service”. They had just launched a cowardly attack on Coalisland RUC station, no doubt with murderous intent, but they met real soldiers and they lost. No doubt many innocent lives were saved by the security forces as a result of that evening: these were not innocent people, but hardened terrorists. Does the Secretary of State agree that this was a justified and necessary operation, within the guidelines of military interception, and will he condemn judicial rulings that seek to rewrite history, undermine our security forces and embolden bloodthirsty terrorists who wage war against innocent people?
Hilary Benn
I accept the characterisation that the hon. Member has ascribed to the individuals. Clearly, in firing 60 rounds at the police station, we know what their intent was. That was what the Provisional IRA and terrorists on the loyalist side did during the course of the troubles, and we have to speak of that as well. The coroner’s findings are there on the record. Members and public society are perfectly entitled to express a view, and I acknowledge the concerns that Members have raised today. It is a very serious issue, and that is why it falls to the Ministry of Defence to consider the findings and what may follow.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
It is a great pity that no one from the Defence Front-Bench team is here with us because I am sure that if they were, they could confirm that the DShK machine gun that these men had is a weapon of incredible power. If we were to look around the average city block, there would be nothing that a DShK could not hit and put a bullet right through. We now sit here warm and safe and consider the actions of, as we have heard, brave men who had to take an instantaneous decision to stand up and face that weapon and the people who had already demonstrated that they were prepared to use it. It sticks in the craw that we hear the IRA described here as a “unit”—as though they were some sort of army. They style themselves as an army, but they are not an army—they are a murder gang, simple as that. Is it not the case that the ECHR now skews the balance in their favour, and that we are hide-bound by the idea that there is an equivalence between the IRA and the brave soldiers of the SAS who stood up and did what they had to do to protect innocent lives?
Hilary Benn
There is no equivalence at all—none whatsoever—for the reasons that have been set out by Members in this exchange, following the question asked by the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington. There is nothing in the European convention on human rights that says there must be equivalence. Our armed services personnel, the RUC, security services and others were doing their best to protect the citizens of Northern Ireland from the murderous onslaught that they were subjected to over the years of the troubles. That is why there is no equivalence between them and those who chose in those circumstances to use violence to try to advance their cause. In the end, the terrible violence that we are discussing was brought to an end by the Good Friday agreement—by people finally recognising that that is not the way to proceed.
Going back to the question asked about the cost by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), there was an alternative cost, which is what we would have faced if the Good Friday agreement had not been successful in bringing peace to Northern Ireland. We should recognise what a significant moment it was, but we should stand with our soldiers.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
Much has been made in recognising the service of our armed forces, including the members of the RUC and the PSNI, because not only did they defend our communities, they lived among them. Does the Secretary of State agree that the soldiers acted inside the rules of engagement in that they believed their lives were in danger from heavily armed terrorists, who were intent on murder, and that decisions taken in a split second by the military commander were, in his view, justified?
Hilary Benn
In all honesty, I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that, of course, I was not present at the time; I am not the coroner; I have not looked into the circumstances of the case; and therefore I am not in any position to answer the question that he has put to me. But I have read the summary of the coroner’s findings. They of course raise serious matters, which is why the Ministry of Defence is considering them.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
As has been said, people in Northern Ireland are appalled at this decision by a coroner who, incidentally, would have had police officers protecting him during the troubles. I guarantee that had he been faced with armed terrorists and those officers had asked them to put their hands up and surrender, he would have been appalled. He would have expected them to be shot. People will be equally appalled by the measly mouthed response from the Secretary of State. Let me quote some of the things he has said: “I can’t comment on this”, “We have to take seriously the judgment of the coroner” and “I will defend the ECHR, even though it has been abused by terrorists.” When will the Secretary of State take the side of the soldiers who fought in Northern Ireland and not be afraid that whatever he says here might offend Sinn Féin, the IRA and their supporters?
Hilary Benn
I will only say to the right hon. Gentleman that the characterisation of the views that he attempts to attribute to me is incorrect, but I make no apology for telling the House about this Government’s support for the European convention, because this set of findings by the coroner has nothing to do with the European convention on human rights. The coroner was faced with a set of circumstances. He considered them and produced his findings, as inquests do all the time. People are entitled to criticise the outcome, but it is an independent coronial process.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
Compounding the problems that the coroner has created with his comments is the fact that in the past whenever innocent people were killed, the judiciary has commented that attention should be drawn to those behind the scenes who send young men out to carry out the killing. These young men were sent out to kill; they had murder in their minds. It is a pity that the coroner did not mention who was behind that—why are their names not being brought to public light? Does the Secretary of State agree that something like that might have helped a little to minimise the compounding problem created by the coroner’s comments at the time?
Hilary Benn
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about how we come to tell the truth about what happened; to give the families answers—I have met many of them, as have my predecessors—about what really happened. Although we will repeal and replace the legacy Act, I decided to keep and reform the independent commission because I believe it offers the best means of trying to provide those answers in the round. The problem with the inquest system in certain cases is that it has no capacity to deal with sensitive information; the independent commission does. That is why I urge families in Northern Ireland who are still seeking answers to talk to Sir Declan Morgan and his colleagues, because he is able to produce reports that can range as widely as he thinks appropriate.
Gavin Robinson
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe that the Secretary of State would have intended to mislead the House, but I suspect that he may have misunderstood the point being made, and it has filtered into a number of his subsequent responses. In relation to the coroner and his powers, the point being made was that there are aspects of the judgment released on Thursday that are outwith the coronial law in Northern Ireland and outwith what would be expected of a judicial officer. I give the Secretary of State an opportunity to say not that the coronial law needs to change, but that the judgment does not sit within the remit and powers of the coronial system.
Hilary Benn
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. That is a judgment for others to make, if that is the view they take. I accept that the right hon. Gentleman has made that point, but it would be for others to consider it, and it may be a factor that the Ministry of Defence considers when it is looking at this set of rules.
Sir Julian Lewis
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there any way within the rules of order that I can point out how the divisiveness of the exchanges that we have just had illustrates what happens when a line is not drawn under bitter historical conflicts?
Mr Speaker
I think the right hon. Gentleman has just done that for us, and I think I have heard enough—let us move on.
US Steel Import Tariffs
(1 day, 9 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
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade if he will make a statement on US steel import tariffs.
The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)
We have seen the proclamation issued by President Trump overnight, which enforces a full return to 25% tariffs on US steel imports on 12 March 2025. The US has so far published details only on steel, not on aluminium. The intended effect of the proclamation is to revoke existing arrangements that have avoided those tariffs, such as the UK-US resolution, as well as any separately agreed product exclusions from the tariffs.
What British industry needs and deserves is not a knee-jerk reaction but a cool and clear-headed sense of the UK’s national interest, based on a full assessment of all the implications of US actions. The Minister of State for Industry is meeting representatives of the steel industry and trade unions this very afternoon, and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade is in touch with representatives of the British steel industry and will meet them in the next 24 hours. Since July, we have engaged in a systematic way with the UK steel sector, and we will continue to engage with UK industries impacted by potential tariffs.
Historically, we have benefited from a strong and balanced trade relationship with the United States—worth around £300 billion and supporting millions of jobs. In trade policy, we stand ready to work with President Trump to find solutions that work for both the United Kingdom and the United States.
Dame Harriett Baldwin
The United States is our greatest ally and our greatest single trading partner. The UK and the United States are the biggest investors in each other’s economies. Yet this is a moment of great peril for the UK steel industry, because the Government have failed to engage with gusto with the new US Administration. The Prime Minister has not, despite his many air miles, got on a flight to the States at the first possible opportunity, and years of student politics-style insults hurled at the President by Government Front Benchers has put our relationship in jeopardy. And that was before the embarrassment of the Chagos islands situation showed that we have terrible negotiators running the country.
Can the Minister confirm what conversations he or the Secretary of State have had with their counterparts in the United States about steel tariffs? How many times has the Minister spoken with US trade representatives about this matter since Sunday? Will he confirm that the first 500,000 tonnes of steel to the US will be tariff-free, as they were under President Trump’s previous Administration? What economic analysis has the Department produced on the impact of the tariffs on jobs and on the wider UK economy, and what plans do the Government have to reciprocate with tariffs on US steel and aluminium, or on any other US goods? What are the Minister’s plans for the safeguarding measures against steel dumping, which expire in June?
We on the Conservative Benches have been calling on the Government to strain every sinew for a trade deal with the United States. Much work was done by the Department last time President Trump was in the White House. Will the Minister finally set out what plans the Government have to obtain a big, beautiful free-trade agreement with the United States?
Mr Alexander
Well, well—let me try to answer the various questions that the shadow Minister asks. First, on the big, beautiful deal that the Conservatives contemplated, I simply observe that that was one of a whole number of trade deals that they boast about but abjectly failed to deliver.
The hon. Lady described this as a moment of great peril for the UK steel industry. Frankly, we saw the UK steel industry suffer from a degree of neglect for many years under the previous Government. That is why we are the first Government in many years to set out a comprehensive steel strategy, including a commitment of £2.5 billion towards the future of the steel industry. We will take no lectures from Conservative Front Benchers on the UK steel industry.
On the hon. Lady’s substantive question about the degree of contact that we have had with the US trade representative, it may have eluded her attention that we do not yet have a confirmed US trade representative. We anticipate that Jamieson Greer will be confirmed by the US Senate in the next couple of weeks. Similarly, she might suggest that it is important for the Secretary of State to meet Howard Lutnick, the US Secretary of Commerce, but, alas, I must inform her that Howard Lutnick has not yet been confirmed. We stand ready to engage with the incoming Administration—be that with the USTR or the Secretary of Commerce—once we are in a position to do so.
In terms of the economic analysis, I hope the hon. Lady will understand, given how sensitive these issues are as we anticipate the further steps to be taken by the Trump Administration, that it would not be an altogether wise negotiating strategy to share the detail of the internal UK analysis of the potential effects of tariffs, which, I remind the House, are not due to be imposed until 12 March.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
What is essential now is that this does not escalate. Widespread duties on UK exports to the US would be devastating for economic growth, bad for inflation and bad for interest rates. The whole House ought to wish His Majesty’s new ambassador, Lord Mandelson, the very best of luck in the conduct of his new tasks in Washington. What flexibility will the Minister allow on increasing funding to UK steelmakers through the steel strategy if they confirm that that is essential to maintain a sovereign capability in this country?
Mr Alexander
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his generous words about the incoming UK ambassador to Washington, who—notwithstanding his commitment at the weekend to fly under the radar—is already in post and is making necessary calls. He is but one of the key interlocutors we have established with the incoming Administration, and—reflecting the earlier questions that we were asked—we are already actively engaged with the US Administration.
More broadly on the approach to the UK steel industry, my friend and colleague the Minister of State for Industry is this afternoon meeting representatives of the steelmaking trade unions and representatives of the principal steel companies in the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State will further that dialogue in the next 24 hours. There has already been outreach to the UK Steel trade body. In relation to the commitment for the steel strategy that we are due to unveil in the spring, I can assure my right hon. Friend that there is already a very active dialogue that will incorporate issues related not just to potential tariffs but to the risks of trade diversion, and to the substantive issues that he raises.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Donald Trump’s tariffs will cause much uncertainty across the world, not least for those working in our great British steel industry. Tariffs are not just bad news for UK steel producers; they would have a tangible effect on people’s lives, from lower economic growth to higher inflation. It is not likely to end with steel, so we may well be caught up in America’s economic vandalism. Will the Minister set out how US tariffs may affect the UK economy and what preparations are being made as a result, and does he agree that British jobs are on the line and that businesses and workers want to see the Government stand up for them?
Mr Alexander
To give a sense of quantum to the House, about £400 million-worth of UK steel exports go to the United States. That represents, if I recollect accurately, about 10% of UK production, so the hon. Gentleman is entirely right to recognise that this is a significant moment. We take that very seriously, which is why we are engaging in dialogue with both the workforce and the owners of the various steel producers here in the United Kingdom. More broadly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) alluded to, we want to avoid a significant escalation. We saw retaliatory measures taken under the first Trump Administration. It feels to me that this is an opportunity for the UK to exercise a cool head and a clear-eyed sense of where the national interest lies. These tariffs will not be imposed until 12 March, which gives us time to undertake the dialogue that is already under way, to reach a judgment on the basis of the analysis that we have already done, and to ensure that our interlocuters in Washington and elsewhere are engaged in a constructive and mature dialogue.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
It is quite evident that tariffs will have a negative impact on the UK economy. Among all the palaver in the imposition of tariffs, the impact on workers—on their jobs and livelihoods—is often forgotten. In formulating a response to the proposed tariffs, I ask that we work closely with trade union representatives to ensure that the workers are not forgotten in all of this.
Mr Alexander
I am happy to give that assurance. I should probably declare an interest as a member of the Community trade union. I can assure the House that trade unions—whether Community, the GMB, Unite or the other representatives of steelworkers—have been a central part of the dialogue that we started in July. Frankly, we inherited a situation in which there had been significant under-investment in steel capability in the United Kingdom for many years. We are backing up that commitment to dialogue with an act of commitment to public funds, and we are doing so in dialogue with the workforce as well as with the companies themselves.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
The Minister is quite right that we do not want a knee-jerk reaction, but I gently point out to him that this announcement should not have come as a surprise, bearing in mind the President’s comments both before and after the inauguration. Many of my constituents who work at the Scunthorpe steelworks already face an uncertain future, and this will just increase their concerns. Can the Minister give an assurance that he will report back to the House as soon as possible about the meetings that will take place over the next day or two?
Mr Alexander
There are plenty of opportunities for Ministers to be held accountable in relation to the dialogue that we have started, and that we continue, with steel producers in the United Kingdom.
Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s initial point about whether this announcement has come as a surprise, candidly, it has not. However, it is also fair to recognise that the new President has a speciality in generating uncertainty—part of his style of negotiations is creating uncertainty as to what will happen next. As I sought to suggest in my opening answers, we have answers on steel today, but the proclamation that emerged overnight did not give us answers on aluminium. In those circumstances, it is right and reasonable to be mindful of the statements that have been made, which I can assure the House that we were, and to undertake analysis, which I can assure the House we are also continuing to review and reach a judgment on.
At the same time, we should recognise that the date on which these tariffs come into effect is 12 March. As a consequence, there is a window of opportunity to not only engage with the workforce and the companies to ensure that we better understand exactly what they are looking for in light of these specific measures, but critically, to engage directly with the Trump Administration. That is work to which our ambassador is already turning his mind.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Let us not forget that steel is a strategically important industry, both for our economy and our national security, and if other countries are going to be protecting their steel industry, our Government must not be afraid to make the big fiscal choices required to protect our own. Will the Minister assure the House that responding to these tariffs will be a priority for this Government, as will putting the industry on a sure footing in the years ahead?
Mr Alexander
In terms of being willing to make the big fiscal choices, we have committed £2.5 billion of public money since July to support the steel industry, with resources being funnelled in part through the national wealth fund. I can assure my hon. Friend that we have already been willing to put money, as well as commitment, behind the steel industry. He is absolutely right to recognise the strategic significance of this industry, not just on its own terms but much more broadly to the manufacturing capability of the United Kingdom. He has alluded to the risk of trade diversion, given the potential remedial action taken by other trading blocs, so I also want to assure him that we have protections that will remain in place until 2026. There are safeguards in place in relation to trade diversion, as well as the UK’s ability to act independently.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
I have listened very carefully to what has been said this morning. We have known since November that this was coming, even though the press were saying that we would somehow get a special relationship. What is clear today is that Trump shows strength towards countries that are in a position of weakness, which is where the UK currently is. Is it not now time for this Government to think very seriously about being back in the EU, where there is strength against strength through the customs union and the single market? We do not know what else is coming down the line, and Scottish businesses need to know the future—it could be whisky, it could be fish or it could be manufacturing. Can the Minister give us some assurance about how he will stand up to the strength of global protectionism?
Mr Alexander
In terms of an understanding of Scottish business, again I should probably declare an interest, given that the Glenkinchie distillery is in the Lothian East constituency. Only this morning, I met with Chivas Regal and Diageo, so I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am fully aware. Certainly, no one party should claim to speak for Scotland, or for Scotland’s businesses.
As for the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union, it is no secret that I was a remain campaigner and wanted the United Kingdom to stay within the European Union in 2016. I would gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that had his party been successful in its endeavour to break up the United Kingdom in 2014, the direct and immediate consequence of that choice would have been Scotland’s departure from the European Union.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
In his response, the Minister mentioned the previous Conservative Government’s neglect of the steel industry—it was allowed to decline to a size smaller than the industry in Belgium. Does he agree that the UK’s market presents a great commercial opportunity for investment in steel, and that through this Government’s steel strategy, we have the opportunity to attract that investment to the UK?
Mr Alexander
I am very happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. We have a comprehensive plan for steel, which, sadly, we have not had in this country for a number of years. That plan is backed up by significant public resources, which again were not available under the previous Government, and we look forward to publishing a comprehensive strategy for steel in the spring of this year.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
If President Trump offered to cancel the tariff on steel imports in return for the UK throwing the appalling Chagos giveaway deal in the dustbin, would the Government agree?
Mr Alexander
Tempting though it is to indulge in the hypothetical negotiating strategy ventriloquised through the right hon. Gentleman, consistent with the approach that we need to take a considered view of what is emerging—and is still emerging, in the case of aluminium—the responsible thing to do is leave those matters with the good offices of the UK’s ambassador to the United States and the Foreign Secretary.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The reality is that countries across the globe are moving towards a protectionist model, while at the same time we are still importing 68% of the steel we need. There is clearly an opportunity here for the UK. Next year, our steel safeguards come to an end, at the same time as the EU introduces its carbon border adjustment mechanism tariff protections. Does the Minister agree that we have to move at pace to replace those protections and back our steel industry in the same way that other countries are choosing to?
Mr Alexander
I can assure the House that we are determined to back our steel sector. The Minister for Industry will be at Sheffield Forgemasters tomorrow; as I say, she is meeting representatives of the steel industry today, and the Secretary of State will be meeting representatives over the next 24 hours. We have established a steel council and a comprehensive plan for steel, we have committed significant public resources, and we will publish a comprehensive strategy in the spring of this year. We take steel seriously, which, sadly, was not the case for our predecessors.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is no secret that President Trump loves tariffs and intended to use them, and the Minister is coming across as a little complacent in his approach. Can he clarify whether any discussions have taken place with the Administration about continuing tariff-free quotas for British steel since the inauguration? Presumably, the Prime Minister did not raise that matter during his call. Does the Minister also concur that agreeing such protections is made harder by this Government’s failure to commit to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence?
Mr Alexander
It is a matter of public record that the Prime Minister has had a couple of warm exchanges with the incoming President-elect of the United States, which I think is entirely right and appropriate. We now have a new UK ambassador, and I pay due tribute to the work of Karen Pierce, his predecessor, who did an exemplary job on behalf of the United Kingdom during the period of transition. It remains an indisputable fact, however, that Howard Lutnick is not yet in office as the US Commerce Secretary, and that Jamieson Greer is not in place as the US trade representative. Those are the individuals through whom these dialogues are normally conducted.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I echo Labour Members’ support for steel as a nationally important infrastructure industry that we must protect in this country. Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee—who is no longer in the Chamber—I also agree that we must try to avoid escalation. Part of that is about our relationship with Europe, which is our largest market for exported steel after America, so can the Minister update us on what conversations he has had with his European counterparts? This issue of CBAM is absolutely critical to the British steel industry, which is on its knees after 15 years of a Conservative Government who failed to see its value. Will he also reassure us that the resolution of the emissions trading scheme is still on the agenda for the May talks with Europe?
Mr Alexander
I can assure my hon. Friend that we are working on that EU reset, and continue to work on it, through the good offices of my new colleagues in the Cabinet Office. One element of that reset is looking at those linkages and how they can work effectively, and the level of engagement in relation to that reset is significantly ramping up. Again, frankly, there had to be almost confidence-building measures established after the deep betrayal of trust that was felt by our European friends, neighbours and allies—let us remember that a previous Conservative Prime Minister could not even bring herself to acknowledge President Macron as a friend and ally of the United Kingdom. In that sense, we have built the relationships, we have established trust, and we are looking forward with a clear-headed sense of national interest to the reset talks that are getting under way this year.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The threat to the UK steel industry is not tariffs from the US, but the cost of our electricity. The Business Secretary has previously agreed with me that that is what makes our steel industry uncompetitive, and it is why imports have grown from 55% to some 70% in the last couple of years. So will the new steel strategy, due in the next few weeks, confirm how we will get down the electricity price in this country to make our industry competitive?
Mr Alexander
I think the difficulty with the point the hon. Gentleman makes—and I appreciate his constituency interest and the broader interests of Lincolnshire in this—is that other factors need to be recognised and addressed in the steel strategy. There is again, for example, the indisputable fact that we inherited blast furnaces that were increasingly out of date relative to technologies being used elsewhere. There had also been years of neglect in a number of plants in which there is a significant need for both public and private investment. So I respectfully hear the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about electricity prices and general power generation prices in the United Kingdom. The challenge of energy prices is not unique to the United Kingdom, but is felt across the whole of the continent of Europe. However, there are other factors that we are going to have to address as part of a comprehensive plan for steel.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
I commend the Minister and the Government for their work on the steel strategy so far, but these are anxious times. British steel is a byword for British pride in our communities, jobs and the products we produce. I am worried not just about the exports, but about some of the steel dumping, on which we have had conversations, given our need to get growing as an economy. Does the Minister recognise not just that this is an issue for the communities that many hon. Members represent, but that it is an issue of national pride in places such as Peterborough and the country as a whole that we get this right?
Mr Alexander
My hon. Friend is a doughty defender of the interests of Peterborough and of his constituents, and he is right to recognise that pride in steel making extends beyond Port Talbot, Scunthorpe, historically Motherwell and other locations of significant steel capability. On the specific point he raises, of course there remains a residual power available to individual companies under the Trade Remedies Authority to take action on dumping perceived to be happening. However, I reassure the House that the UK’s steel safeguards do and will remain in place until the end of June 2026, and I hope that offers him some comfort.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
The attacks on the last Conservative Government might carry more weight if this Government were not planning to equalise our carbon price with the European carbon price, but that is by the by.
Given the conduct of China over the years, measures to hold down production costs in other countries and now President Trump’s tariffs, will the Minister accept that, if international free trade was not always a myth, it certainly is dead today, and will he commit to abandoning the theories and policies that follow his logic? Comparative advantage is used as intellectual cover for outsourcing production jobs and prosperity to countries that cheat the system. So can we see some trade realism and a strategy—a real strategy—to cut industrial energy costs, keep us making virgin steel, and get us manufacturing and exporting more?
Mr Alexander
If the hon. Gentleman has an appetite for trade realism, let us get real: the Prime Minister for whom he worked failed to do a US-UK trade deal. Let us also get real about the fact that the central underpinnings of the party of which he is a member at the time of the Brexit referendum—that we were in a less protectionist world, that we would have a functioning World Trade Organisation system and, indeed, that we would have major trading blocs seeking to take barriers down rather than put barriers up—have all been misplaced. His leader, the now Leader of the Opposition, generously conceded a couple of weeks ago that there was no growth plan following the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU. It is for this Government to clean up the mess that his Government left.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
Under WTO rules, any country can impose tariffs when it believes there is unfair subsidy of the exports presented by the other country, but so far I have not heard America put forward any argument that there is unfair subsidy of our steel industry. What discussions is the Minister having with the WTO about this?
Mr Alexander
I can assure my hon. Friend that we are in regular dialogue with the WTO. I was in touch only this morning with Simon Manley, our exemplary British ambassador in Geneva. We were also very clear at an early stage—since July—that we were backing Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala as the next director general of the WTO. I had the great privilege of working with Ngozi when I was the UK governor of the World Bank during a previous era of Labour Government. The UK is committed to standing behind her exemplary leadership of the WTO at an admittedly very challenging time for global trade.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
To use football parlance, President Trump is playing a blinder with his tariffs strategy. Canada, Mexico and Colombia all fell into line when he threatened tariffs. Only the EU is foolishly saying that it wants to go toe to toe with him. Can the Minister assure us that our Government, using our Brexit freedoms, will put Britain first when it comes to this issue, and that we will not side with the EU, but will work with the American Administration to protect British jobs and British industry?
Mr Alexander
While I may not agree with that characterisation of the efficacy of the US President’s actions in recent weeks, it is a matter of record that we stand ready to work with the United States to broaden and deepen our trading and economic relationship. We are significant investors in each other’s countries, and that trading relationship matters. The previous Government abjectly failed to secure the trade deal that they promised—the big promise at the time of the Brexit referendum—but with a clear sense of the national interest, and a willingness to engage with open minds, we are ready to have this conversation with the United States.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister very much for his answers. The time is coming, and I hope we will have better news for the future. President Trump has been very clear that he wishes to work with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and to build on the friendship that already exists, but he is also clear that America comes first. He is a businessman, and we have to acknowledge that. What consideration has been given to addressing the tariff issue with him, and to securing a deal for our businesses? He has made it clear that he is prepared to give and take, and we have much to offer in this very special relationship that we both savour.
Mr Alexander
If one observes the comments made by the Chancellor last night, or by the incoming British ambassador in Washington, it is clear that we are ready to engage in a thoughtful, pragmatic way with the new Administration in Washington, and we want to broaden and deepen the trading relationship. I observe that under the first Trump presidency, bilateral trade between the United States and the United Kingdom increased, and we have ambitions to see that continue.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Minister for his responses.
Nurse (Use of Title)
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the use of the title of nurse; and for connected purposes.
I thank the Minister for Secondary Care for being here for this debate. I thank the incredible #ProtectNurse campaign, led by Professor Alison Leary MBE and Paul Trevatt, as well as nursing organisations, such as the Queen’s Nursing Institute and the Institute of Health Visiting, and charities. I also thank Unison Health, Unite, the Royal College of Nursing’s professional nursing committee, and the many other people and groups who are supporting this change.
I am honoured to have worked on this for many years. My Bill is about protecting the public and respecting the training, qualifications and experience of registered nurses. I am sure it will come as a shock to many people here and watching this that anyone can call themselves a nurse. They can print out a business card and start work, and it would be fine—that is currently legal. Even those who have been struck off the Nursing and Midwifery Council register for serious misconduct or those who have a criminal conviction can continue calling themselves a nurse. That is unacceptable, and actually quite dangerous.
When we hear “nurse”, we automatically think of somebody who is qualified. I am sure we have all done it: somebody says they are a nurse, and we say, “Can you look at this rash for me?”, or “I’m feeling a bit of pain in my left side,” and we start giving personal information. We trust them because we trust the title of nurse. It is about time that we showed the nursing community just how much we value and appreciate their qualifications, because we know how important nurses are in society. We clapped for them during covid. They were on the frontline, and they saved many people’s lives, so this change is well overdue. When I think about nurses, I also think about my cancer nurse, Aimee, and how amazing and special she is. This Bill and this campaign are also a tribute to her.
In 2021, I tabled an amendment to the Health and Care Bill that received the support of 240 MPs—an enormous number. We thought we would get the amendment over the line, but it was a shame that the last Conservative Government used their majority to vote it down. Now that we have a Labour Government, I am hopeful and confident that we can amend the law to protect the title of nurse. At the end of the day, the first role of a Government is to protect their citizens, and my Bill would go some way to doing that.
A freedom of information request by Nursing Standard found that across 93% of all NHS trusts, there were more than 8,000 people with the term “nurse” in their job title who in fact had no registered nursing qualifications. That is worrying, and the numbers are incredible. We know the problem, so what is the solution? It is clear: the simplest way to rectify this issue is to amend the Professional Qualifications Act 2022 by adding “nurse” to “registered nurse”, a term that is already regulated by the Nursing and Midwifery Council, so this would not need to be part of regulatory reform. That is all we have to do. We have done a lot of work and research with lots of professionals, and importantly my Bill will recognise existing and protected titles, such as veterinary nurse and dental nurse, which would not be affected.
The Royal College of Nursing passed a resolution in favour of protecting the “nurse” title at its congress in 2022. Those in the profession know exactly what must be done, and we cannot wait any longer to do it, because we know how dangerous the current situation can be for patients. Cassandra Grant, 39, is a dangerous fantasist who posed as a nurse at the Blenheim Palace horse trials. She was jailed for four years. She was involved in injecting an injured rider. She repeatedly lied about having medical and mental health qualifications, and the judge said it made his “blood run cold” to think of Grant
“getting her hands on a patient”.
Kate Shemirani was a nurse who claimed that 5G caused covid symptoms and spread vaccine misinformation. She was struck off, but she was still legally able to call herself a nurse. Lee Woods, a 28-year-old man, was arrested and charged in connection with impersonating a member of the nursing staff at Queen Elizabeth University hospital in Glasgow. Unfortunately, I could go on listing cases where the title of nurse has been exploited in this way, so it is important that we legislate. Building on the hard work of the #ProtectNurse campaign, I hope that the Labour Government can improve the legislation.
Since taking office, the Labour Government have made great strides on rebuilding our NHS, after 14 years of consistent neglect. I urge the Government to support my Bill as part of their vital package of reforms, and to help bring about this simple, common-sense and long-overdue change for nurses and patients. It is overwhelmingly backed by those in the profession. Given the growing public concern, now is the time for this change.
I was first elected to this House in 2005—it seems like a lifetime ago—and I am here to represent my constituents of Brent East. Thanks to all the boundary changes, it was Brent South, then Brent Central, and is now Brent East. This is a most important piece of legislation. It can change everybody’s lives. It lets nurses know that we appreciate them, and allows patients to have confidence in people who call themselves a nurse. It is a simple and easy step.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Dawn Butler, Paulette Hamilton, Tulip Siddiq, Mrs Sharon Hodgson, Barry Gardiner, Juliet Campbell and Clive Lewis present the Bill.
Dawn Butler accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 March, and to be printed (Bill 182).
Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 16 December 2024 (Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] (Programme):
Consideration of Lords Message
(1) Proceedings on the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.
Subsequent stages
(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(3) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Jeff Smith.)
Question agreed to.
Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
14:36 - The House divided: - Ayes: 331 / Noes: 65 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I confirm that nothing in the Lords message engages Commons financial privilege.
Clause 1
Rules about remuneration and governance
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I beg to move,
That this House insists on Commons Amendment 1 to which the Lords have disagreed, disagrees to Lords Amendment 1B, to the words restored to the Bill by the Lords’ disagreement to Commons Amendment 1, and proposes Amendments (a) and (b) to the Bill in lieu of the words left out by Commons Amendment 1.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With this, it will be convenient to consider the following Government motion:
That this House insists on Commons Amendment 2 to which the Lords have disagreed, and proposes Amendment (a) in lieu of the words so left out.
Emma Hardy
I am delighted to have another opportunity to debate this transformative Bill in this Chamber. I thank all Members for continuing to take an interest in this important piece of legislation, which demonstrates our shared commitment to improving the water sector. Today, this House will consider amendments made in the other place.
I recognise that there is huge interest across this House in wider issues relating to water. Though our debate today is solely focused on the changes made to the Water (Special Measures) Bill in the other place during the Lords’ consideration of Commons amendments on 5 February, I look forward to future opportunities to discuss wider concerns and actions, for example through work relating to the independent commission.
I turn first to the changes made in the other place that would require water companies to regularly report to Ofwat on their financial structure, and to ensure that that information could be readily accessed and understood by the public. It is important to highlight that water companies are already required under their licences to publish by a set date financial performance metrics within their annual performance reports. That includes the interest on their borrowings, their financial flows and an analysis of their debt. If water companies do not comply with these licence conditions, Ofwat can take enforcement action, including issuing fines.
However, the Government recognise that there is an opportunity to make financial data more accessible for members of the public. The Government have therefore worked at pace with Lord Cromwell and Ofwat to develop a way to achieve our shared objective of improving the transparency and accessibility of reporting on key financial metrics. The insertion of a new section 35E into the Water Industry Act 1991 will make it clear that water companies should provide an intelligible overview of their financial position at least once a year. That overview should include a summary of the significant changes that have taken place over the past 12 months, and will cover key aspects of water companies’ financial position, such as their share capital and debt.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
Ofwat has said that it believes that the right level of debt should be 60%, yet it has taken no action against those companies whose level of debt has risen to as much as 80%. Can the Minister assure us that under the Bill, Ofwat will not only have the power to act when companies’ debt levels are too high, but will use it?
Emma Hardy
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I know how much he cares about this and many environmental issues. Amendment (a) refers only to the reporting arrangements for levels of debt rather than specifying the levels of debt that would be acceptable. It is about increased transparency, whereas his points fall more into the remit of the water commission, which is looking at all those issues as part of its wider work. I stress that the amendment is just about how information is reported and transparency.
The information must be made available in a prominent place on the water company’s website, ensuring accessibility for members of the public. Subsection (4) of proposed new section 35E also provides Ofwat with the power to determine the information that a water company must publish, as well as the ability to review requirements on financial reporting from time to time. That addition will ensure that reporting requirements keep pace with changes in the expectations and needs of bill payers. I would like to be clear, however, that the Government expect the power to be used to ensure that reporting requirements remain relevant, rather than to dilute or diminish the ambition of reporting requirements.
Financial reporting will also continue to be underpinned by pre-existing statutory obligations and licence conditions. In line with other requirements brought forward in clause 1, this new requirement will commence on Royal Assent. These amendments will help to rebuild public trust in the sector and provide the public with the levels of openness and transparency that they deserve.
I turn to the other Government amendment, which relates to the requirement for Ofwat’s rules to be confirmed by way of affirmative statutory instrument, as reintroduced by the motion tabled by Lord Blencathra in the other place. While the Government recognise that there were calls in the other place for increased parliamentary oversight of Ofwat’s rules, we have significant concerns that a requirement for Ofwat’s rules to be finalised through an affirmative statutory instrument would delay the rules being implemented.
We are clear that Ofwat’s rules should be brought forward as soon as possible. That will ensure swift and meaningful improvements in the performance and culture of water companies as they begin to deliver on the largest investment package in the history of the water sector. Requiring the rules to be confirmed by statutory instrument would risk delay to the rules coming into force. We also maintain concerns that the Lords amendments would compromise the independence of Ofwat, because they would require Ofwat’s rules to be confirmed through legislation prepared by the Government. That independence must be protected if we are to ensure investor confidence in the water sector.
The Government are confident that the Bill already provides for sufficient scrutiny of Ofwat’s rules as it is required to conduct a statutory consultation on the rules before they are finalised. Separately, Ofwat has already concluded an initial policy consultation on a draft of the rules and how they will apply. It received 11,700 responses on the rules through its consultation, which it is actively considering. As such, the Government are seeking to reverse the requirement and to introduce provisions in its place that will require Ofwat to provide its first set of rules in draft to the Secretary of State at least seven days before they are issued. I hope that hon. Members across the House will support that change, which will ensure that Ofwat’s rules are put into place as soon as possible following Royal Assent, in addition to the Government’s amendments to introduce new financial reporting requirements.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this final stage of the Bill. Before I start my remarks, I will respond to the pertinent question about levels of borrowing for water companies asked by my friend and former colleague on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner). The Minister is right that Government amendment (a) is about reporting rather than the levels of borrowing. It is regrettable that the Government chose to reject the Conservative amendment in Committee that would have allowed the Secretary of State to set the amounts of borrowing for water companies. I hope that, as we move towards Cunliffe review, the Government may look at that again so that we can have tighter control on the water companies and their levels of debt.
Before I make my remarks on the Lords messages, I will say that getting to the Bill to this stage has been the result of much hard work across this House and the other place. I thank everyone, both front of house and behind the scenes, who has worked hard to get us here. That includes: the Minister for her willingness to listen to those across the House throughout the Bill’s passage; similarly, her counterpart in the other place, Baroness Hayman; those who have worked to draft the Bill and amendments; the Bill Committee; parliamentary staff from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; and campaign groups and stakeholders who provided their insights to the Committee to help make the Bill even stronger, not least the Conservative Environment Network, the Angling Trust, and the Wildlife and Countryside Link.
Sadly, however, as the Opposition have stressed throughout the Bill’s passage in this House and the other place, this final stage of the Bill risks being yet another missed opportunity to act holistically on this important issue. It is unfortunate that the Government have been unwilling to go much further than their copy-and-paste approach, rebooting measures that the Conservatives took in government to address this issue.
We heard in previous stages how the bans on bonuses for water company chief executives and ensuring that 100% of storm overflows are monitored—up from 7% under Labour—were introduced by the previous Conservative Government. None the less, ever the optimist, I came to the Chamber hoping that the Government might be willing to reconsider their position on the issues of the amendments and the reasoning from the other place, which cover familiar ground. We debated these issues in the previous stages, not only in this House but in the other place.
At the heart of the Lords amendments is a theme that His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition have emphasised throughout the Bill’s passage: accountability. The previous lack of accountability for water companies created many of the issues that the water industry has faced. The Conservatives in government and now this Government have attempted to try and address that. This is another chance for the Government to go even further and inject some of what is really needed into their approach.
I turn to Lords amendment 1B, which reverses the Government’s decision to remove measures from the Bill that would require financial reporting to be collected by Ofwat for its remuneration guidance. We know that one of the most worrying aspects of our water industry has been its financial resilience, as Ofwat’s “Monitoring financial resilience” report back in November made clear, with 10 companies at need of increased monitoring and three in the highest category of risk, with closer monitoring required at a more senior level with Ofwat.
We all know, too, the cases involving specific water companies and the real risk that financial mismanagement brings for the survival of those companies and the water provision that their consumers rely on. It is disappointing, therefore, that the Government have been unwilling throughout the Bill’s passage to accept Conservative amendments, or Cross-Bench amendments such as this one by Lord Cromwell, offered in a constructive spirit, which may have gone some way to address the issue. None the less, the Opposition truly want to see better financial resilience. Therefore, on financial reporting in particular, we want the Government to accept this as a reasonable step to regain accountability on financial resilience.
The Lords amendment to clause 1 would quite simply mean that, when it comes to financial reporting, there would be nowhere to hide for water companies and the decisions they make in this area. I note that, following the Lords’ rejection of Commons amendment 1, the Government have tabled amendment (a) to Lords amendment 1B, which will go some way to improving the financial transparency of water companies, as a formal concession to Lords amendment 1B.
Subsection (4) of Government amendment (a) states that what water companies must publish should be decided “from time to time”. I hope the Minister can see that such vagueness might be a problem moving forward, as “from time to time” could allow the regulator not to review when the need arises, because it had done so a few years prior or even longer ago, and justify that by arguing that it was doing so “from time to time”, as the law outlines. Even if nothing or little would need changing from year to year, or every few years, surely it would be better to require this at least to be reviewed at precise regular intervals so that the most valuable information is provided in the best possible format.
That aside, however, His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition acknowledge the Government’s concession on financial transparency, and indeed public access, including characteristics of capital and debt. We are pleased to see that addition to the Bill.
In the same spirit, I move on to Lords reason 2A to disagree with Commons amendment 2, which urges this House to consider again the requirement that any rules under clause 1 be brought into force by means of a statutory instrument from the Secretary of State. Again, this amendment is familiar territory that we have debated at many stages, having been a measure consistently called for by His Majesty’s Opposition in the other place and in this House, both in the Chamber and in Committee. We have maintained throughout that accountability is needed to deliver and enforce change in the water industry, but that must include the Government of the day, no matter which party they are.
It is odd that, on the one hand, this Government have claimed that they want a tight grip on water companies, while on the other, they consistently oppose a measure that would allow them to do exactly that. It is odd, too, that in Committee, the Liberal Democrats sought to amend the same part of the Bill that would have that effect. Their intentions were to bring in guidance as soon as possible, but there is a distinction between intent and effect. Removing some of the same lines would have had the same exact effect in ridding the Bill of the statutory instrument requirement that this amendment seeks to maintain.
The Government have argued—as the Minister has again today—that they fear that Ofwat’s flexibility to adapt their rules as necessary could be impeded in some way. But statutory instruments remain a timely measure to introduce any changes if needed. So once again, the Government’s argument does not stack up. It is only right that we, as parliamentarians elected by the British public to represent their interests with our voices and votes, are able to look at the proposed rules and exercise our ability to voice concerns if they risk falling short of protecting the public’s interests. Why deny the public and Members of this House the ability to uphold accountability of the water industry, which has been missing for too long? As such, once again we have urged the Government to accept what we believe is a reasonable set of amendments in the name of accountability.
Now, at the 11th hour, the Government have tabled Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords reason 2A that disagrees with Commons amendment 2, the amendments tabled and argued for by my Conservative friends in the other place the noble Lord Roborough and Lord Blencathra, and add that the remuneration and governance rules may not be not be enacted until they have been provided in draft to the Secretary of State. There is a move towards some Government accountability, but sadly, not what the Opposition had wanted: a statutory instrument laid by the Secretary of State and approved by both Houses.
None the less, I am grateful that the Government have listened to Lord Roborough, me and the other Conservative colleagues who have argued for more accountability, and that they have moved a little towards us with this amendment. However, I am still unclear why the Government appear scared of full accountability. Sadly, I fear that some of these last-minute concessions, which we would like to go further, look like the Government trying to avoid double insistence and the Bill failing. We do not wish the Bill to fail, as we all want the same thing: to see our waters improve and for the Government to continue with the measures that the Conservatives set in train in the last Parliament. In that spirit, we will not stand in the way of the Government’s amendments.
There has been many a chance for the Government to grab opportunities to bolster the Bill with both hands. Many chances have been missed throughout its passage, not least by the Government continually rejecting our water restoration fund to ringfence fines to restore local waterways, rather than to balance the Treasury’s books. They did not accept our sensible proposals to go further with nature-based solutions to flood risk. They rejected our proposals for fines on water companies to result in equivalent reductions in customers’ bills, and our sensible proposals to allow the Secretary of State to place limits on the amount that water companies can borrow. They blocked our proposals to protect consumers in different parts of the country from paying for failing water companies that do not supply them.
As the Bill progresses and the Cunliffe review begins, I again urge the Government, for the sake of our water, environment, constituents, communities and, indeed, fairness, not to let political pride and dogma stand in the way of doing the right thing and making water legislation the best it can be. We wish the Bill well as it ends its journey in this House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is a pleasure to be back talking about the Bill again. In Committee and on Report, the Liberal Democrats put down a grand total of 56 amendments. What is two more? We believe, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) said, that this Bill is a good thing, and we wish to see it on the statute book, but we do not feel it goes far enough, and the two amendments before us today give us the opportunity to consider it a little more.
Through amendment (a) the Government want to introduce financial reporting requirements for water companies. The report, to be required once a year, should be a concise, intelligible and up-to-date overview of the financial position of each undertaker—a water company—including information on share capital and debt, and any significant changes that may have happened in the past 12 months or expected changes in the 12 months to come. We very much welcome the amendment. We tabled many similar amendments that contained aspects of those proposals, both in Committee and on Report. We are bound to say that they were better amendments—more ambitious and far reaching—but as with much of this Bill, these proposals are a decent start and we do not want to stand in their way.
To clarify, we have proposed a variety of amendments to the Bill up to this point, including calling for Ofwat to be made responsible for the financial stability duty on water companies. We called for the banning of bonuses for water company bosses whose companies were performing poorly, and not just on environmental duties but on financial stability and water quality. On the Floor of the House we pushed to a vote, with the permission of the Chair, a ban on water companies making customers pay for their debt at the point of bankruptcy, and instead for investors, who have taken risks, to pay for them. That was right, and we were disappointed that the Government voted against it and the Conservatives sat on their hands and did not support bill payers. This is an important and live issue. In Westmorland in the north-west of England, 11% of bills paid only service the debt of United Utilities, yet in other parts of the country such as the areas served by Thames Water, that figure is around 35% or potentially even more.
We have called for scrutiny not just of the finances of water companies but of other areas. The Bill has moved things in the right direction, but not radically enough. In Committee, we sought to encourage and persuade Labour and Conservative Front Benchers—without success—that it would be wise to have environmental experts on the boards of water companies.
On the Government’s laudable and positive move towards a live database that citizen scientists can scrutinise, we asked that it also be a historical database that is searchable in retrospect. Wonderful organisations in my constituency, which are replicated around the country, such as the Eden Rivers Trust, the South Cumbria Rivers Trust, the Clean River Kent campaign and Save Windermere, would monitor that database, but unless they look at it 24/7 and do nothing else in their lives, some things may get past them. For example, between 2021 and 2023, 120 million litres of sewage were pumped into Windermere lake without United Utilities reporting it. We are reliant on citizen scientists knowing about this stuff, and a great database will do the job only if it is searchable in retrospect. Scrutiny and transparency on finances and environmental matters are vital. We are satisfied that amendment (a) provides increased transparency on water company finances, and therefore we will not make a nuisance of ourselves today.
I turn to the second of the amendments in front of us. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) rightly highlights and reminds Members of my distaste for not having stuff in the Bill, and how statutory instruments are not the best way of doing things. Despite that, I am even more of a fan of ensuring that we in this place can properly scrutinise those who are meant to be scrutinising our water companies, namely Ofwat.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, Liberal Democrats have made good, radical, environmentally minded proposals that are in the interests of our constituents and our waterways. Although the Government have understandably stuck to their guns and voted against us, the official Opposition have, oddly enough, abstained on pretty much everything—including, it would appear, on their own amendment today, for which we want to vote, notwithstanding all our reticence about not having important matters in the Bill.
This amendment was proposed in the other place by my former neighbour but one—not the hon. Member for Epping Forest, who is also my former neighbour—the right hon. Lord Blencathra, a former Member for Penrith and the Border, and a very accomplished parliamentarian. In this amendment, he is seeking to require increased parliamentary scrutiny of Ofwat when signing off on water company bonuses. That issue is of huge concern to me, and, I think, to most people around this country—certainly in my constituency—because record bonuses are being paid to senior executives around the country.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman put forward a veritable smorgasbord of amendments in the Bill Committee, and all those issues were discussed. It is so important that Ofwat retains its independence. It is extremely relevant to point out, however, that during the coalition years and the 14 years the Conservatives were in government, no Bills were passed to ban water company bonuses, and this Bill will do just that.
Tim Farron
The hon. Lady is right. Previous Governments of all parties have not tackled these issues as they should have done—including, of course, the previous Labour Government, under Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. There is no doubt whatsoever, however, that we are now looking at a massively changed situation. Why do the public care so much more about this issue than five or six years ago? It is because—I say this neutrally—we were in the European Union before then, and we had different levels of scrutiny. It is also because this House went through the process of basically lifting the bonnet to see what was already acceptable, at which point people in this place and around the country became utterly outraged at what was permissible. Yes, parties of all sides bear a responsibility, and not least the party that privatised the industry in the first place and let the cat out of the bag.
Ofwat does need to be scrutinised; that is what I find most frustrating. Now that the UK is not in the European Union, our own regulations are not scrutinised from outside—so if we do not do it, who will? We have heard many times of Ofwat’s failure to scrutinise properly and hold to account the water companies; we heard on more than one occasion in Committee, as well as in this Chamber, of the £164 million in fines that Ofwat has levied against three water companies, of which, four years on, it has collected precisely zero pounds and zero pence. Our argument throughout this process has been that Ofwat, despite containing many very good and valuable people who are working their hardest, is nevertheless a regulator not fit for purpose. The amendment seeks to force Ofwat to give six months’ notice of bonuses it has signed off, rather than the seven days that the Government want, which is inadequate.
Dr Hudson
I am slightly curious as to why, at the eleventh hour, the third party is now changing its position. In the other place, when this amendment was pushed to a vote, the Liberal Democrats abstained on two occasions, but now they are playing political games and actually risking the progress of the Bill. The amendment, as it stated, was to introduce a statutory instrument to increase parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. The Government have moved some way—although not as far as we would like—but the third party is now playing political games, and risks the progress of a Bill that is trying to improve the state of our waters.
Tim Farron
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I can do maths, so I know there is absolutely no threat whatsoever to the progress of this Bill—I know what the numbers will be, roughly, when and if we divide on this matter.
I am not a late convert but an early convert—a convert long before the hon. Gentleman—to the importance of scrutiny. It is therefore important that we make this case: imperfect though this proposal is, it is far better for this House to be given six months’ notice of Ofwat’s intention to allow bonuses than seven days. That is surely better, and that is why we insist as we do. This is Parliament scrutinising Ofwat because of Ofwat’s failure to scrutinise the water companies.
That is our simple point. It is why we have proposed much more radical reform throughout this process, including the abolition of Ofwat altogether. It is not the fault of the people who work for the organisation specifically. When regulation of the water industry is fragmented across parts of Ofwat and other agencies, which do not have the necessary powers and resources, the water companies will, of course, run rings around the regulators, and it is our constituents and our waterways—our lakes, rivers and coastal areas—that bear the brunt and suffer.
Dr Hudson
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. He talks about a number of fantastic amendments the third party made in Committee, many of which were so poorly worded that they were not actually worth voting on. His particular amendment about abolishing Ofwat actually contained no suggestion as to what the third party would replace it with, or how much it would cost—
Dr Hudson
It did not. It did not set out how much it would cost or how long it would take. While we want Ofwat to have the teeth to hold water companies to account, the third party proposes getting rid of it. Again, is it the party of protest that is not offering any credible solutions.
Tim Farron
Well, first of all, if the hon. Gentleman had paid more attention, he would know that we proposed a clean water authority, which would gather up all the powers of Ofwat and the environmental and water regulatory powers of the Environment Agency.
I say this gently, but, again, there is a pattern here. Both in opposition and in government, the Conservative party shows greater levels of fury and anger over Liberal Democrats campaigning to clean up our waterways than over the fact that our waterways are full of poop in the first place.
Tim Farron
I have already taken two interventions from the hon. Gentleman, so I will not.
My simple comment is that this Bill will do good, and we are supportive of it. We wish only to trouble the House a short time to ensure greater scrutiny is brought in. We have accepted throughout this process, with some reluctance, the Government’s position that this is part 1, and that part 2 is to come, and that the review led by Sir Jon Cunliffe will potentially consider more radical action. We hope that is the case, and we shall engage with things on that basis. I have in my hand some pieces of paper that I propose to send to Jon Cunliffe, which tighten up some of the smorgasbord of amendments, as they have been called.
We care deeply about our waterways. I am honoured to represent the bulk of the English Lake district, with so many lakes and rivers, as well as our coastal areas in Morecambe bay. The quality of our waterways is deeply personal to me and to my communities. We shall continue to campaign unashamedly for something far better for our constituents, and indeed for our water right across the United Kingdom.
Emma Hardy
With the leave of the House, I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful and valuable contributions to today’s debate. Without stepping into the territory of a Second Reading debate, I suggest gently to the House that we are here today debating the Water (Special Measures) Bill precisely because of the public outrage caused by previous lack of investment, and the fact that every single river, lake and sea in our country has been polluted. Had the previous Government, as stated by the now official Opposition, done the marvellous, wonderful job that they seem to want to suggest they did, there would not be the need for this Bill in the first place—neither would there be the need for all the campaigns that have taken place up and down the country. However, I will go no further into that.
I have respect for the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson), as he knows. However, I say gently that it is dishonest to suggest that legislation is needed for the water restoration fund, because, in fact, the Conservatives created the fund without legislation. To imply that legislation is required to have the fund would, therefore, be inadvertently dishonest. It was created without legislation, and therefore it does not need legislation to be held.
Dr Hudson
I am slightly concerned that the Minister is raising questions about my honesty. The water restoration fund exists, but where is it now? What has happened to it? Are the Government going to use it again? That is why we wanted to push, at every stage of the Bill, the point that the water restoration fund needs to be used to ringfence money so that fines on water companies can be ploughed back into restoring local waterways. I will be very happy if the Minister says today that the water restoration fund is carrying on, and then my honesty will be intact.
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Gentleman. As I have said throughout, he will have to wait and see, but to imply that legislation is required for the fund would be dishonest. I am sure the hon. Gentleman does not want his honesty to be questioned. The implication that legislation is required for the water restoration fund is simply not true.
As I outlined in my opening speech, I recognise that there remains a strong interest in issues wider than the scope of today’s debate. I reiterate that the Bill is not the limit of our ambition. The Government will continue to work with hon. Members across the House to discuss and make progress in addressing the fundamental issues facing our water sector.
The hon. Gentleman mentions the words “time to time”. The wording has been specifically designed to allow Ofwat to review requirements as and when appropriate, and adapt quickly where needed. We do not want to pre-empt how often this kind of review might need to take place. To reassure him, that was discussed at length in the other place.
On parliamentary scrutiny, the Government worked with Ofwat to offer peers and MPs an opportunity to raise questions on Ofwat’s rules in a parliamentary drop-in session, providing further insight on the rules. However, that proposal was not accepted by hon. Members’ colleagues in the other place, which feels like a shame.
It has always been our intention to bring about, through the Bill, meaningful change in the performance and culture of the water sector. The amendments tabled by the Government are in keeping with that objective. I hope the House will support the Government amendments, which will ensure that the public can easily access an overview of water company financial information, and will give Ofwat a duty to issue rules on financial transparency that will commence on Royal Assent. Together, the amendments will enable the Government to take another positive step forward in restoring public trust in the water sector, which has sadly been destroyed over the past 14 years.
Similarly, I hope the House will support the Government in bringing forward amendments to ensure that Ofwat’s rules are brought forward promptly and that its independence is protected. The Government acknowledge the intention behind the changes made in the other place, but we cannot accept the risk that they create in delaying the introduction of Ofwat’s rules. I therefore hope that Members across the House will also support the Government in ensuring that these vital rules are brought forward without delay.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I am sure the Minister did not meant to imply that the shadow Minister was in any way dishonest, and she might perhaps seek to correct the record to say she felt that he was mistaken or incorrect.
Emma Hardy
I am very happy to issue that correction.
Question put.
A Division was called.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Division off.
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House insists on Commons Amendment 1 to which the Lords have disagreed, disagrees to Lords Amendment 1B to the words restored to the Bill by the Lords’ disagreement to Commons Amendment 1, and proposes amendments (a) and (b) to the Bill in lieu of the words left out by Commons Amendment 1.
Motion made, and Question put,
That this House insists on Commons Amendment 2 to which the Lords have disagreed, and proposes amendment (a) in lieu of the words so left out.—(Keir Mather.)
Arbitration Bill [Lords]
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)
With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 2 to 18 stand part.
May I remind Members that in Committee, Members should not address the Chair as Deputy Speaker? Please use our names when addressing the Chair. Madam Chair, Chair, Madam Chairman or Mr Chairman are also acceptable.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Sir Nicholas Dakin)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Nokes.
On account of the Bill’s 18 clauses being grouped together, I will speak to them in numerical order. I begin with clause 1, which contains one of the Bill’s key reforms: provision for determining the governing law of an arbitration agreement. This is important because different governing laws may give different answers to important questions such as who is party to the agreement and whether the type of dispute is capable of being arbitrated.
Clause 1 will determine the governing law of the arbitration agreement by replacing the common law approach established in Enka v. Chubb with a new statutory rule. The law governing the arbitration agreement will be the law expressly chosen by the parties. Otherwise, it will be the law of the seat. By way of simple illustration, if someone arbitrates in London, by default the applicable law would be English law.
Whereas the common law approach is complex and uncertain, the new approach in clause 1 is simple and predictable. It reduces the prospect of satellite litigation to determine governing law, which can be slow and costly. Where the arbitration takes place in London, as is the choice in so many international arbitrations, by default the arbitration will be fully supported by English law.
For the avoidance of doubt, I would like to add that an express choice of law to govern the main contract rather than the arbitration agreement is not enough. Clause 1 will not apply where the agreement is derived from standing offers of arbitration contained in treaties or foreign domestic legislation, as with investor-state arbitration, for example, as these are better underpinned by international law and foreign domestic law respectively.
Clauses 2, 3 and 4 make provision in relation to the arbitral tribunal. Clause 2 requires an arbitrator to disclose circumstances that might reasonably give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality. It will apply prior to the arbitrator’s appointment, when they are being approached with a view to appointment. It will be a continuing duty that also applies after their appointment. This codifies the duty of disclosure recognised by the Supreme Court in its decision in Halliburton v. Chubb and will enhance trust in arbitration.
Clauses 3 and 4 will reassure arbitrators that they can take the right decisions in their proceedings without fear of reprisal from a disappointed party. Clause 3 provides that an arbitrator will not be liable for the costs of an application to court for their removal unless the arbitrator has acted in bad faith. Clause 4 provides that an arbitrator’s resignation does not give rise to any liability unless the resignation is shown by a complainant to be unreasonable.
Clauses 5 and 6 both concern jurisdiction. There are two ways for a party to question the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. One way is to wait until the tribunal has issued a ruling and then challenge that ruling under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996, which allows a challenge to an arbitral award on the basis that the tribunal lacked jurisdiction. The other is is by invoking section 32 of that Act, which allows the court to decide whether the tribunal has jurisdiction as a preliminary point.
Clause 5 makes clear that if the tribunal has already ruled on its jurisdiction, any challenge must be brought through section 67. Clause 6 provides that where the arbitral tribunal or court rules that the tribunal has no jurisdiction, that tribunal can nevertheless award the costs of the arbitration proceedings up until that point. This will ensure that if a party wrongly starts arbitration, they can still be held responsible for the wasted costs incurred.
Clauses 7, 8 and 9 deal with arbitral proceedings and the powers of the court. Clause 7 will confer an express power on arbitrators to make an award on a summary basis—that is, adopting an expedited procedure—to dispose of an issue where an arbitrating party has no real prospect of succeeding on that issue. This aligns with the summary judgments available in court proceedings and will deliver more efficient arbitrations. This power can be exercised on application by any of the parties. The procedure to be adopted is not prescribed. It will instead be a matter for the arbitrator to decide on a case by case basis after consulting with the arbitrating parties.
Clause 8 concerns emergency arbitrators. Arbitral rules sometimes provide a regime for the appointment of emergency arbitrators on an interim basis. Such arbitrators can make orders on urgent matters, such as the preservation of evidence, pending the constitution of the full arbitral tribunal. Emergency arbitrators were not commonplace when the 1996 Act was drafted, so it is important that we now expressly empower them. Clause 8 will provide that failing to comply with an order made by the emergency arbitrator will have the same consequences as those for a normal arbitrator.
Clause 9 concerns interim court powers exercisable in support of arbitral proceedings. Under section 44 of the 1996 Act, the court can make orders in support of arbitration proceedings on certain matters—for example, the taking of witness evidence, the preservation of evidence, sales of goods and interim injunctions. Clause 9 will amend section 44 to make it clear that such court orders are also available against third parties. For example, the court will be able to make an order preserving assets against a third party such as a bank. This will mirror the position in court proceedings.
Clauses 10, 11 and 12 concern powers of the court in relation to an arbitral award. An arbitral tribunal can issue an award on whether it has jurisdiction, and it can issue an award on the merits of the dispute. Either type of award can be challenged under section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 on the basis that the arbitral tribunal did not have jurisdiction. Clause 10 will equip the courts with the full suite of remedies for section 67 challenges. When the court has a jurisdiction challenge in front of it, it will have two new options: to declare the arbitral award to be of no effect, or to return the matter to the arbitral tribunal for consideration so that a revised award can be made. These remedies already exist for other challenges, for serious irregularities and for appeals on points of law, so this provision fixes something of an inconsistency in the 1996 Act.
Clause 11 also amends section 67 of the 1996 Act. It will confer a power for rules of court to provide that, unless necessary in the interests of justice, there should be no new grounds of objection and no new evidence put before the court unless it was not reasonably possible to put them before the tribunal. The amendments made to section 67 by clause 11 also provide that evidence taken by an arbitral tribunal should not be reheard by the court. This will avoid these challenges from becoming full re-hearings, departing from the precedent set in the case of Dallah v. Pakistan. Re-hearings can involve duplication of time and costs, and it can be unfair to allow a party who lost before the tribunal a complete rerun.
Clause 12 amends section 70 of the 1996 Act, which governs how arbitral awards can be challenged before the courts. It will clarify that the 28-day time limit for such a challenge will start running only after any arbitral process of appeal or correction has concluded.
Clause 13 concerns appeals from High Court decisions and corrects a rare drafting error in the 1996 Act. Section 18 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 and section 35 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 were amended by the 1996 Act. When read at face value, those sections currently suggest that High Court decisions made under the 1996 Act can be appealed to the Court of Appeal only if expressly permitted in the 1996 Act.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is clear from what my hon. Friend is saying that the Bill is welcomed by the legal sector. What engagement has he had with the legal sector and relevant stakeholders?
Sir Nicholas Dakin
There has been massive engagement with parties interested in this Bill. The Bill began in the last Parliament, to which I am grateful for the work already done. It began in the Lords, who engaged fully with parties at that stage. The Lords have had to restart the Bill in the new Parliament, so they have had two bites at the cherry, and all the feedback from stakeholders has been very positive. I thank my hon. Friend for drawing that out in this debate.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I rise to contribute to the Committee stage debate on the Arbitration Bill on behalf of the Opposition. I thank Lord Bellamy, the previous Conservative Minister who originally introduced the Bill in the Lords in the previous Parliament, and I recognise the work of the Law Commission. Much of this Bill is based on the excellent work that the Law Commission did in considering the original legal framework for arbitration.
We fully support this Bill’s objective of modernising and strengthening the UK’s arbitration framework. Arbitration is a vital pillar of our legal system, supporting businesses, individuals and international commerce while reinforcing London’s position as a world-leading hub for dispute resolution. It is important that this legislation is as robust, effective and fair as possible. The Committee stage presents an opportunity to ensure that the Bill delivers on its promise, and we welcome the improvement that it introduces. I do not intend to go through all the Bill’s clauses, but I reassure the House that the necessary scrutiny that one would expect from the Opposition in Committee is taking place. I will just touch on some of the key clauses.
First, clause 1 provides welcome clarity on the governing law of arbitration agreements, particularly in light of the Enka v. Chubb case in 2020. Defaulting to the law of the arbitration seat where no choice is specified increases certainty for businesses.
Secondly, clauses 3 and 4 extend arbitrator immunity to protect them from liability unless bad faith is proven. This is an important step to ensure that arbitrators can act independently without undue fear of litigation. We must retain an effective safeguard to challenge an unreasonable resignation, and we welcome the Minister’s reassurance that parties affected by an arbitration resignation are not unfairly disadvantaged.
Thirdly, clauses 5 and 6 streamline the process for jurisdictional challenges. Parties will either need to seek a preliminary ruling from the court under section 32 of the Arbitration Act 1996, or wait to challenge jurisdiction under section 67.
Fourthly, on the procedural innovations covered in clauses 7 to 9, the introduction of summary disposal of claims is an important step towards greater efficiency, though we would welcome reassurances from the Government that they will monitor its use so that we can be sure that it is applied carefully and fairly, and does not have any unintended consequences. We believe that the recognition of emergency arbitrators is a positive step that enhances the availability of urgent relief, aligning the UK with international best practice.
Also of note is the right of appeal in clause 13. As the Minister stated, there was an unusual previous drafting issue that suggested that appeals to the Court of Appeal were permitted only if expressly allowed under the 1996 Act. That was incorrect. Clause 13 corrects the error, ensuring that appeals are permitted unless specifically restricted. This is a vital change to uphold fairness and legal certainty.
I want to acknowledge an important issue that was raised in the other place by Lord Hacking, whose contributions to the discussion on arbitration have been incredibly valuable. I know that other Members have also pressed for greater scrutiny of how confidential arbitration could be misused to conceal corruption. We welcome the Minister’s assurances that arbitral institutions are taking steps to mitigate those risks, and we believe that the Government must remain actively engaged in monitoring and addressing potential abuses, and not rule out taking further action at an appropriate time if it becomes necessary.
Beyond the issue of corruption, other crucial areas were mentioned in the other place; these are important and warrant further Government attention. They include the need for expedited hearings to prevent undue delays in arbitration proceedings, the role of third-party funding, and ensuring transparency and accountability in funding arrangements, as well as the authority to mandate mediation between parties, where appropriate, to encourage resolution outside of arbitration. The Minister’s attention to these issues is essential, so I would welcome confirmation that they will be addressed in due course.
In conclusion, the Arbitration Bill is a necessary and welcome step in ensuring that the UK remains a pre-eminent jurisdiction for arbitration. However, as with any legislation, its success depends on the details. The Opposition remain committed to ensuring that the Bill delivers legal clarity, procedural efficiency and fairness while upholding the integrity of our arbitration framework. I commend this Bill to the Committee and look forward to seeing its rapid progress through the House.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
I rise in support of this Bill, which introduces important measures to modernise our arbitration framework. We Liberal Democrats welcome the approach that the Government have taken in refining the Bill’s provisions to ensure clarity and effectiveness.
Clause 1 is a key part of this new Bill, and we are fond of the changes made following the recommendations from the Special Public Bill Committee in the previous Parliament. For example, the Committee proposed removing two words to prevent undue confusion, and I am pleased that the Government have accepted that recommendation. In addition, the Government have further clarified that investor state arbitration agreements derived from treaties or non-UK legislation will not be subject to the default rule, which is a welcome and sensible step that is necessary to bring greater legal clarity to the process.
I also welcome the five amendments to clause 11, which enable procedural reforms under section 67 of the 1996 Act. These changes respond directly to concerns raised in the last Committee, and strike the right balance between efficiency and fairness in arbitration proceedings.
Further improvements were made in the other place, where the Government tabled amendments to clause 13 to correct drafting issues, which have been mentioned, and to ensure that access to the Court of Appeal aligns with established case law. These amendments received cross-party support and I am pleased to reinforce the Liberal Democrats’ support for them today.
This Bill strengthens the UK’s arbitration framework by improving clarity, ensuring fairness and refining procedures. We support its passage and urge the House to do the same. We do not expect any problems with that.
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I give my sincere thanks to hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contributions today to what has been a succinct and precise debate. We are all agreed that this is an important step forward, and I am particularly grateful to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), for welcoming the improvements to the Bill and recognising that they have been the work of many people in the Lords and the Commons as well as of contributors from outside, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) reminded us earlier.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle raised the important issue of corruption. As I mentioned during the Bill’s Second Reading debate, arbitral corruption is not the result of our domestic framework, which provides several effective remedies to quash corrupt practices. We support sector initiatives to enhance anti-corruption practices such as the International Chamber of Commerce’s anti-corruption taskforce, and we will push for the adoption of best practices as they are developed.
The hon. Member also raised third party litigation and funding issues. The Government have carefully considered the impact of the UK Supreme Court judgment in Paccar, and have decided to wait for the outcome of the Civil Justice Council review before deciding whether to legislate. A comprehensive review of the market will allow us to take a wider range of factors into account. Following the Paccar judgment, concerns have been raised about the need for greater regulation of litigation funding agreements and greater safeguards for claimants. This is therefore an opportune moment to review the status of the market. The review is being undertaken by the Civil Justice Council, supported by a wider consultation group of experts across this area. The final report and recommendations will be published in the summer of 2025, after which the Government will consider the way forward.
The hon. Member also mentioned mandated mediation, and I will try to pick that up as well. The Government agree that dispute resolution, such as mediation, has a key role to play in ending disputes more quickly and cheaply. This is why all parties to a small money claim in the county court are now required to attend a free one-hour mediation appointment with His Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service’s small claims mediation service as an integrated step in the litigation journey. This reform will help thousands of people and businesses each year to resolve their legal disputes without the need for a court battle. We will continue to work to drive the uptake of dispute resolution throughout the justice system to allow parties to resolve their disputes more consensually and at an earlier stage.
That concludes my responses to the points raised during the Committee of the whole House. I once again thank all those who have contributed to the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Third Reading
Sir Nicholas Dakin
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Let me first thank all Members of this House and the other place who have spoken in support of this important Bill and the reforms within it. I am particularly grateful for the support expressed on Second Reading by the hon. Members for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), and for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover); the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) has added his approval today as well. I am also grateful to all the hon. and right hon. Members who contributed to this afternoon’s Committee proceedings. It is encouraging to see enthusiasm on both sides of the House for further improving our already world-leading arbitral framework, and for the business that those changes will generate.
I also thank the many noble Lords who have given this Bill and its predecessor in the last Parliament such thoughtful consideration. Without their input and expertise, the Bill would not be so finely tuned. I pay tribute to the former special Public Bill Committee, which marshalled expert evidence from the sector, the judiciary and the world of academia. That Committee was ably and expertly led by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. I am also grateful to all the other noble and learned Lords who have contributed to the passage of both Arbitration Bills in the other place, particularly Lord Hacking, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, Lord Verdirame, Lord Beith, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Mance. I wish to give special mention to Lord Bellamy, who first introduced these important reforms to Parliament as a Justice Minister under the previous Government.
Of course, we owe a debt of gratitude to the Law Commission for its exceptional work reviewing the Arbitration Act 1996 and recommending the reforms that are being taken forward in the Bill. Professor Sarah Green and her colleagues at the commission have led what can only be described as a masterclass in public consultation and law reform. I particularly thank Dr Nathan Tamblyn for his work leading the commission’s review, and for the support he gave the Ministry of Justice in taking forward this legislation. It is fair to say that no one knows the Arbitration Bill better than Nathan. His contributions to this area of the law will, no doubt, have a long-lasting and positive effect.
This Bill has greatly benefited from the input of experts and practitioners from across the arbitration community. Their contributions were made both through the Law Commission consultations and during evidence-taking by the former Arbitration Bill’s special Public Bill Committee. As has been recognised by both Houses, it is vital that our modernised arbitral law works effectively in practice. This has been made possible by the involvement of those who will use this legislation once it comes into force.
Lastly, I put on record my thanks to the officials who have worked on this Bill since it was introduced in the last Parliament. I thank the policy lead, Lee Pedder, the Bill manager, Iona Bonaventura, and Helen Hall from the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. I also thank my excellent private secretary, Gillian Atkinson.
I conclude by highlighting again the importance of this Bill for the arbitration sector and for UK economic growth more generally. We have a proud history of arbitration on these shores—a point that I covered in some detail on Second Reading. Since the 1996 Act came into force almost 30 years ago, the UK has been the chosen arbitral location for many thousands of disputes from across the world. This House can be confident that the modernisation in the Bill will enable our jurisdiction to continue playing that vital role for many years. This is very much a growth Bill—a growth Bill from a growth Government. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
Dr Mullan
I join the Minister in his extensive and accurate list of thanks, and particularly in his thanks to Lord Bellamy, who introduced the original Bill, and to the Law Commission for its excellent work. The Minister also mentioned Lord Thomas, Lord Hacking and Lord Wolfson. I echo his comments on the effective role of the arbitration sector, and on the wealth that it brings to our economy because of its world-leading status and the certainty and confidence that it gives businesses that they will get an excellent service on which they can rely.
Finally, like most Members, I have had conversations with constituents who have said, “Why can’t you lot agree with each other more often? When I turn on the TV, it seems that all you ever do is argue,” but we work together quite effectively on Delegated Legislation Committees and in other forums. This debate is an excellent example of us working collaboratively in the national interest in the main Chamber—an example that Members might point their constituents towards.
Josh Babarinde
I thank everyone to whom the Minister rightly gave recognition, particularly the behind-the-scenes officials whose work we do not often see, but without whom such landmark legislation would not be possible.
The Liberal Democrats welcome the Arbitration Bill, inasmuch as it represents a significant step forward in modernising and enhancing the arbitration process in the UK. With over 5,000 arbitrations a year in England and Wales, worth about £2.5 billion a year to the economy in fees alone, arbitration has long been a critical alternative to traditional court proceedings, providing a more efficient, cost-effective and flexible way to resolve disputes.
One of the Bill’s key merits is its effort to streamline the arbitration process, which can be complex and protracted. By introducing these clearer guidelines and enhancing the powers of arbitrators, the Bill will help us to secure quicker resolutions, reducing delays and backlogs in the justice system. This is crucial for businesses that seek fast and decisive outcomes to disputes.
Of course, arbitration is part of a wider family of alternative dispute resolutions that help to take pressure off our courts. Recognising this, I pay tribute to legal professionals and firms in Eastbourne that work day in, day out, to facilitate many of these alternative dispute resolutions, including Heringtons, Cramp & Mullaney, Hart Reade, Gaby Hardwicke, Stephen Rimmer, SO Legal, Hobson & Latham, Mayo Wynne Baxter, Lawson Lewis Blakers, Cornfield Law, McCarthy Webb—whose services I have used—and many more.
We are pleased to support this Bill for the reasons that I and many other Members have discussed. It will ultimately help to position the UK as an attractive destination for global arbitration, reinforcing its status as a leading centre for business and legal expertise, whether we are talking about the financial capital of the UK or the sunshine capital of the UK, Eastbourne, with its legal expertise, to which I have just alluded.
The Liberal Democrats are pleased to back this Bill, and I am proud to support it.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Business of the House (Today)
Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting—
(a) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motions in the name of Secretary Jonathan Reynolds relating to Terms and Conditions of Employment not later than two hours after the start of proceedings on the Motion for this Order;
(b) the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Lucy Powell relating to Scrutiny of European Statutory Instruments not later than one hour after the start of proceedings on that Motion; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved;
proceedings on these motions may continue, though opposed, until any hour, and may be entered upon after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Anna Turley.)
Terms and Conditions of Employment
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
I beg to move,
That the draft Neonatal Care Leave and Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 20 January, be approved.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motion:
That the draft Statutory Neonatal Care Pay (General) Regulations 2025, which were laid before this House on 20 January, be approved.
Justin Madders
I am delighted to move regulations under the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023, which originated as a private Member’s Bill in the previous Parliament. I therefore pay tribute to Stuart McDonald, the former Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, and Baroness Wyld for successfully steering the legislation through both Houses, so that it could secure Royal Assent in 2023.
The Act established new statutory entitlements to neonatal care leave and neonatal care pay for employed parents if their child starts to receive neonatal care within 28 days of birth and goes on to spend seven or more continuous days in care. These regulations are another step towards implementing neonatal care leave and pay in April 2025, and they are the first to be brought before the House under the Act.
There is currently no statutory entitlement to such rights for parents of children who require neonatal care. Parents in this difficult situation have had to rely on existing rights, such as maternity leave or annual leave, to be there to care for their baby and to support their partner. This approach has understandably caused additional stress for parents. Some mothers report that they had to leave work because they were not ready to return at the end of their maternity leave. As paternity leave is limited to two weeks, some fathers and partners have had to rely on statutory unpaid parental leave or the compassion of their employers to take time off work.
Around 40,000 babies a year spend more than a week in neonatal care. Once provisions on neonatal care leave and pay come into force in April, we estimate that around 60,000 parents will be eligible, and that around 34,000 parents will take up paid leave each year. Neonatal care leave will enable eligible parents to take a minimum of one week’s leave and a maximum of 12 weeks’ leave, depending on how long their baby receives neonatal care, on top of their other parental leave entitlements. It will be a day one right for employees.
Statutory neonatal care pay, like other family-related pay rights, will be available to employees who also meet continuity of service and minimum earnings tests. Eligible employees must have worked for their employer for at least 26 weeks, ending with the relevant week, and earn on average at least £125 a week before tax. If eligible, a parent will be able to claim a flat rate of £187.18 a week in 2025-26, or 90% of their average earnings, whichever amount is lower.
Employers will administer the statutory payments on behalf of the Government. Small employers will be able to recover 103% of the statutory payment from the Exchequer, while larger employers can recover 92% of payments and will therefore incur wage-like costs equivalent to 8% of the statutory payments they make. This is a similar arrangement to that in place for other parental payments.
Together, these regulations will provide protection and support for parents at an incredibly challenging time. These entitlements provide a floor, and employers can and should go further if they are able.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Does the Minister agree that these changes will not only support parents who are going through a really difficult time but will also be good for employers? By showing that they are supporting their employees to return to work with these additional rights, this will be good for employers in the long term, too.
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is right. The impact assessment refers to evidence showing that family-friendly policies are good for employers as well as for individuals. That is certainly the Government’s approach towards employment rights.
We have extensively consulted stakeholders, including charities and business representative organisations, to ensure that these regulations balance the needs of parents and businesses. These groups agree that the proposed reforms will provide substantial benefits to businesses, including the retention of their employees’ skills and knowledge, as my hon. Friend has just said. I will explain in detail a few points in the regulations, which have been developed through consultation with relevant Departments, including the Department of Health and Social Care.
We have a definition of neonatal care that encapsulates the different ways in which babies receive it, including beyond the walls of a hospital and through outreach care. This could include care that takes place in the family home, provided it meets the relevant criteria. We have included outreach care in the eligibility criteria to capture the many ways in which babies receive care, and to prevent a postcode lottery in which parents of children who receive the same clinical treatment may qualify in one area because they receive their treatment in hospital, but not in another area because they receive their treatment at home through an outreach care programme.
To ensure that as many parents as possible are eligible, the definition of “parent” in the regulations encompasses adoptive parents, foster-to-adopt parents and intended parents in surrogacy arrangements. Those who meet this definition will also be required to have caring responsibility for the child.
Having a baby in neonatal care is a difficult experience for any parent, whether the baby is admitted for one day or for many months. However, this entitlement will focus on parents of babies who experience prolonged stays in neonatal care as they will be in most need of additional support. A qualifying period of neonatal care will therefore be a minimum of seven continuous days, beginning on the day after the one on which the care starts. Starting the clock at one minute past midnight of the day after the child is admitted creates a consistent approach that does not vary from baby to baby.
The total amount of statutory neonatal care leave and pay available to parents will be capped at a maximum of 12 weeks, which balances the needs of businesses with the needs of parents. It is also worth noting that the entitlement will be in addition to other entitlements to parental leave and pay that parents may also be eligible for.
The leave and pay can be taken in two tiers. Tier 1 leave can be taken when the baby is receiving neonatal care and for one week after they stop receiving care. That leave can be taken at short notice, allowing parents to act flexibly in an emergency. Tier 2 leave can be taken after the baby has left neonatal care and therefore requires more prescription to ensure the needs of employers are balanced against the needs of employees. That approach provides flexibility for parents and crucially allows them to work around existing leave entitlements, such as maternity or paternity leave.
Employees will need to give notice to take leave and pay, and provide their employer with the information set out in the regulations. The method depends on which tier of leave they take and, as Members will expect, the stipulations in tier 1 are less stringent than those in tier 2. When the employee wants to take leave in tier 1, they will need to notify their employer before they start work on the first day of absence or as soon as possible thereafter. For pay, notice must be given within 28 days, beginning with the first day of the week in which pay is being claimed. When the employee wants to take leave in tier 2, they will need to give notice 15 days in advance for one week of leave and 28 days in advance for two or more weeks of leave. That is because leave in tier 2 can be more easily planned. The same notice requirements will also apply for pay. Furthermore, parents are not required to provide proof of their child receiving neonatal care. To make a claim in respect of pay, the employee may need to provide a signed self-declaration.
Parents who are out of the workforce on family leave for extended periods may be at more risk from redundancy when they first return to work. We have therefore ensured that parents on neonatal care leave will be protected from redundancy, and those who have taken six continuous weeks of neonatal care leave will also be protected until their child turns 18 months.
We anticipate that there will be some impact on businesses regarding familiarisation with the policy and managing the impact of employee absences. Like other family-related pay entitlements, employers will be responsible for administering the statutory payment on behalf of the Government. Overall, we estimate that the net annual recurring cost to businesses will be around £22.5 million. We also anticipate there will be a one-off familiarisation cost to businesses, which we estimate to be £4.7 million.
Despite those costs, we anticipate that there will be further benefits to businesses, as there is evidence that shows, as has already been mentioned, that workplaces offering a range of extensive family-related policies are more likely to have above-average performance relative to workplaces without such practices. My officials are working with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to ensure there is clear guidance on gov.uk to support employers in implementing this policy, and with Bliss, to which I pay tribute for its work in this area, to ensure that parents can access the information they need to understand their entitlement as easily as possible.
I thank all those who have been involved in the development of neonatal care leave, including the premature and sick babies charities, for their tireless campaigns and support. I hope they are proud that we have got this on the statute book and that the regulation will be introduced today. It will make a real difference to hard-working families, who need the support at such a critical time. I commend the regulations to the House.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to contribute on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, and I welcome the introduction of these two statutory instruments, which have been a long time coming. In 2019, the Conservatives made a manifesto commitment to introduce neonatal care leave. It was a shame that in that election, and in the most recent, no such commitment was made by the Labour party, now in government. That is no surprise, however; just like with all their good ideas, it usually turns out that they were ours.
Our commitment to introducing neonatal care leave led to our support of the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023, which was stewarded by the former Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, Stuart C McDonald and Baroness Wyld. That Act is the reason why the Government are introducing these statutory instruments today.
I am pleased that, with reservations, we will support the measures, so that we can continue to build on the sensible improvements to workers’ rights that we, as Conservatives, introduced in government. We introduced shared parental leave, giving more choice and flexibility to families, and carers leave, giving employees more time off to give or arrange care for their families. We supported flexible working, giving employers and employees more flexibility over working practices, and we achieved all that while increasing employment and wages, a thing that the Government are now realising is no easy feat.
The result of our reforms to workers’ rights is that Britain has some of the most generous maternity and paternity leave globally, meaning families are able to spend more time with their newborns. Those achievements were reached by working with businesses and employees. We worked with businesses not just out of courtesy, but because we know that without consulting businesses and taking on board their concerns, no progress will be made, no matter how good the intention. That is not something this Government have done, which is why their Employment Rights Bill is driving up unemployment before it has even been passed.
In the plan to make work pay, the Government committed to rights from an employee’s first day, but for neonatal care pay, that is not the case. Will the Minister confirm whether this is the first step in rolling back on day one rights? Under the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023, the right to neonatal care leave and pay will come into force in less than two months. Why have the Government waited to introduce the instruments until now, leaving businesses less than eight weeks to prepare and plan? We have heard that the Prime Minister has requested a growth test on all policies. Has the Minister conducted a growth test on this policy? If not, why not?
More generally, this Government’s record on health, in particular women’s health, has been disappointing. At the end of last month, the Health Secretary dropped women’s health targets and those for women’s health hubs. That decision will impact 600,000 women on waiting lists, lead to preventable disease progression and lead to more women attending A&E, unable to work, care or live a fulfilled life. The Labour manifesto made a commitment to prioritise women’s health, but this Government are making a habit of taking with one hand to give with the other. Will the Minister confirm whether he raised his concerns over the cancellation of health targets, which have an impact on these measures, with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care?
Chris Vince
The shadow Minister talks about targets, but was it not his own Government that got rid of the targets for A&E waiting times, and then failed to meet their lowered targets?
Greg Smith
It is a brave Labour politician who talks about health targets when, for so long, the NHS in Wales was performing, and continues to perform, worse than in England when it was run by the Conservatives.
To conclude, we will support these statutory instruments because they will support the 40,000 families who faced the incredibly difficult and worrisome experience of having a child in neonatal care. The instruments will build on our achievements that made the UK one of the best places in the world to be the parents of a newborn, and I hope the Government can continue to make progress.
I end by again thanking the former Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and Baroness Wyld. I also thank Bliss and the Smallest Things for their consistent work that has kept neonatal care pay and leave at the top of all of our agendas.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
I commend the Minister for bringing the statutory instruments before the House. They introduce much-needed and long-overdue support for new families, which I am sure will be welcomed by Members across the House.
As every parent will know, the time after childbirth is a time like no other. It is both incredibly special and incomparably difficult, with lasting effects on the wellbeing of parents, carers and their babies. I pay tribute to my constituent Ashley Wiseman. In 2018, she gave birth prematurely to twins at 24 weeks. Her first child Esme was sadly born sleeping. Her second child Isla was born 50 minutes later. Isla was admitted to neonatal care at Basildon hospital before being transferred to the Royal London hospital.
Ashley met me and told me about the fear and uncertainty that she felt at that time, the impossible choice that her family faced between returning to work or being beside their sick child, and the financial burden of travelling to visit Isla once she moved to the Royal London hospital. Ashley described what we would all find impossible to imagine: long stays on the ward, some of her darkest days, and Isla being given just a 2% chance of survival. After seven months in a neonatal intensive care unit, Isla was discharged, and last month she celebrated her seventh birthday.
Out of such a traumatic and stressful time, Ashley created Isla’s Journey, a charity offering support to families of babies in neonatal wards. The charity provides care packs for new parents at over 80 NICU wards across the UK. That simple support makes a huge difference to families by allowing parents to spend as much time as possible beside their baby, and the changes brought forward today will achieve the same thing. By providing a statutory right to paid leave for working families with babies in neonatal care, the regulations will remove the unimaginable and impossible choice for new parents of either returning to work to pay their bills or staying beside their desperately ill child.
It is difficult enough to have a child in the neonatal intensive care unit. Parents being with their new baby in the early days is vital for their mental and emotional wellbeing, as well as for the early life chances of the baby. The benefits of things like skin-to-skin contact and those early bonding experiences cannot be overstated, and that sometimes feels like an impossible task for parents whose baby is in the NICU. This legislative change removes one of those barriers to these early experiences being a joyful time for parents whose babies have an extra way to go when they are first born.
As Ashley and other parents can attest, there is still more to be done. For example, Isla’s Journey advocates for a travel support fund for parents, because when a child is admitted to a neonatal ward miles from home, parents have to make long and costly journeys to spend time with their baby. While the new regulations will take away the compounding financial burden of a loss of income, the travel still comes at a significant cost. Unless they are an in-patient, mothers and other parents are not provided with basic amenities, such as a meal, on the ward. When Isla was transferred to the Royal London hospital, Ashley said that it became near impossible to give her body the correct nutrition she needed to breastfeed. When her child’s life was so fragile, she often did not want to leave her side for a moment, even to find something to eat. Other parents have chosen not to eat to pay for their travel to the hospital.
While I welcome the measures the Government are taking in the statutory instruments to remove worries around leave and pay for parents at an unimaginably difficult time, I ask that the Minister takes away those suggestions for how the Government can go further and perhaps meet me and the team at Isla’s Journey to discuss measures that can make parents’ lives that little bit easier. Making those changes would improve the wellbeing of families with babies in the NICU and the life chances of those babies so that parents could focus on what truly matters most to them: the care of their child.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Before I call the Liberal Democrat spokesman, I remind the House that it is courteous for Members who wish to speak to be present for all the opening speeches.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
Please accept my sincere apologies for being late, Madam Deputy Speaker. Things moved on at pace this afternoon. I will take what you said seriously into account.
The Liberal Democrats had such proposals in our manifesto, so we welcome the regulations. Some 34,000 people—equivalent to the population of Yate—are set to benefit from the regulations in the first year after they come into force. I note that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), said that the Conservatives promised to deliver such proposals, but—a bit like their hospitals programme—they failed to do so. One needs to bear that in mind.
I pay tribute to Stuart McDonald, a former MP whose private Member’s Bill—the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill—addressed this issue. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for sponsoring that Bill, which gave these proposals legs in the Chamber. I am delighted that they are coming to fruition today.
In my Torbay constituency, developing an attachment between parents and children is often a challenge, particularly for those who face serious difficulties in their lives. Many prematurely born youngsters are from more deprived backgrounds—there is twice the chance of that. We Liberal Democrats truly welcome the proposals, because they will drive strong attachment between parents and their babies, and that can only bear fruit for communities across the United Kingdom.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I pay tribute to all parents who have campaigned for change, and I commend the Smallest Things charity for its work on this issue. Co-founders Catriona and Sarah have put their heart and soul into the campaign, laying bare their own experiences to shine a light on the realities of neonatal intensive care and trauma faced by families.
These statutory instruments are a welcome and necessary step in ensuring that parents who find themselves in one of the most distressing and uncertain experiences of their lives have the right to neonatal leave and pay. Under the current system, parents have been left to rely on maternity, paternity or shared parental leave to care for their child in hospital. Neonatal care can often bring additional, unforeseen expenses, including travel costs. For many parents, statutory maternity or paternity pay simply does not stretch far enough.
Although the legislation is a step forward, we must recognise that more can be done. There is a wider picture of maternity and neonatal services that are under growing strain. The NHS workforce is overstretched, and maternity services have been repeatedly flagged as needing urgent attention. We need more midwives, more neonatal nurses and more support for families experiencing traumatic births and baby loss. Will the Minister outline what discussions he has had with colleagues to ensure that maternity and neonatal care services are properly resourced and funded?
Additionally, we must recognise that support for parents should not cease once they leave hospital. The impact of neonatal care does not go away when a baby is discharged, as many children and parents will have long-term health complications. According to Smallest Things, the incidence of mental health difficulties such as post-traumatic stress disorder are thought to be as high as 70%. We should have expanded access to NHS mental health support for all parents who experience a neonatal stay, rather than requiring them to wait until they are at breaking point.
The Government must do much more, alongside the welcome introduction of paid neonatal leave, to tackle and end the unacceptable maternal and neonatal health disparities. This legislation is long overdue, but there is still lots more to do to support families after neonatal care. The Liberal Democrats committed to the introduction of paid neonatal leave in our manifesto. I hope that the Government will continue down that route and consider what more they can do to improve maternity services, including with a national maternity safety ambition beyond 2025, with clear baselines to measure progress. We need real investment in the NHS workforce to ensure that every baby and every parent gets the care they deserve.
No parent should be sitting by their baby’s cot worrying about pay or work. It is the Government’s duty to provide families with the stability, care and support they need during such a critical and challenging time.
Justin Madders
I thank all Members for participating in today’s debate—there have been some very thoughtful and moving contributions. I will start with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), who spoke movingly about Isla and her experiences in neonatal care. It was truly wonderful to hear that, having been given a 2% chance of survival, she recently celebrated her seventh birthday. That is a testament to the great work that many neonatal units do up and down the country, nurturing that very precious life and allowing it to flourish and grow. Of course, I would be happy to meet those from Isla’s Journey, but I will talk to my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care first about whether it might be more appropriate for them to conduct that meeting.
I welcome the support from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling). He spoke about the importance of parental attachment, something that we are beginning to understand is vital to a child’s development—the more we can do in that area, the better. I also understand the point that the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) made, and I recently visited the Countess of Chester, which is building a new children and mother unit. That is absolutely fantastic to see, and clearly, we want to build on investment in this area over coming years.
I felt that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) was a little churlish in his support for these regulations. I do not understand the criticism on the basis that these measures were in the Conservatives’ 2019 manifesto, since they did not actually implement them. Given that their Government undertook a consultation six years ago, criticising us for bringing these regulations forward within six months seems a little rich.
Of course, the shadow Minister is already blaming the Employment Rights Bill before it is passed for any rise in unemployment. It is completely nonsensical to argue that legislation that is unlikely to be enacted until next year could be responsible for job losses now. It is the kind of talk that we heard when the minimum wage was introduced—it was wrong then, and it is wrong now. To address the shadow Minister’s point about why this day one right is not in line with pay, that is consistent with all other parental leave entitlements. Pay comes in after 26 weeks, because a baseline of information about a person’s pay is needed in order to implement such a right.
In conclusion, it is welcome to see support for these measures across the House. The first few weeks after a baby is born are precious, and for a child in neonatal care, that time is even more important. As we have heard, the lack of options for parents who find themselves in that truly challenging situation serves only to worsen what, for many parents, is the most traumatic period of their lives. We hope that giving parents the additional rights and flexibility they need through these regulations will provide some much-needed support, reassurance and stability. Parents dealing with a very ill newborn should not have to worry about whether they can get the time off work that they need, or indeed whether they will have a job to go back to at all. As a nation, we can all understand that, and of course the best employers do these things already. However, by legislating, we send a clear message that all parents in that situation—according to some estimates, there could be up to 60,000—will be able to put all their focus on their child, which is as it should be.
On that note, I commend these regulations to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Terms and Conditions of Employment
Scrutiny of European Statutory Instruments
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
Scrutiny of the laws that we make and that bind us is very important, and it is exceedingly important when the origins of the laws are not within our own parliamentary framework. Of course, in the part of the United Kingdom from which I come, Northern Ireland, in over 300 areas the laws are made not by this House or the Stormont Assembly, but by a foreign Parliament that we do not elect—the European Parliament. That underscores the huge importance of effective scrutiny.
In so far as this motion slightly improves the situation, it is welcome, but I need to make three or four points. Is the inference of this motion that there has been no scrutiny of these matters since the demise of the European Scrutiny Committee in or about April of last year? If so, a vast swathe of laws have obviously gone unscrutinised. The former Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee told this House in March 2023 that, in the two years from 2021 to 2023, 640 EU laws had been imposed on Northern Ireland. How many have been imposed since, and how many of them have been scrutinised?
Since Northern Ireland is the region most affected by many of these laws, I have to register my disappointment that not a single Member from Northern Ireland was proposed for the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. That is a huge failure to give those I represent some confidence that scrutiny is taking place and is effective.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree with me, as someone who sat on the European Scrutiny Committee in the last Parliament, that it is no surprise that the Labour Government do not want to scrutinise this legislation coming from the European Union, because for much of the last Parliament, with the exception of the former Member for Dagenham and Rainham, Jon Cruddas, the Labour Members on the then European Scrutiny Committee never turned up?
Jim Allister
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I do not gainsay it. If that is so, it is a very poor reflection on the interest in scrutiny.
Not only do we have this lacuna in scrutiny of a year or more; we have the very unsatisfactory position of there being no transparency—there is no public list of all the imposed EU laws. It does not exist, from what I am told. How can it be right for citizens in any part of this United Kingdom to be governed by laws when there is not even a list of all those laws? I look to the Government for a commitment that there will at least be the transparency of publishing a list of all relevant regulations that are imposed—and “imposed” is the correct word—on Northern Ireland from a foreign Parliament.
Some may say, “Oh, but doesn’t the Stormont Assembly have a Democratic Scrutiny Committee?”, and, of sorts, it does, but on 2 February the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland wrote to the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly informing him of the types of laws that will be reported to the Assembly, and it does not include all laws. We have the so-called Stormont brake, which applies only to any law amending an existing EU law. We have applicability motions, which can apply to any new law, but we do not have any right of scrutiny within the Northern Ireland Assembly of what we would call statutory instruments. There simply is no capacity to scrutinise them.
We recently had a troubling example of such a statutory instrument. Commission implementing regulation 2025/89 creates a situation where, for the first time in any part of this United Kingdom, and with no consultation with our consumers or our elected representatives, we now have an authorised EU law whereby mealworms and insects can be included in food products. That EU law has been imposed upon Northern Ireland without any scrutiny in Stormont or in this place. Would that type of EU implementing regulation be on the agenda of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, or would it just pass under the radar, as has been happening for so long?
Vast swathes of important law are not classified as devolved under the protocol arrangements, so they are never scrutinised in the Northern Ireland Assembly, nor can they ever be scrutinised. Nothing that arises under the EU’s customs code, under its VAT regime or under state aid is devolved. Those matters are reserved to this place. Regulations are made from time to time on the customs code, which is the most offensive of all the protocol arrangements, because it is the one that says, “Northern Ireland is to be treated as EU territory. GB is to be treated as a third or foreign country, and thus the goods coming from GB to Northern Ireland—coming from a third country—have to be subject to the rigours of an international customs border.” All that arises under the EU’s customs code, and none of that can be scrutinised in Northern Ireland. None of it has been scrutinised in this House, either.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On the lack of scrutiny, does the hon. and learned Member agree that as time goes on and the American Administration begin to look at what they may or may not do vis-à-vis trading arrangements with the EU, it is all the more important—it was important anyway—that we have close scrutiny, because of the deals that may come about between the American Administration, the UK and possibly the EU?
Jim Allister
Yes, and there is much talk about tariffs. Think of the conundrum that would be created if President Trump imposed tariffs on the EU. Northern Ireland, treated as EU territory, would, I presume, be subject to those tariffs, yet we are told that we are part of the United Kingdom. That is all because of the application to Northern Ireland of the customs code. If there were corresponding responses from the EU in that scenario, those would, under adjustments to matters arising under its customs code, apply to Northern Ireland it seems, and all without scrutiny.
While the establishment of this Committee, belated as it is, is welcome, it is important that we are able to understand that it will seriously address the scrutiny issues, as the previous Committee under Sir Bill Cash did. I pay tribute to him for the work that he did, but there has been this great gap in the meantime with effectively no scrutiny whatever. Now that scrutiny will be done by a Committee without, as I have said, a Northern Ireland representative even on it.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the hon. and learned Member accept that even when we had the European Scrutiny Committee, which was able to deal exclusively with such issues, there were many EU regulations that it did not have the opportunity to discuss? Given the importance of such regulations not just to Northern Ireland but, as he pointed out, to the whole of the United Kingdom, does he agree that this leaves us vulnerable to detrimental changes in law that will not get enough examination in the House?
Jim Allister
Absolutely. There is a sheer volume of EU law that still applies in Northern Ireland. In annex 2 to the protocol, there are 287 such areas of law, and many have been added to it since. That breeds further regulation of a huge quantity, yet there is a lack of scrutiny.
The speed with which regulation is applied and the lack of opportunity for scrutiny is important. One of the complaints I hear from the Democratic Scrutiny Committee in the Northern Ireland Assembly is that it is not given the time or notice to deal with issues, even if there were the inclination among some to do so.
Sammy Wilson
It is even worse than that. On occasions, regulations have gone through and been adopted before the Committee knew they were there.
Jim Allister
Yes. The Cabinet Office undertakes to notify on a weekly basis, but I think that is honoured more in default than anything else.
From a scrutiny point of view, we are in a perilous position. I do hope that the Committee will grasp the issue and take it seriously. My only regret is there is not a Member from Northern Ireland on the Committee to hold feet to the fire. That goes to the heart of what should affect and concern us all as representatives.
I ask Members of the House who come from other parts of the United Kingdom how they would feel if there were 300 areas of law that they could not make or change and regulations—with votes on them—were not even being properly scrutinised. I think we know how others would feel. Frankly, we ask for nothing that others do not have for themselves.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Lucy Powell)
I thank the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) for that contribution, which I am sure the House has heard. May I first explain to hon. Members that the motion on the Order Paper is not anything to do with European Scrutiny Committee? We dealt with that previously. The motion is about the European Statutory Instruments Committee, a specific Committee whose role was to consider whether certain proposed negative instruments in relation to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU should instead follow the affirmative procedure. In the Committee’s absence, all measures have proceeded through the affirmative procedure instead.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the numbers, which, in fact, are quite low. I think that previously the Committee looked at about 50 instruments per parliamentary Session, but by the year of the final Session of the last Parliament it was down to just 11, and it has been lower since then as well. We are talking about a tiny number of instruments being considered for the affirmative procedure.
Robin Swann
In regard to that, as the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) asked, if there is such a low number of instruments and the Committee is not to meet so regularly, why not give Northern Ireland a place on it?
Lucy Powell
The proposal is that the Committee will not meet and that measures will be considered by the relevant Select Committee. So, were measures to relate to Northern Ireland, they would be considered by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. That is what the motion relates to, and not the European Scrutiny Committee, which a number of hon. Members mentioned.
The European Statutory Instruments Committee did specific work, and we now feel that it would not be value for money for the House to pay for a Chair and to facilitate a Committee that would need to meet only on rare occasions to consider whether a statutory instrument should go through the affirmative route, As I said, in the absence of the Committee, all such instruments have gone through the affirmative route, and in future they will be considered by the relevant Select Committee of this House, which I am sure in many instances will be the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
I hope that that reassures Members. I take these matters extremely seriously. It is very important that this House scrutinises measures, whether statutory instruments generated by the Government, other legislation or the rolling on of measures from the European Union or elsewhere. I am happy to keep under consideration how best we can consider these matters should the context change. If Members in the Chamber today have other ideas, they can let me know and I will happily consider them.
Question put and agreed to.
Business without Debate
Potential Closure of the Gidea Park Library
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I present a petition on behalf of my constituents, who are devastated by the decision of the local council, the London borough of Havering, to close the Gidea Park library based in the Squirrels Heath ward, which serves a large part of Romford and is used by local children, students and older people. It is a community hub and a cherished local facility, which I campaigned to save in 2001, the year I became a Member of Parliament. Sadly, it is now under threat of closure again by the local council, as proposed by the Labour and Havering Residents Association administration that was in office last year, and opposed by the Conservatives.
Local people and Councillors Christine Vickery, Keith Prince and Michael White, led by me, have collected hundreds if not thousands of signatures across the area, to try to persuade Havering council to change its decision and keep our cherished local library open for local people to use and enjoy.
The petition, on behalf of the people of Gidea Park, the wider community of Romford and the London Borough of Havering, in the historic county of Essex, states:
The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Notes that the Gidea Park library provides essential services to local communities; declares that their closure would have an adverse impact upon the local people, specifically the young and elderly; further declares that this library ought not to be closed by the London Borough of Havering; and further declares that community libraries should be protected and enhanced as vital centres of culture, learning, and local service provision by national and local government.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that the Gidea Park library in the parliamentary constituency of Romford is not closed, but rather protected and enhanced as a centre of culture, learning, and local service provision for the people of Gidea Park.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003042]
US Global Public Health Policy
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I appreciate the opportunity to speak on a matter of urgent importance: the shifting landscape of global health policy, and the direct threat that shift poses to public health security in the UK and worldwide. In recent weeks, the United States has announced its withdrawal from the World Health Organisation, and is significantly scaling back its support for major global health initiatives. It has also curtailed the activities of key institutions such as the National Institutes of Health and the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, while pausing vital lifesaving programmes run by the US Agency for International Development.
These decisions sent shockwaves across the world. For decades, the US has played a crucial role in some of the greatest health achievements in history: eradicating smallpox and nearly eliminating polio; tackling childhood malnutrition; tackling some of the biggest killers in the form of HIV, tuberculosis and malaria; and responding rapidly to emerging diseases with pandemic potential. Now, with this one decision, it has undermined global health security, weakened its own defences and placed millions of lives at risk.
The UK and our Commonwealth partners have long benefited from strong global health systems. When the world is healthier and more stable, we are, too. However, as a recent study in public health challenges warned, the breakdown of global collaboration is as great a threat as any infectious disease, and the US retreat forces us to confront that head-on.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I cannot imagine that any Member on either side of this Chamber will not be concerned about the prospect that we face, but we have to live with the reality. Given the withdrawal of the US from the World Health Organisation, it is essential that lines of communication on global health issues remain open and consistent. Does he agree that we must be proactive in establishing a new method of co-operation and information sharing as a matter of urgency? I think that is what he is looking for. If we can meet somewhere in between, that might be the way forward.
Dr Chambers
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He makes a hugely important point.
Economic pressures demand efficiency, but let there be no doubt: withdrawing support from the World Health Organisation is a false and dangerous economy. By stepping away instead of seeking reforms from within, the US has thrown global health security into turmoil. This is about not just principles, but consequences. A withdrawal on this scale damages health diplomacy and erodes trust. It allows adversarial states to step in and use disinformation and strategic influence to reshape the global health landscape to their advantage. If the World Health Organisation is weakened, its ability to track, contain and fight disease is also weakened, and that makes us all more vulnerable. Other nations are already considering following suit; Argentina is voicing similar intentions. If more countries withdraw, we risk a domino effect that could collapse the framework we rely on to monitor and respond to health threats.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that one lesson from the pandemic is that the last thing countries should do is withdraw from organisations such as the World Health Organisation and reduce international co-operation, given the risk of a future pandemic at some point?
Dr Chambers
I could not agree more. My hon. Friend is completely right. The World Health Organisation is at the heart of international disease surveillance, co-ordinating early responses to outbreaks of deadly diseases such as Ebola and highly pathogenic avian influenza, both of which have been in the news in the last couple of weeks. In today’s interconnected world, speed is everything. Without robust early warning systems, outbreaks that might have been contained could spiral into pandemics, just as my hon. Friend said.
We also cannot ignore the worsening impact of climate change on global health. Due to changing temperatures, diseases that were classed as tropical when I was at university are now being seen in other parts of the world. The US withdrawal from the Paris agreement has already slowed efforts to tackle climate-driven diseases; now, its retreat from global health co-operation leaves us even less well prepared to handle the consequences. The UK must remain firm in supporting the WHO’s role in pandemic preparedness, not only because it is morally right, but because it is in our national interest.
This crisis affects more than just emergency outbreaks; it threatens our ability to manage persistent health threats here at home. Take seasonal flu. Every winter, the NHS faces immense pressure from influenza. Our ability to develop effective vaccines depends on international collaboration, including data from US research centres. If those partnerships are disrupted, how will we prepare for the 2025 flu season? The same applies to broader scientific research. The UK and US have worked closely on the One Health Initiative, studying how animal, human and environmental health intersect. Hundreds of these projects have now stalled, cutting off vital knowledge that could have helped us understand future pandemics. We must explore ways to sustain these collaborations. That includes securing funding for key research programmes and ensuring that our world-class universities remain engaged in global health security efforts. If we do not do those things, we risk falling behind in disease surveillance, vaccine development and pandemic preparedness.
I have spoken in this House before about the urgent threat of antibiotic-resistant infections to the NHS. Alongside the UK, the US has been a strong supporter of WHO-led efforts to tackle antimicrobial resistance, which experts warn is one of the greatest global health challenges of our time. Antibiotic resistance does not respect borders. Drug-resistant bacteria and fungi travel with people and goods across the world. Without global surveillance, the consequences will be dire. More people will die in NHS hospitals from infections that we can no longer treat. This is not a distant problem; it is happening now. The UK has been helping Ukraine tackle antimicrobial resistance worsened by war. Despite severe funding challenges, collaborations between Chelsea and Westminster hospital, Great Ormond Street hospital, University College London and Ukrainian institutions have made progress. This proves that even in difficult circumstances, proactive partnerships can make a difference. We must apply these lessons to protect our own health security. I pay tribute to the laboratory team and Professor Inada-Kim in our hospital in Winchester, who are helping to lead the national effort to tackle AMR in our NHS.
The UK has a proud history of leading on global health. It was here that Sir Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin, revolutionising modern medicine. Edward Jenner’s smallpox vaccine laid the foundation for immunisation efforts that have saved hundreds of millions of lives. British researchers helped eradicate rinderpest in cattle, the only other disease besides smallpox to be wiped out completely. Today, smallpox is gone. Rinderpest is gone. One day, we hope to say the same about polio, but that vision is now at risk. I recently visited the rotary club in Winchester and learned about the long involvement of rotary clubs worldwide in supporting polio eradication over a period of many years. The US withdrawal forces us to consider how we reaffirm our leadership in global health.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Twenty years ago, Nelson Mandela stood in Trafalgar Square waging a war on poverty. As my hon. Friend will know, he was also the first chair of Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, which has inoculated more than 1 billion children and saved 18 million lives. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour Government must fulfil their commitment to Gavi, and not fall behind? Even the Conservative Government said that they would fund Gavi properly. Mandela’s life reminds us, does it not, that the great victories are often in times of darkness, like today?
Dr Chambers
You are completely right about that very important organisation, which I shall come on to shortly. We cannot highlight enough to the impact that Gavi has had.
The World Health Organisation must adapt. This crisis highlights the need for a more resilient system, one that does not depend so heavily on any single nation. The UK must lead efforts to strengthen the World Health Organisation by broadening its funding base and encouraging greater collective responsibility among member states. At the same time, we must invest in our own global health capabilities, which means strengthening research funding, protecting key collaborations, and engaging with middle-income nations to forge new partnerships. Global health security is not just about pandemics; it is about economic stability, national security, and the long-term wellbeing of our people—and let us be absolutely clear: disease does not respect national borders. A threat anywhere in the world is a threat to the UK. If polio still exists anywhere, it is still our problem. If antibiotic resistance is surging in one part of the world, it will reach our hospitals. If a new pandemic emerges in a distant country, it will be on our doorstep faster than ever before.
When it comes to global public health,
“nobody wins unless everybody wins.”
Those are the words of Bruce Springsteen, but they apply as much to public health as they do to any other struggle. If we allow global health systems to weaken, if we turn our backs on international collaboration, we are not just failing others; we are failing ourselves. However, this is also an opportunity. The UK has a chance to lead the world in global health innovation while strengthening our economy. We have significant human capital available through our universities, businesses, learned societies and research institutions, and if we invest now we can become a global hub for public health expertise, vaccine development, artificial intelligence and cutting-edge medical research. We should also remember the power of our capacity to offer education and training as cost-effective interventions. We can export solutions, shape international policy, and create high-skilled jobs right here at home. The last Government saw universities as a battleground for culture wars. We must see them as engines of innovation, global collaboration and economic growth. They should not be political footballs; they should be powerhouses of discovery, opportunity, and progress. If we get this right, we will not just be protecting global public health, but securing Britain’s place as a leader in the industries of the future.
The US has made itself and the world weaker. The UK now has a choice: we can watch as global health security unravels, or we can take decisive action to lead, collaborate, and strengthen the systems that keep us safe. With the UK’s aid budget being stretched thin, not least by the diversion of funds to cover domestic asylum costs, there is growing concern that our leading contributions to the work of Gavi, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), could be significantly reduced. That work has vaccinated over a billion children—over half the world’s children—and supports cutting-edge efforts to tackle major causes of death such as malaria. Let me ask the Minister two questions: how can we justify cutting support for an organisation that has saved over 18 million lives, and will the Government commit to restoring overseas development aid to 0.7% of GDP, to ensure that lifesaving initiatives such as Gavi and other key World Health Organisation initiatives can remain viable?
This is not charity. This is global health security, preventing outbreaks before they spread, reducing suffering, and strengthening healthcare systems in some of the world’s most fragile regions. This is a question of national security, moral responsibility and economic opportunity. I urge the House to ensure that the UK does not waver in its commitment to a healthier, safer, and more prosperous and secure world.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Before I call the Minister, may I remind Members that when they use the word “you”, they are addressing the Chair?
The Minister for Development (Anneliese Dodds)
I thank the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) for securing this debate on such an important topic, and I am grateful to the other Members who are in the Chamber.
This Government are aware of the implications of the US Government’s initial decision to pause their overseas financial assistance while they undertake a review, including where that is accompanied by stop-work orders. We are monitoring those impacts closely through our diplomatic missions overseas and with other international partners. Of course, decisions on US policy are a matter for the US Government; I know the hon. Gentleman is well aware of that. We welcome the news that emergency food aid and lifesaving humanitarian assistance should be exempt from the pause during the review period.
I point out that these are early days for the new Administration, and it would not be appropriate—I know Members would not expect us to do this—for us to give a running commentary on each announcement and executive order issued by the US Government. Members will know that the US has a strong track record in global health and international development, and we have enjoyed close bilateral co-operation with it in pursuit of our shared objectives in this area. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Winchester rightly refer to that collaboration. Naturally, we are very keen for that to continue.
For our part, this Government are committed to working with others through genuine, respectful partnerships with donors, multilateral organisations and countries across the global south, so that we maximise our impact at home and overseas. This is an important part of how we fulfil every Government’s first responsibility: to keep people safe—the hon. Member for Winchester was right to refer to security in the context of this debate. It is also important for pursuing this Government’s guiding mission, which is to grow the economy and bring opportunity to people in our country, and to make progress towards our shared global goals for sustainable development during this decade.
Our work on global health is crucial. Since I took up my role over six months ago, I have making been the case for action right around the world, on my visits to some of the countries most affected by the diseases that the hon. Member for Winchester talked about, and at major global summits. He will be aware that we are in the middle of a spending round process, so I am not in a position to outline specific investment plans—I know he would not seek to encourage me to do that—but I want to reassure Members that this Government will be at the forefront of international work on improving global health as a priority for our country.
It is the right thing to do, as the hon. Member for Winchester articulated, and it is the smart thing to do. No country can thrive if its people cannot thrive. In today’s interconnected world, we have all seen the impact of shocks in healthcare and communicable disease ripple right around the world. We saw that with the covid-19 pandemic above all, which harmed our health in the UK and all our global economies. To use the phrase that he rightly kept repeating, deadly diseases do not respect borders, nor does antimicrobial resistance, which he pointed to as another major challenge for us in global health terms. They threaten us all, and it takes a concerted international effort to tackle them, so we are working with countries around the world to help them develop the systems they need to tackle the health threats they face.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response to the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), who set the scene very well. In my constituency of Strangford, I think of the Church groups, and in particular of the Elim Missions, which has a very constructive and positive strategy for Zimbabwe and Swaziland. In Swaziland, the number of people who have AIDS is at almost epidemic levels, but one of the things the west—the USA, the UK and others—can do is provide medications that can preserve life and help people to live longer than they ever have. That happens because of what the Government do but also because of what the Churches do. The Minister is always very helpful in her responses. Could the Government look at working more closely with the churches to make lives better?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the hon. Member for that really important point and for his kind words. He is right to pay tribute to the incredible civil society that we have working on these issues right across the United Kingdom. He refers to the important work that church groups do with communities affected by HIV/AIDS and other diseases.
I was really pleased to hear the hon. Member for Winchester talk about the role of the Rotary group in seeking to combat polio, and I have been absolutely delighted to be working as a polio champion with some of the organisations campaigning on this issue, particularly the global programme to eliminate polio. It is really important that we seek to work together on these issues, and the Government are reviewing our strategy on civil society. I will make sure that the issue of health activism is fed into that process, because it is really important. We need to make sure that we face up to the ongoing threats together.
The hon. Member talked about the threats from communicable disease being intensified by the climate crisis and environmental degradation. He was right to do so, but we also see non-communicable disease becoming more frequent in many countries in the global south, and there is still a potential threat from pandemics too. We are also working with others to champion sexual and reproductive health rights and freedoms for all, including as a key part of our work to empower women and girls.
We are investing in global health work that we know provides excellent value for money, reaching millions of people and maximising the impact of every single pound that we put in. I was really pleased to hear Gavi mentioned by the hon. Members for Winchester and for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), who has so much international expertise. Our support to Gavi, the global vaccines alliance, is enabling it to immunise 300 million children and save up to 8 million lives from vaccine-preventable diseases over four years. That support for Gavi’s multilateral and engaged action internationally is clear, as I set out to the International Development Committee. I will not repeat that here, for reasons of time.
Similarly, the global fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria has saved over 65 million lives since 2002 and reduced the combined death rate of the three diseases by 61%. The UK has played a significant role in that success. In addition, the UK’s support for the child wasting innovation programme has helped it to raise financing from others, enabling treatment for 850,000 children. The multilateral architecture is critical here, and I was really pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman underline the importance of the World Health Organisation. The UK will remain a strong supporter of the World Health Organisation. He hopefully saw that we recently announced new funding for the WHO in support of its delivery and transformation agenda. We will continue to work closely with the WHO and its member states to strengthen the organisation, so that it can help countries to meet the health challenges of our times.
The UK’s national risk register estimates that there is up to a 25% probability of another pandemic in the next five years. That is one of the reasons why we remain committed to securing a pandemic accord at the WHO. Getting better at preventing and preparing for pandemics matters immensely for global health security, but also for UK health security and for this Government’s mission to build a national health service that is fit for the future.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the same applies to the threat of antimicrobial resistance. The UK is already seeing thousands of deaths that are attributed to antimicrobial resistance, and I was pleased to hear about the work of Dr Matthew Inada-Kim at Winchester University. I am also extremely proud of the work of Sally Davies, who has been working on these issues with the UK Government and Lord Darzi. The UK Government worked really hard to agree an ambitious global set of actions against AMR at last September’s high-level meeting, which was dedicated to that subject, and we will keep driving that work forward.
Before I wrap up, I want to shine a light on the wider work of the UK’s world-class scientists and public health and medical institutions. Harnessing the huge wealth of talent and expertise here in the UK is fundamental to the new approach to development that this Government are adopting. The UK’s scientists do a huge amount to address global health and development challenges by advancing our understanding of disease, pioneering work in genomic medicine and developing novel vaccines. I was really delighted to hear the passion with which the hon. Gentleman talked about this issue, and I have seen for myself the immense ambition of labs here in the UK, such as the Jenner Institute. Please forgive me if I smile, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I am very proud to represent the constituency where the Jenner Institute is based, and I visited it recently.
British scientists have helped to develop two malaria vaccines that have the potential to save millions of lives. Thanks to the expertise and brilliance of British scientists, the dream of eradicating malaria looks increasingly possible. The hon. Member for Winchester quoted Bruce Springsteen, and I hope that the “glory days” for those scientists will come when we finally globally eradicate malaria. If we manage to do that, it will be because of those incredible efforts. We talked about Gavi earlier, and with the UK’s support, it plans to roll out these new vaccines to 25 countries this year.
Our health, life sciences and pharma sector is second only in value to that of the US. It has an annual turnover of £50 billion, with £25 billion a year in exports, and it supports 115,000 high-value jobs, which the hon. Member rightly referred to. I will finish by saying how proud we can all be of the work that our country does on global health. It is good for us here in the UK and for people across the globe, and it is a key part of how we make sure that as many of us as possible can keep working together in partnership towards the safer, healthier and more prosperous world that people everywhere want and deserve.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Energy Bill Relief Scheme and Energy Bills Discount Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2024
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Energy Bill Relief Scheme and Energy Bills Discount Scheme (Amendment) Regulations 2024.
The regulations were laid before the House on 16 December 2024. They amend two schemes that were created by the previous Government in response to the energy crisis. The amendments address an issue that was not considered in the rush to create the schemes, but has now come to the fore as we bring the schemes to an end. The issue is somewhat technical, so I ask hon. Members bear with me.
Both the energy bill relief scheme and the energy bills discount scheme, which I shall refer to as the EBRS and the EBDS, supported non-domestic energy users, including businesses and heat networks. The EBRS supported energy bills from October 2022 to March 2023 and the EBDS supported bills from April 2023 to March 2024.
The schemes have processes in place to ensure that, as bills are revised with accurate meter readings, the difference between the discount applied to the estimated bill and that applied to the final bill is reconciled. Suppliers then come back to Government to recover additional discounts they have paid out, or to pay back any excess discounts stemming from an over-estimation of the energy used in the first instance. That is right—the intention behind the schemes has always been for the Government, not the energy suppliers, to meet the cost to the consumer.
The regulations allow for the Secretary of State to determine when a supplier should leave the scheme on the basis of an assessment that there will be no further material amount owed by the Department to that supplier. Once a supplier has left the scheme, they are unable to claim back any further moneys from the Department for discounts they paid out on behalf of the schemes.
However, as the regulations currently stand, suppliers are still required to pay out discounts on any newly billed energy supplied during the periods of either scheme, even when that situation arises through no fault of their own. This could result in suppliers funding Government support without the ability to recoup those costs from the Department. That is contrary to the intention of the schemes. Consequently, suppliers have been reluctant to leave the schemes, which must come to an end in a timely manner.
The amendments in the statutory instrument remove the obligation on suppliers to provide the discounts to customers, except in instances when the consumer has lost out due to poor practices by their energy supplier. In those instances, we have provided carve-outs to balance the interests of suppliers with support and protection for consumers. Carve-outs are in place when a supplier has failed to provide their customers with a bill for energy supplied during the scheme period, when unreasonable delays or another failure has led to the energy not being billed accurately, or when the supplier has unreasonably failed in the duty to provide the discount. The customer should not and will not lose their entitlement to the discount in those circumstances.
If any dispute arises between the supplier and the customer in relation to the carve-outs, the resolution mechanisms will be those normally used in the industry, via a complaint to the Energy Ombudsman, investigation and potential sanction by the regulator, Ofgem, or court action. The amendments apply to energy suppliers in Great Britain.
Separately, the regulations amend the Energy Prices Act 2022 to allow the devolved Administration in Northern Ireland to make amendments to address issues in the Northern Ireland scheme. That is because their power to amend their equivalent legislation has expired.
Let me end by saying a few words about the challenges that non-domestic consumers face because of high prices. I know that Members across the Committee are concerned about that. Energy prices for non-domestic customers have dropped below the record peaks during the crisis, but the Government recognise that they remain high and pose issues for some businesses. The Government believe that our mission to deliver clean power by 2030 is the best way to break our dependence on global fossil fuel markets and to protect bill payers, including non-domestic consumers, permanently.
In the short term, the Government are taking action to better protect businesses from being locked into unfair and expensive energy contracts. Last year, the Government launched a consultation on introducing regulation of third party intermediaries, such as energy brokers. That is aimed at enhancing consumer protections, particularly for non-domestic consumers. The consultation has now closed and the Government will respond in due course.
The Government are also empowering businesses to challenge unfair and poor practices by suppliers. Since December 2024, small and medium-sized enterprises with fewer than 50 employees can have access to free support to resolve issues with their energy supplier through the Energy Ombudsman. That expands the service to 99% of British businesses, allowing them to access up to £20,000 in financial awards. Those are important steps, on which we will continue to build.
I hope that hon. Members will support the important regulations, which I commend to the Committee.
Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under you bright and early this morning, Mr Stringer. I am pleased to respond to the draft regulations on behalf of the Opposition. Committee Members will be relieved to hear that I shall not detain them long.
It was right for the previous Conservative Government to step in during the cost of living crisis to protect families and businesses from rocketing energy bills. The supply shock from the pandemic and a major land war in Europe created a unique set of circumstances. Thanks to the previous Government, we came through the storm.
Now that the crisis has passed, it is reasonable to finish the work of winding down the energy bill relief scheme and the energy bills discount scheme. They were always intended to be temporary measures during a time of national emergency. Now we are presented with the challenge of finding our way back to recovery and a long-term path to lower energy prices.
As the current Government continue down the ideological decarbonisation route, led by the Secretary of State, we will watch carefully in order to protect the families and businesses who bear the cost of unrealistic clean energy targets. Indeed, experts expect the energy price cap to rise next month. The Manchester-based— not Aberdeen-based—head of GB Energy, Juergen Maier, says it will be
“a very long-term project”
to reduce bills by £300, which was a promise that Ministers stopped making as soon as their election campaign ended. I note that the Minister is wiser than her boss in not repeating that promise.
We support the regulations. We recognise their role in winding down the old schemes, but we remain vigilant about new policies that will surely make lives harder and more expensive because of the unattainable and self-harming decarbonisation goals that the Government are pursuing.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank the hon. Member for his response. I am glad that we have consensus across the Committee about the regulations.
The hon. Member is right to point out that energy bills are high. All hon. Members know that, and it is a central focus of the Government’s. I come back to the fact that we inherited a position whereby bills were at record heights. That is a result of our dependence on global fossil fuel markets over which we have no control. I have said this before and I will say it again: the Opposition were happy with that status quo, but we are not willing to put up with it. We believe that it must be changed. Our drive for green power will deliver home-grown clean energy, which will give energy security to the country and financial security to families.
While we do that, our manifesto commitment to reduce bills remains central to what we are trying to achieve. It is the core of everything that the Department is trying to do. We will bear down on bills through clean power and we will ensure that we take short-term action to protect bill payers who are struggling. Critically, we will upgrade millions of homes so that we can deliver lower bills and warmer homes. We are committed to that because we understand that, throughout the country, people face a cost of living crisis, which we inherited from the Conservative Government, who did not do enough to insulate and protect people. We will not make that mistake. We are determined to do this. Again, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
Grimsby Post Office
The Lower Thames Crossing
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Eighth sitting)
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Will everyone ensure that all electronic devices are switched off or to silent mode? We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. It shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate.
I remind the Committee that a Member who has put their name to the lead amendment in a group is called first or, in the case of a stand part debate, the Member in charge, Kim Leadbeater, will be called to speak first. Other Members are then free to indicate that they wish to speak in the debate by bobbing. At the end of the debate on a group of amendments and new clauses and schedules, I shall call the Member who moved the lead amendment or new clause again. Before they sit down, they will need to indicate whether they wish to withdraw the amendment or the new clause, or to seek a decision. If any Member wishes to press any other amendment—including any of the grouped new clauses and schedules—to a vote, they need to let me know. I shall use my discretion to decide whether to allow a separate stand part debate on individual clauses and schedules following the debate on relevant amendments.
I hope that explanation is helpful. If any Member wishes to make a declaration of interest, they can do so now.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
On a point of order, Ms McVey. Yesterday, members of the Committee received notification that, in the last week, we have received a further 242 pieces of written evidence and 159 pieces of correspondence. Last week, I had read every word of the original 110 pieces of written evidence and 56 pieces of correspondence, as well as studying all the amendments and tabling amendments of my own. As I said, however, more than 400 pieces of evidence and correspondence have been uploaded during the past week, with no deadline by which further such evidence needs to be submitted. Given the large number of evidence submissions every day, Members may well struggle to keep abreast of it and be able to say that they have read every piece of correspondence before the tweaking of the Bill.
I find it difficult to believe that any member of the Committee has been able to read all the evidence submitted since last Tuesday. For instance, the written evidence submitted by the chief executive of my local hospice, which she blind-copied me into on 20 January, was available for members of this Committee to read on 7 February, 17 days after she submitted it. That suggests that, as well as Members struggling to keep up, the Clerks are struggling to keep up. Given the sheer volume of evidence, we will not be able to consider it fully before line-by-line scrutiny.
I therefore seek your advice, Ms McVey, on how we can reasonably expected to begin line-by-line scrutiny when in the last week we have been presented with more than 400 documents, in addition to new amendments.
The Chair
I thank the Member for making that point of order. It is normal practice for evidence to come in, and for it to be submitted as it comes in. However, due to the large amount of evidence and its substance, and to the importance of the Bill and this line-by-line scrutiny, I will seek the advice of the Clerk and will come back to him.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Ms McVey. My concern is about written evidence that has been submitted but not yet read—I have certainly not been through the last batch of evidence that we have had. How do we proceed when, for example, we might have gone through clauses 1 and 2, or even up to clause 4 or 5, and we receive evidence related to those clauses? We will have already discussed them in Committee. We have been told we will only get five hours on Report, while on Second Reading more than 100 MPs, including me, were unable to speak. The evidence could inform amendments. I am struggling to understand how this will be workable. I would value your advice.
The Chair
I am pleased that people feel they are free to make those points. It is for the Committee to decide how fast to move through the Bill.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
Further to those points of order, Ms McVey. I also assume that we are expecting more written evidence to come through. We Committee members are here for the whole day. I hear you say, Ms McVey, that this is normal practice, but considering the importance of the Bill, I assume there will be a lot more written evidence by the end of today. It would be good to consider how Committee members are able to go through that written evidence before we come back here tomorrow morning.
The Chair
As I expressed before, it is for the Committee to decide. Should Members feel they have not had enough time, it is for the Committee to raise a point on that. Should people wish to have an adjourn, they could move that and the Committee would vote on it.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
Further to those points of order, Ms McVey. I am grateful for your guidance, and I acknowledge your point that normal process is being followed in this Committee.
Nevertheless, further to the points made by hon. Members, last night we heard through the media that a very substantial change to the Bill will be introduced. We have not yet seen those amendments proposed by the hon. Member for Spen Valley, but we look forward to doing so. This goes to the same point: we are being asked to start line-by-line scrutiny today of a Bill with a huge amount of evidence that we have not yet been able to digest. Furthermore, substantial changes to the Bill that we voted on at Second Reading are being tabled. I appreciate that the process allows amendments to be tabled at any time through the course of the Bill as long as the clause is still ahead. Nevertheless, I value your guidance on whether it might be appropriate to seek an Adjournment so that we can consider the additional evidence, but also allow the hon. Member for Spen Valley to table her amendments, which change the whole scope of the Bill as voted on at Second Reading.
The Chair
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. As I said, the Committee would have to move and vote on an Adjournment. These are significant points of concern and alteration for the Bill, but that is for the Committee to decide.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
Further to those points of order, Ms McVey. My point of concern is similar to the one just raised, and is about the fact that on Second Reading a key plank of this proposed Bill was about the role of the High Court judges. We are aware of an amendment coming via the promoter of the Bill, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, to remove that completely and replace it with something else. I suggest that a lot of the evidence that we have seen, including the new stuff that has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, is based on the expectation of there being a High Court judge in that role; not on there being a new amendment. I suggest that we are missing vital perspectives on the way that any new amendment, and the Bill going forward, would work in the light of that. That is my concern.
The Chair
It is important that everybody has got their point on the record, and that they have said and raised their concerns.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Further to those points of order, Ms McVey. First of all, it is worth saying that the amendments tabled by the Bill’s promoter, the hon. Member for Spen Valley, are in response to evidence that has been heard by this Committee—oral and written. Certainly the Bill Committees that I have been on have had repeated information coming in as the Bill has evolved. That is an actual process.
It is worth also pointing out to Members that the Bill Committee is not the end of the process, and written evidence that will arrive throughout will be pertinent on Report, when the whole House will have that information available. Then members of the Committee can lead the debate and reflect on information or written evidence that has emerged even after Committee stage, once the completed Bill from that process is seen. It is perfectly possible for this to evolve as we get to Report and Third Reading in the light of evidence that arrives. That is the normal process through which all legislation goes.
Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)
Further to those points of order, Ms McVey. I take on board people’s comments. There’s no two ways about it; this is a considerable amount of work for members of the Bill Committee to undertake. As has been alluded to, there are a wide range of amendments being proposed. The job of the Committee is to take evidence, look at those amendments, discuss and debate them, and then vote accordingly. That is the process that we are all here to undertake.
Kim Leadbeater
I beg to move amendment 178, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, after “person” insert “in England or Wales”.
This amendment provides that only persons in England or Wales may be provided with assistance in accordance with the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 179, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, after “provided” insert “in England or Wales”.
This amendment limits the assistance that may be provided in accordance with the Bill to assistance in England or Wales.
Amendment 180, in clause 1, page 1, line 20, at end insert—
“(3) The steps to be taken under sections 5, 7, 8 and 13 must be taken—
(a) when the terminally ill person is in England or Wales, and
(b) in the case of the steps under sections 7 and 8, by persons in England or Wales.”
This amendment provides that steps under clauses 5, 7, 8 and 13 must be taken by and in respect of persons in England or Wales.
Amendment 182, in clause 4, page 2, line 21, after “person” insert “in England or Wales”.
This amendment limits subsection (3) to cases where the person is in England or Wales.
Amendment 193, in clause 7, page 4, line 8, at end insert—
“(ca) is in England and Wales,”.
This amendment, which is consequential on Amendment 178, provides that the coordinating doctor must ascertain whether, in their opinion, the person who made the first declaration is in England and Wales.
Kim Leadbeater
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey, in this very important stage in the consideration and detailed scrutiny of the Bill.
We are discussing assisted dying for terminally ill adults who have a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life, and who have not been subjected to coercion or pressure from anybody else to do so. These are very serious matters and deserve serious consideration, which is why I was determined that this Bill should have an unprecedented level of scrutiny. We have heard from a range of over 50 witnesses with differing views on the Bill and have received written evidence from many, many more.
I am grateful to everyone who has contributed in such a thoughtful and constructive way. It has been widely remarked—and I wholeheartedly agree—that the Second Reading debate on 29 November last year, when the House approved the principle of the Bill by a majority of 55, showed Parliament at its best. I hope and believe that this Committee, as it goes through the Bill line by line, will do so in the same considered, respectful and measured manner.
Danny Kruger
I completely endorse that last point made by the hon. Lady. Does she remember how many Members on Second Reading—including, I think, herself—made reference to the judicial stage of the process and specifically to the High Court judge? Over 60 colleagues have stated on the record that they voted for the Bill on Second Reading because of that safeguard. Does she acknowledge that point?
Kim Leadbeater
I do acknowledge that point—absolutely, as I have acknowledged, the role of a High Court judge is really important in this process. That role will remain with the amendment I have tabled. It will also take account of the very clear evidence we received during the oral evidence sessions from psychiatrists, social workers and other professionals who feel that they have an important role to play in this process. Indeed, I heard the hon. Gentleman say he agreed with that on the radio this morning. It is very important that we hear from those experts. There is no point in having witnesses if we do not listen to what they have to say.
The Chair
Order. I remind Members that they should keep to the amendments being debated.
Kim Leadbeater
Thank you, Ms McVey.
I hope and believe that the Committee will take the same considered, respectful approach that we have taken previously. We have been asked by the House to look at where the Bill can be improved and to amend it, so that Parliament can be presented with a piece of legislation that is robust and workable in order to meet the objectives it is designed to achieve. Most—if not all—the amendments tabled in my name, have been drafted with the help of parliamentary counsel and officials in both the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Justice. The Government are committed to making the Bill workable and operable, while maintaining a position of neutrality.
I am grateful for the tremendous hard work that has gone into this to make a well-drafted Bill even better. I know the Ministers on the Committee, although remaining neutral, will be here to explain, where necessary, why some drafting amendments were needed to meet their duty to the statute book. There is an old adage that says too many cooks spoil the broth. That may not exactly be parliamentary language, but we will have to bear it in mind as we go along. Over 300 amendments have been tabled—most of them with the intention of improving and strengthening the Bill. I thank all MPs, whether members of the Committee or not, for the time and effort they have put in.
We have a responsibility to maintain the integrity and coherence of the Bill as a whole, so it is evident that we will not be able to accept all amendments. Indeed, we may find ourselves rejecting amendments that sound entirely reasonable in themselves and that undoubtedly come from a good place, but that are perhaps better addressed elsewhere in the drafting. Others might have unintended consequences or create a degree of ambiguity or uncertainty that could undermine the legal authority of the legislation. That might be very good for the pockets of lawyers, but it does not make for good law.
The Chair
Order. I remind the Member that although a brief introduction is acceptable, we should be talking to the amendments in this group.
Kim Leadbeater
Absolutely, Ms McVey—thank you for allowing me to make some introductory comments.
Amendments 178 to 180, 182 and 193 simply clarify that only persons in England and Wales may be provided with assistance in accordance with the Act, and only medical practitioners in England and Wales can carry out the required roles at each stage of the process. Hopefully, this is a nice straightforward one to get us started.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley for her introductory comments. The Government will continue to remain neutral on the Bill and do not hold a position on assisted dying. I want to make it clear that I, along with the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green, are speaking in Committee not as Members of Parliament, but as Government Ministers responsible for ensuring that the Bill, if passed, is effective, legally robust and workable.
To that end, we have been working closely with the hon. Member for Spen Valley and, where changes have been mutually agreed on by herself and the Government, we will offer a technical, factual explanation for the amendments. Therefore, I will not be offering up a Government view on the merits of any proposed changes put forward by other Members, but I will make brief remarks on an amendment’s legal and practical impact to assist Members in undertaking line-by-line scrutiny.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
May I ask how what the Minister has just said interacts with voting? He set out clearly his involvement in the Committee, so how does that impact any votes that he will take part in during it?
Stephen Kinnock
I am on the Committee as a Member of Parliament and I vote as such. When I speak on the Committee, I speak as a Government Minister in order to provide factual and technical explanations. As the Bill is a matter of conscience, I will be voting with my conscience on all the amendments as they come forward.
The amendments that we are now debating have been tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley in consultation with the Government. They relate to the location of the person seeking assistance under the Bill and are designed to ensure that the service can only be accessed by an individual present in England and Wales, with a view to preventing medical tourism.
I will take the amendments in turn. Amendments 178 and 193 would ensure that only a terminally ill person in England or Wales may be provided with assistance in accordance with the Bill. Further to that, a requirement is placed on the co-ordinating doctor to ascertain whether, in their opinion, the person who made the first declaration is in England and Wales as part of their first assessment. Amendment 179 would limit the assistance that may be provided in accordance with the Bill to assistance in England or Wales only. Amendment 180 would require the steps taken under clauses 5, 7, 8 and 13 that relate to both declarations and both doctors’ assessments to be taken by persons in England or Wales.
Amendment 182 would limit the provision of clause 4(3), where a person indicates to a registered medical practitioner their wish to seek assistance to end their own life, to cases where the person is physically present in England or Wales. It would prevent people who are outside of England or Wales from accessing assistance in accordance with the Act—for example, by online consultations from abroad.
As I said earlier, the Government will continue to remain neutral on the substantive policy questions relevant to how the law in this area could be changed. That is, as I have made clear, a matter for the Committee and for Parliament as a whole. However, I hope that these observations are helpful to Members in considering the Bill and the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley.
Amendment 178 agreed to.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 1, page 1, line 4, leave out “capacity” and insert “ability”.
This replaces the concept of capacity based on the Mental Capacity Act and replaces it with a new concept of ability which is defined in NC1.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 36, in clause 7, page 4, line 7, leave out “capacity” and insert “the ability”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 34 and NC1.
Amendment 37, in clause 8, page 4, line 34, leave out “capacity” and insert “the ability”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 34 and NC1.
Amendment 38, in clause 9, page 6, line 27, leave out “capacity” and insert “ability”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 34 and NC1.
Amendment 202, in clause 9, page 6, line 31, leave out “capability” and insert “capacity”.
This amendment corrects a typographical error.
Amendment 39, in clause 9, page 6, line 31, leave out “capability” and insert “ability”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 34 and NC1.
Amendment 40, in clause 12, page 8, line 2, leave out “capacity” and insert “the ability”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 34 and NC1.
Amendment 41, in clause 13, page 9, line 31, leave out “capacity” and insert “ability”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 34 and NC1.
Amendment 42, in clause 18, page 12, line 23, leave out “capacity” and insert “the ability”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 34 and NC1.
Amendment 43, in clause 30, page 18, line 16, leave out “capacity” and insert “the ability”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 34 and NC1.
Amendment 44, in clause 40, page 23, line 26, leave out from “capacity” and insert “ability”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 34 and NC1.
New clause 1—Ability to make decision—
“The person is to be considered as having the ability to make a decision to request assistance to end their life if they can fully understand, use and weigh the relevant information in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State under affirmative resolution.”
This new clause defines the concept of ability which is intended to replace the concept of capacity. This new clause is intended to replace clause 3.
Amendment 45, to schedule 2, page 26, line 36, leave out “capacity” and insert “the ability to make a decision”.
Amendment 46, to schedule 3, page 28, line 1, leave out “capacity” and insert “the ability to make a decision”.
Amendment 47, to schedule 5, page 30, line 14, leave out “capacity” and insert “the ability to make a decision”.
Sarah Olney
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Spen Valley for her opening remarks. I am grateful to be called so early in proceedings, because I believe this is one of the really important issues before us. It is about whether or not somebody
“has the capacity to make a decision to end their own life”
as is stated in clause 1(1)(a). I believe that the word “capacity” in this context is potentially difficult to define. I note that in clause 3, all reference to mental capacity is assumed to refer to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, but I do not believe that that is sufficient for the purposes of the Bill. We heard plenty of voices to support my point of view during the oral evidence, so I want to reflect on that.
I think there are four separate concerns about using the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to judge capacity. The Royal College of Psychiatrists submitted its original written evidence in January, which we have all had sight of, and it said:
“Under the Bill as introduced, a person with a co-occurring mental disorder that is impacting their wish to end their own life would not necessarily be deemed ineligible; only those whose mental disorder was deemed to impair their capacity to make a decision to end their own life would be excluded.”
That means that an individual could have a terminal illness and also separately have a mental illness, such as depression; that would affect their ability to make a decision as to whether that terminal illness was sufficient for them to ask for assistance with dying.
Daniel Francis
The Mental Capacity Act is written to enable people to carry out day-to-day scenarios, such as buying a coffee or doing their banking, so that they are not challenged in every transaction in their life. It is therefore a very low bar to be deemed to have capacity. Does the hon. Member believe that it was written for this kind of scenario?
Sarah Olney
That is an absolutely relevant point. The Mental Capacity Act was not drafted in anticipation of it ever being used for this kind of scenario. Therefore, it is really incumbent upon us to weigh very carefully whether the Mental Capacity Act is the right way of assessing people’s ability to make this decision. As I was saying, it includes the presumption of capacity, and for a decision to end one’s life, an assumption of capacity to make that decision is a low bar, and we have lots of evidence.
Danny Kruger
I am interested in that point about the Mental Capacity Act not having been written with the Bill in mind. That is absolutely true for the minds of its framers and the Parliament that passed it at the time. It is worth noting, however, that we can see from the accounts and records of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, which became Dignity in Dying a few years later, that it was lobbying at the time covertly—or behind the scenes—for the Mental Capacity Act to be framed in exactly that way. The Voluntary Euthanasia Society was very conscious that, when the time came to pass the law for assisted suicide, it would be very helpful to have a capacity Act on the statute book that had this very low bar. The society was delighted when the Act was passed in the way that it was, and it boasted at the time of the influence it had had on the Act.
Sarah Olney
That is a very interesting intervention. I cannot comment on that because I have no knowledge of how the Mental Capacity Act was drafted or the evidence that was taken.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I do believe that the Mental Capacity Act enables people to make very serious decisions, such as stopping cancer treatment, so I would absolutely dispute the hon. Lady’s interpretation of it.
Sarah Olney
The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on the exact point: it allows people to make a decision about whether or not they want to continue treatment; it has not been used in this way before, and it was not intended to be used for that purpose. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point: he was trying to say that to stop treatment is akin to making a proactive decision to end one’s life, but I would argue that it is not, and that is why the Mental Capacity Act is unsuitable for this purpose.
It was interesting to reflect on the oral and written evidence we received on this issue. Professor Sir Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer, stated in his oral evidence:
“Issues…around mental capacity…are dealt with every day…every doctor and nurse above a certain level of seniority should be able to do that normally. It may require some slight adjustment.”
He acknowledged that
“the more serious the decision, the greater the level of capacity that someone needs to have.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 30, Q13.]
However, the Royal College of Psychiatrists said that
“an assessment of a person’s mental capacity to decide to end their own life is an entirely different and more complex determination requiring a higher level of understanding.”
Sean Woodcock
During the oral evidence, we heard from three sets of psychiatrists who all cast doubt on the suitability of the Mental Capacity Act for decisions such as assisted dying. Is the hon. Lady’ s amendment an attempt to alleviate those doubts and put that right in the Bill?
Sarah Olney
Yes, that is exactly what I am aiming to do. The hon. Member makes an excellent point. There is a wide variety of views on this, but in actual fact, much as I do not wish to question Professor Sir Chris Whitty, and I acknowledge his seniority as the chief medical officer, he was very much the outlier on this. Everybody else who gave evidence on the sufficiency of the Mental Capacity Act to determine someone’s capability to make this decision for themselves cast doubt on the idea that the Mental Capacity Act was the right way of doing it.
Kim Leadbeater
That is not quite accurate. I think we did have other witnesses who absolutely said that they had confidence in the Mental Capacity Act, and I will speak about them in this debate.
Sarah Olney
I look forward to the hon. Lady’s further comments, but as I said, the psychiatrists were very clear that they did not believe that this was a sufficient safeguard, and we should acknowledge that.
I was unable to put my question to Alex Ruck Keene KC during the oral evidence session, but he kindly agreed to give further evidence in writing in response to a letter I sent to him later that day. That exchange of letters has been published as written evidence. It was his position that, in actual fact, Professor Sir Chris Whitty misinterpreted the Mental Capacity Act when he gave evidence. There is no such requirement in the Mental Capacity Act that states that the more serious the decision, the greater the level of capacity that someone needs to have. Mr Ruck Keene’s view is that that was the common law prior to the Mental Capacity Act coming into force, whereas in actual fact the Mental Capacity Act does not require that the more serious the decision, the more capacity someone needs to be judged to have.
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
I am sympathetic to the problem the hon. Lady has identified of people who have a terminal illness as well as other mental health conditions. Instead of rewriting the Mental Capacity Act for this new context, would it not be better to secure safeguards through clause 9, through which further assessments are potentially going to be mandated, if the amendment from the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) is agreed to, for those cases where there is doubt as to capacity? That would add a further safeguard rather than rewriting the established Mental Capacity Act and case law.
Sarah Olney
I have no intention of rewriting the Mental Capacity Act. It should stand exactly as it is and be used for the purpose for which it is intended. That is not the intention behind my amendment, which merely proposes that we should assess people’s ability to make the decision and not just their capacity. Many of those who provided evidence demonstrated that merely testing somebody’s capacity to make a decision is insufficient in this case.
Dr Opher
We also heard evidence that if we make this more complicated and introduce more terms into the Bill, then there will be less safeguarding for patients. That is why we are all here: we are trying to make this Bill safe for patients seeking assisted dying. Changing it from the Mental Capacity Act will make it less safe.
Sarah Olney
I heard Sir Chris Whitty in particular say that it would be preferable to have a more straightforward Bill that did not have too many bureaucratic hurdles for people to overcome. That was why he was keen for the Mental Capacity Act to be retained. However, I tabled the amendment precisely because, when people are thinking about whether assisted dying is an appropriate decision for them, I do not think that it is safe for them to be judged merely on the basis of their capacity. It is by no means my intention to increase bureaucracy; I am merely proposing that the Act is not sufficient in this case.
Naz Shah
Three psychiatrists gave evidence to the Committee in person: Professor Allan House, Dr Annabel Price, of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and Professor Gareth Owen. All expressed doubts about the use of the Mental Capacity Act to assess whether a person was in a fit state of mind to undertake assisted dying. Does the hon. Lady agree that we should place great weight on the opinion of psychiatrists when assessing whether the Act should be used to assess applicants for assisted dying? It is a horse before the cart scenario, because the Act was not made for this context; when it was passed, we were not talking about the ability to choose to die.
Sarah Olney
I agree exactly with the hon. Lady’s point. The Act was not designed for this purpose, and it is essential that we carefully scrutinise whether it should be used in this way.
The Chair
Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions are just interventions; there will also be speeches.
Rebecca Paul
I welcome the hon. Member’s attempt to improve safeguarding in the Bill, which I agree is currently not at the right level. Does she agree that the Mental Capacity Act assumes in the first instance that, if there is no evidence to the contrary, a person has capacity, and that whether a person lacks capacity must be decided on the balance of probabilities? Unwise decision making does not indicate a lack of capacity, and supported decision making is considered to be acceptable. We need all to be clear that that is what the Act says.
Sarah Olney
The hon. Member is absolutely right. That would be another weakness of the Mental Capacity Act being used in this context: if someone is judged to have capacity, they are free to make an unwise decision, yet there is nothing in the Bill to provide a safeguard against people who might have capacity and make an unwise decision because their thinking has been obscured by mental illness, depression or something else.
Jake Richards
I have a few questions for the hon. Member. Who does she propose will decide whether a decision by someone who has capacity is wise or unwise? Does she also propose changing the law around patients’ refusing life-saving treatment? Should that be handled under the Mental Capacity Act, as it is at the moment?
Sarah Olney
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention, but I am not proposing to change any legislation other than the Bill before us. All the other legislation to which he refers should remain precisely as it is, and for the purpose for which it was intended. He asks who is to say whether someone is making a wise or unwise decision; that is the job of the people who are instructed to provide assessments under the Mental Capacity Act. As was clear from my response to the hon. Member for Reigate, if someone has been assessed as having capacity, there must not be any further interference in their decision-making process, even if there are distinct concerns that that person may be deciding to end their life not purely because of their terminal illness but because they are suffering from depression. There is no other mechanism in the Bill to enable that further safeguard.
Dr Opher
I use the Mental Capacity Act almost every week in my work. As Chris Whitty said, in the majority of cases, whether someone has capacity is clear and indisputable. For a narrow proportion of people, it is more difficult to decide. The Bill takes account of that by using a panel to decide on those difficult cases of capacity. I would insist that most cases are very straightforward.
Sarah Olney
I have to ask the hon. Gentleman to clarify that. When he says he uses a panel, is he referring to the new amendment that has been proposed? I have not seen it yet and cannot comment on it, and have no idea if it will be adopted.
Dr Opher
If we are not sure about capacity, we must refer to psychiatry, so that a specialist organisation can make a more detailed assessment. However, most people do not fit into that category. Most people clearly have not got capacity or have got capacity, so this is a very narrow cohort.
Sarah Olney
If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman’s intervention precisely illustrates what other hon. Members were raising as points of order earlier. How can we properly scrutinise the legislation when new amendments are being tabled at the last minute that potentially change the entire nature of the legislation that we are attempting to scrutinise? It is very difficult then to speak about the amendments that have already been tabled.
Danny Kruger
Further to that point, the hon. Lady responded to the hon. Member for Stroud, who suggested that a doctor must refer to a psychiatrist in the event of concern over capacity. There is no such obligation in the Bill. There is the opportunity to do so—the second doctor may do so, if they choose—but there is no such obligation. That is something that we could definitely improve.
The hon. Member for Stroud, who is a GP, says that it is always obvious to him when there are issues about capacity. I assume he might think the same about coercion. I wonder if the hon. Lady is aware that one in six older people are subject to abuse—elder abuse. Does she think that the hon. Member for Stroud always spots the one in six of his older patients who are subject to abuse?
The Chair
Order. I remind everybody to stay within the scope of what we are talking about, which is capacity.
Sarah Olney
On that note, I will probably not respond to the hon. Gentleman’s comments about coercion, but I will pick up on what the hon. Member for Stroud said about using the Mental Capacity Act every week. I think that probably makes him unusual among MPs, if not GPs. I personally have no experience of using the Mental Capacity Act, which is precisely what gives rise to my anxiety. We in this room need to properly understand what the Mental Capacity Act means, yet most of us do not have the experience that he has in applying it. However, we are all collectively responsible for ensuring that the legislation is framed properly. I can only go on the oral and written evidence that we have received, and I am paying serious attention to all those who have said that they do not think that the Mental Capacity Act is sufficient. I lack the direct experience that the hon. Member for Stroud has of those matters, and that is the best that I can do.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
We are discussing the balance of autonomy against considerations such as capacity and coercion. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 has been in existence for 20 years, so it has the advantage of being familiar. Would the hon. Lady agree that if we were to bring in clinical views from different professions, such as from doctors, social workers and psychiatrists, we would have different definitions in place, which would address some of the concerns about different applications?
Sarah Olney
That is an extremely wise observation. I regret enormously that there was not more opportunity, before the legislation was drafted, to have those discussions between experts, advisers and others who really know what the Mental Capacity Act means and whether it is sufficient for this purpose. The best that we can do now is reflect on the evidence that we have received. In many ways, that is what I am hoping to address with my amendment: to redefine “capacity” as “ability”, to transfer the responsibility for defining how ability should be assessed under the Act to the Secretary of State for further analysis and consultation, and then for that to be laid out properly.
When assessing people’s ability to make the decision, we want to take into account their ability to understand, retain, use and weigh information, and to communicate the decision. That will still be at the heart of an assessment of whether an individual is making the decision for the right reasons. A whole range of things might affect a person’s ability to make the decision. I have mentioned many times mental disorders such as depression, which is more common in people nearing the end of their life. Delirium, which is common in people with advanced illnesses, needs to be assessed. There is the complexity of people who have a physical terminal illness alongside a mental disorder; I think particularly of people suffering from an eating disorder, which is primarily a mental health condition but clearly has physical health implications. If the mental health condition is not treated or is resistant to treatment, the physical manifestation of the eating disorder can quickly become a terminal illness. That is a really important point that we need to reflect on.
The feelings of hopelessness that may come alongside a diagnosis of terminal illness may affect a person’s ability to weigh information. Anxiety can amplify their fears of future suffering, and types and doses of medication can affect capacity. All sorts of people can suffer vulnerabilities from external factors such as the lack of realistic alternatives like palliative care services; overt or implicit coercion; personal losses including bereavement; poor housing; financial hardship; and loneliness and social isolation. Understanding and responding to those vulnerabilities is at the centre of suicide prevention, but absent from the Bill.
We have to remember that the Bill would apply to people who are said to be within months of death but may not be, to those who may die within months but otherwise have a very good quality of life, and to people whose trajectories to death vary greatly. In his written evidence, Professor Allan House states that
“careful inquiry is justified because a statement about wanting to end one’s life cannot be simply taken as the result of a straightforward rational decision to choose one type of end of life care over others. Simply checking mental capacity and asking about coercion is not adequate.”
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I understand the concerns my hon. Friend is raising about assessing mental capacity. Does she acknowledge that throughout this process mental capacity will be assessed not once but multiple times? What does she say to that?
Sarah Olney
I say to that what I have been saying throughout: a test of mental capacity is not sufficient for this Bill. For example, the Royal College of Psychiatrists states that the Mental Capacity Act
“is not sufficient for the purposes of this Bill. Extensive consideration needs to be given to what an assessment of mental capacity should consist of”
for decisions relating to assisted dying or assisted suicide—
“and, indeed, whether a determination through such an assessment can be reliably arrived at in this novel context.”
I believe that what the Royal College of Psychiatrists means by “novel context” is that no legislation of this type has been framed before and we do not have any precedent to guide us in terms of what an appropriate determination of capacity might be.
Dr Opher
I apologise to the hon. Lady for my continued interruptions, but I want to put across some important points. In our medical system, the Mental Capacity Act is currently used to test capacity in cases of withdrawing life support. Does the hon. Lady not agree that that is on the same level as assisted dying?
Sarah Olney
I have a suspicion that the hon. Gentleman may have made that point already in one of his many interventions. Withdrawing treatment is not the same as someone making an informed wish to have their death assisted. That is why we need to be very careful about considering whether the Mental Capacity Act is appropriate for that kind of decision. That Act is being used in a way it was not designed for. To use this definition of “capacity” is to accept the premise that this is just like any other treatment option and not qualitatively different, and fails to recognise the complexity and gravity of the decision.
The Bill also fails to consider that there may be a risk of assessor bias—that sometimes it may well be that a doctor who makes an assessment may well have their own views about the suitability of assisted dying as an option for that particular patient. They may be in favour of it, or they may be against it. If that were to sway them towards making an assessment against capacity, that could have lots of serious implications for the patient.
I have proposed amendment 34 because I think it is the best way forward at this stage, given the variety of evidence we have had and the real difficulty for us in this room of making an appropriate determination of the extent to which the Mental Capacity Act’s use may be modified for this purpose, or of coming up with something entirely new. I think the best way forward is to give the power to the Government—to the Secretary of State—to define the term “ability” in relation to this legislation at a later date.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
With respect to the hon. Member for Richmond Park, I do not support her amendments, which seek to replace the references in the Bill to the Mental Capacity Act with the concept of “ability”. First, medical practitioners already know, regularly use and well understand the Mental Capacity Act 2005. As a result, as Professor Chris Whitty said in evidence, where practitioners conduct such an assessment of an individual separately, they are usually in agreement in their decisions about the outcome in relation to that individual. That was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud.
Secondly, the term “ability”, unlike mental capacity, is not an existing concept in law that we can draw upon in the context of complex medical decision making about consent to medical treatment. I therefore do not accept that it is a low bar.
Dr Tidball
No, I will make some progress.
To replace the established concept of mental capacity with “ability” would create more problems than it seeks to solve, and is not underpinned by a clear statutory basis. Furthermore, the language the hon. Lady uses in her new clause 1 only echoes the wording of the second leg of the two-stage test in the MCA, in its language of fully understanding, using and weighing the relevant information. It does not, however, have the scaffolding and clarity of the five principles set out in the Mental Capacity Act, and it is a pale imitation of the second stage of the test of capacity, which is already in section 3 of the MCA.
Thirdly, the use and application of the Mental Capacity Act has been applied and litigated upon in our court system over the last 20 years, further nuancing its application in complex medical decision making and explicating, for example, the five principles in the MCA and the subsequent two-stage test for capacity. Contrary to what colleagues on the Opposition Benches have said already, it is used in cases where treatment is withdrawn. It is important to understand that in those circumstances, such withdrawal is not seen as an omission; it is seen as a deliberate act. It is therefore analogous to the usage in the Bill as proposed.
Fourthly, I have deep concerns that the use of the term “ability” and the concept expounded in new clause 1 imports an ableist approach, which I do not welcome, as someone who has worked in disability rights and policy for more than a decade and a half.
To return to my first argument, about the familiarity and usage of the Mental Capacity Act by medical practitioners, clinicians and the wider social care profession for two decades, many family members will be familiar with the term and used to using it as part of the wider care of people with learning disabilities, autism and mental health problems. The boundaries of those who are familiar with the concept go well beyond the walls of only medical practitioners.
In oral evidence, chief medical officer Professor Chris Whitty stated that the Mental Capacity Act
“is used up and down the country by doctors and nurses every day; they know it and they understand it. Although…it is a large piece of legislation, it is one that people have worked through in practice multiple times. If you ask six or seven doctors, ‘Does this person have capacity?’, in almost all cases you will get six or seven identical answers, because people are used to using it.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 33, Q7.]
To unleash the tiger of an unknown and untested concept of ability into a Bill that would benefit better from the well understood, measured and principled approach of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 does not best serve the patients that I know the hon. Member for Richmond Park seeks so carefully to protect. It is therefore worth laying out the paradigm that underpins the MCA and the principles it legislates for, and why it is so important to retain this at the heart of the Bill.
The presumption of capacity in the Mental Capacity Act exists because it is considered a fundamental principle of respecting individual autonomy, meaning that every adult is assumed to have the ability to make their own decisions unless there is clear evidence proving otherwise. This protects against unnecessary interference in people’s lives and ensures that they are treated with dignity and respect, even if they may have a disability or medical condition that could potentially impact their decision-making abilities.
I want also to reflect on the robust language in clause 2(3), which states:
“For the avoidance of doubt, a person is not to be considered to be terminally ill by reason only of the person having one or both of—
(a) a mental disorder, within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983;
(b) a disability, within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.”
That provision, the tightly drawn limit on the need for the person’s terminal illness to leave them with only six months to live, and the third stage of the test—using the Mental Capacity Act to understand their decision making—mean that we have a strong set of safeguards.
Dr Tidball
I will give way to the hon. Member for Richmond Park, who asked first.
Sarah Olney
The hon. Lady has moved on considerably from the point that I was going to make, so I took it that she was not going to take interventions. Although I would have liked the opportunity to respond to some of her points, I have kept my counsel. Since she has now given way, I want to make something of a point of order. The hon. Lady mentioned that she thought my use of the word “ability” was ableist, and I want to put on the record that I had absolutely no intention of it being interpreted in that way. I meant no offence, and I hope that the word would not have been considered in such a light. If that caused any offence, I apologise. I hope that the general meaning of the word “ability” is well understood in this context.
Dr Tidball
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that statement. That is not the assumption. As I will say later, the term “ableism” is very much grounded in a deficit model of disability, which assumes that somebody is not capable of doing something themselves—for instance, making important decisions—whereas the Mental Capacity Act starts from a different perspective: it presumes that the person will have the ability to do something until proven otherwise. That is why I feel that the concept of ability does not align well with what is needed in understanding and providing autonomy to people making very difficult decisions at the end of their lives.
Danny Kruger
The hon. Lady accurately quoted clause 2(3) about a person not being considered to be terminally ill “by reason only” of having a mental disorder or a disability. That word “only” is very important, as she acknowledged. Does she recognise that that explicitly allows for somebody whose judgment might be impaired by a mental disorder still to be eligible for an assisted death, because they would still be judged to have capacity under the terms of the Mental Capacity Act? That term “only” is in fact not a safeguard; it is an access to an assisted death for somebody with impaired judgment.
Dr Tidball
I appreciate the hon. Member’s intervention, but I do not agree. Taken together, the parameters around the six-month limit, clause 2(3) and the requirement for a mental capacity test cumulatively create a safeguard in the Bill.
Importantly, the MCA’s two-stage capacity test is already underpinned by robust safeguards, which address exactly the issue the hon. Gentleman raised. Stage one asks whether there is a disturbance or impairment in the person’s brain or mind, and stage two asks whether the disturbance or impairment is severe enough that the person cannot make a specific decision. That two-stage test already deals with the issue he raised. The references to the Mental Capacity Act in the relevant clauses of the Bill ensure, crucially, that we import that test too.
Elements of the language in the new concept of ability proposed by the hon. Member for Richmond Park appear to attempt to echo the second stage of the Mental Capacity Act test, as just described. That has four elements: understanding information about the decision to be made, retaining that information in the mind, using or weighing that information as part of the decision-making process, and communicating the decision by talking, using sign language or any other means. It is important to say that those core elements are built on the scaffolding of the five principles of the MCA, working in a progressive way.
Opposition Members talked about the unwise decision, but the principles in the Mental Capacity Act work collectively and cumulatively together. That is only one step, then, which is followed by the fact that decisions must be taken in the person’s best interest, and there is well-worn and well-trodden understanding of how we ascertain that. It is important that those things all work together. The issue is already addressed under the MCA; if we do away with the MCA, we lose not only the scaffolding of the five principles, but the important safeguards of the two-stage test.
Naz Shah
My hon. Friend made reference to that already being done, but where is the evidence that the capacity stage she talked about is actually happening? We had evidence from the Royal College of Psychiatrists and, as she said, Professor Chris Whitty. Where is the evidence that it is being done well, as things stand?
Dr Tidball
I do not have a list of the case law in front of me—I am sure it will be possible for that to be found for my hon. Friend—but it is done regularly. The Mental Capacity Act is used regularly in decisions about the withdrawal of life-support treatment. That is the case, and she is welcome to search for the case law.
Sarah Olney
The hon. Lady talks about the four tests and parts of the Mental Capacity Act; the point I was making was that we want to retain elements of the Act, although using it in its entirety is problematic in this context. The four functional tests about whether someone is capable of making a decision absolutely should be retained—as she said, that is well tested, it works well and people understand in a court of law exactly how to apply it—but some of the other elements of the Mental Capacity Act are problematic. That is why I seek to redraft “capacity” to “ability”—I accept that that might be a problematic word, but I hope the hon. Lady will take on board my earlier comments—and that is what is important. The hon. Lady is saying we should not take out those bits of the Mental Capacity Act that are valuable and important, and I agree.
Dr Tidball
I am pleased to hear the hon. Lady’s agreement. As someone who has worked in this space for a long time, I say that if she does not want to have the impact in law of putting in place a concept that would be ableist and take a deficit model of disability, we need those five principles that are already embedded in the Mental Capacity Act. We also need the stringent two-stage test, the second stage of which has the four elements that I set out. Only then can we be certain that we are approaching the paradigm of this complex and important decision making as one where we understand the autonomy and best interests of groups of people we all wish to best protect.
Dr Tidball
I will make some progress.
The concept set out by the hon. Member for Richmond Park is the bare bones of what is needed in the complex decision making required across various stages of the Bill. In such decision making, the MCA has a wide and well-used toolkit to determine capacity. That leads to my third point. The Mental Capacity Act has been applied and litigated in our court system over the past 20 years. The chief medical officer, Professor Sir Chris Whitty, said in his evidence that the Act
“has the advantage of being tested in the courts. That has gone as far as the Supreme Court, and the various ambiguities that were inevitably in the legislation have been clarified by senior judges. Therefore, to practitioners like me, it feels like a piece of robust and predictable legislation.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 33, Q7.]
He continued later:
“If there were no Mental Capacity Act, there would be an argument, which has been used for a long time, that the Bill would have to define what was meant with a fair degree of clarity.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 36, Q14.]
I do not see sufficient clarity in the hon. Lady’s concept as set out in the amendment.
At a later evidence session, Yogi Amin, a solicitor and partner at Irwin Mitchell, augmented Sir Chris Whitty’s argument by saying:
“I wholly recommend and support the idea…to defer to the Mental Capacity Act for capacity assessments. I have been working in this area for over 20 years, before and after the Mental Capacity Act came in, and I have done cases all the way up to the Supreme Court, as well as day-to-day different cases around the country. It is well understood how capacity assessments are done, and it is ingrained into the practice of practitioners generally and of legal practitioners in the courts.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 140, Q176.]
He continued:
“It is a well settled and understood approach to the law, and producing a new one would throw up a whole new conundrum, where people would be questioning how to approach it, etc. It is not broken—it works well.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 141, Q177.]
Finally, for further clarity, I will vote against the amendment because of the ableist assumption in both language and concept. Ableist language assumes that disabled people are inferior to non-disabled people and perpetuates deficit discourses about such groups. I believe that this does not take the approach that we see in the paradigm of the Mental Capacity Act, which puts disabled people’s choices, autonomy and control over their choices at the heart of this legislation.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
I thank the hon. Member for Richmond Park for tabling the amendments. Fundamentally, I do not agree with them, but I am grateful for her good intentions. I understand the concerns that she has raised, and she makes an eloquent argument, but I fundamentally disagree.
In my view, the amendments would only lead to abandoning the well-established principles codified within the Mental Capacity Act. They would introduce a degree of woolliness and legal uncertainty by introducing of a new term that is, as yet, undefined. That would make the operability of the Bill so much harder and would move us away from the Mental Capacity Act, which has a heritage of some 20 years and is already well established in the use of advance directives around organ transplantation, the withdrawal of treatment and the decision to undergo major operations that can have life-changing or life-limiting consequences.
Danny Kruger
My hon. Friend says that the term “ability” is not yet defined, but it is set out quite clearly in new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park. It simply says:
“The person is to be considered as having the ability to make a decision to request assistance to end their life if they can fully understand, use and weigh the relevant information”.
It uses the language of the Mental Capacity Act on understanding and weighing information. The key distinction is that it does not allow for impaired judgment; it requires somebody fully to understand the information in front of them. It is very straightforward, and I do not think that it would be difficult to apply. Does my hon. Friend recognise that the terms are pretty clearly laid out?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
My hon. Friend makes incisive points clearly and concisely, as always, but I cannot agree. This is a short clause that is dealing with a hugely complicated issue that is presently codified within the Mental Capacity Act, which runs to some 183 pages. I do not think that it is as simple as saying that the new clause deals with the issue.
There is also the two-stage test, which determines both the functional ability to make the decision and whether that decision is impaired in any way. It would be an oversimplification to suggest that the provision as drafted would deal with those issues in a satisfactory way that would provide confidence not only—although most importantly—to those who are making a decision around an assisted death, but to the medical practitioners who are part of the process and the courts, which will have to grapple with the issues that will inevitably arise from a new definition.
Sean Woodcock
The Royal College of Psychiatrists highlights that a person’s capacity can change and is decision-specific. It therefore says that the Mental Capacity Act is not suitable for the Bill. What is the hon. Member’s response?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
The hon. Member is absolutely right that capacity can change. It is an evolving piece: someone’s capacity at one point in time will not necessarily be the same as their capacity on a future or a previous date. However, the whole purpose of the Bill is to put a series of mechanisms in place that assess capacity to ensure a robust decision-making process.
I should also mention that the Mental Capacity Act allows the capability of individuals to make an advance directive. Where they have capacity at a point in time to make a decision for a future date, capacity can be inferred at that future date for that decision. That is acknowledged within the 2005 Act.
Kit Malthouse
I have to confess that I am a little confused by the evidence to which my hon. Friend refers. Can he confirm that it is perfectly possible for me to be diagnosed with a terminal disease and make an advance directive, which may apply in three months’ time, that in those circumstances I would decline treatment and would wish to die at that point? The Mental Capacity Act is used to assess me in making that advance directive, having had my terminal diagnosis. If it is good for that decision, I struggle to understand why it would not be good for a similar decision to end my life in similar circumstances.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
As always, my right hon. Friend makes a very good point. The Mental Capacity Act allows for advance directives on a whole variety of choices, including withdrawal of treatment, decisions on care or financial elements, and decisions on having treatment as opposed to not having treatment. It creates that ability and it is deemed robust enough for those purposes. It must therefore follow that it is robust enough for the purposes of the Bill.
Sarah Olney
I just want to probe the hon. Member on the capacity to make a future directive. Is he saying that, under the terms of the Bill as drafted and its reference to the Mental Capacity Act, it would be possible to say, “I may not be eligible now—I may not even be suffering from a terminal illness—but at some future point, because I have capacity today to make this decision, I should like to choose assisted dying”? Would that decision then be honoured at that future date, without any further intervention or assessment?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
The hon. Member makes an interesting point, which I had already considered; in fact, I have tabled a new clause that would address it. It is not grouped with the amendments now before the Committee, but I will touch on it, if I may.
There is an argument that, if an individual with an advance directive has gone through the two-stage test in the Bill and then loses capacity, the advance directive should hold weight. My new clause 6 would deal with that point. Sections 27 to 29 of the Mental Capacity Act deal with exclusions from advance directives, including issues around voting rights, marriage rights and Mental Health Act implications. There may be a mechanism, for example, to exclude an advance directive that deals with assisted death, either through the Bill or through an amendment to the Mental Capacity Act. But I do not disagree with the hon. Lady; she raises an interesting point.
Danny Kruger
Is my hon. Friend suggesting—I think his new clause makes it clear, and I think my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire is making the same point—that it is inappropriate for an advance directive to authorise an assisted death? The Mental Capacity Act authorises somebody to decline treatment at a future point, so my hon. Friend is acknowledging that there is a difference between the principle of declining treatment and the principle of requesting an assisted death. Given his new clause, I do not imagine that my hon. Friend thinks that we should have advance directives that authorise an assisted death. If he acknowledges that, he must recognise that there is a distinction between declining treatment and requesting an assisted death.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I have concerns about public confidence in the Bill without that additional safeguard, as this is such a consequential decision, but of course any advance directive would be predicated on having gone through those two stages first before capacity is lost. I feel that on this occasion additional tightening is necessary so that the public can be confident that a robust process has been gone through.
The MCA is a tried and tested piece of legislation used by practitioners up and down the country. The hon. Member for Stroud uses it every day in his practice; I have to say that I did not, but I was not consenting patients for surgery every day. Every time I did so, however, I had those conversations. Capacity lies on a spectrum: if I am doing major abdominal surgery, the level of capacity required to make a decision will be much greater than if I am removing a small bump or lump on an arm.
As well as having been tried and tested by medical practitioners, the MCA has been tested in the courts, as the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge said. It has been right up to the highest court in this land, it has been robustly tested and it has been found to be good legislation. The risk we now face is that it will be replaced not only with a new legal concept, but with an entirely different process for assessing capacity in this setting. Although there may be good intentions to improve the system, that will only add to the folly of it and overcomplicate the issue.
Kim Leadbeater
I am sorry that it has taken me a while to find the relevant provision of the Bill. The discussion on the advance directive is a really interesting one, and I am glad that we are having it. Is the hon. Member reassured that clause 18(4) is very clear that on the day that assistance is provided to a patient, a doctor has to assess once again their capacity to make the decision to end their own life, check again that there is a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life, and indeed check everything again on the day, including capacity? I believe that that will negate the issue around the advance directive.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
The hon. Member makes a reasonable point. I agree with her on many issues, but on this issue I have some reservations. Clause 18(4) says:
“The coordinating doctor must be satisfied, at the time the approved substance is provided, that the person to whom it is provided…has capacity…has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life”.
Of course, under the wording of section 26(1) of the Mental Capacity Act, that decision can be made at an earlier time and deemed to have currency, once capacity has been lost, for its enactment at a later date. I think that there could be a minor tightening of the wording or reassurances from Government to address that, but it is an important point to raise and air.
The Chair
Order. Before we proceed any further, I remind hon. Members that we are discussing capacity and ability.
Naz Shah
I am just trying to understand what the hon. Member is communicating. Under the Bill, if somebody has anorexia, diabetes or kidney failure and has the capacity to make that decision because they meet the criteria for the capacity to refuse treatment, will that mean that they can decide to sign up to this option?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
The Bill is very clear in determining that it is for those who have a progressive illness, disease or medical condition that cannot be reversed by treatment. On my reading of the Bill, it excludes that category of individuals who choose not to engage with treatment that in ordinary circumstances would prevent the progression or deterioration of their condition. I therefore do not see it as analogous with the hon. Member’s scenario of someone who could have a long life expectancy if they had taken their treatment, but who chooses not to. That is not captured within the Bill, in my interpretation.
Naz Shah
I am struggling with this, because it is clear from the evidence from our witnesses that that is the case where somebody has anorexia, for example, and they make that choice. As has been referred to plenty of times in the context of the Bill, the Mental Capacity Act has been used, and is sufficiently used, for people to withdraw treatment. Personally, I think that that is a pretty false equivalence, because when a person’s life support machine is turned off, the decision is made not by the person receiving lifesaving treatment, but by their loved ones.
According to what we have heard this morning, if someone has the mental capacity to use the MCA to withdraw treatment for a condition, that will lead to a diagnosis of terminal illness. It could kill someone. If I refused to take insulin, and I was diabetic, I would have the mental capacity to say, “Actually, I’m not going to take this treatment, so can I make a decision?” I am just trying to check the hon. Gentleman’s understanding.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
With the greatest respect to the hon. Member, I think that she is conflating two issues. Someone can stop treatment under the MCA; over time, that will lead progressively to death, with some conditions—she gave the example of being a diabetic without insulin—but that would not be a terminal illness in reference to this Bill. The Bill is very clear that it is about an inevitable and progressive illness, disease, or medical condition that cannot be reversed by treatment. Diabetes, treated with insulin, is not a progressive condition that becomes a terminal diagnosis; it is terminal only by virtue of somebody refusing treatment, which therefore would not be captured within the Bill.
Rebecca Paul
I would like to understand why my hon. Friend thinks that diabetes could ever be considered reversible. It can be treated and managed, but surely we cannot turn back time.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
My hon. Friend makes a valid point—the Committee can see that I was an orthopaedic surgeon, not an endocrinologist. It is not necessarily a progressive condition; it is a condition that can be managed and maintained. It does not fall within the wording of the Bill. We are not talking about a condition that is inevitably progressive, and for which there is no treatment option available to pause, reverse or prevent its progression. We are talking about a relatively limited group of conditions that will inevitably lead to death when someone, for want of a less blunt phrase, has reached the end of the road in terms of their therapeutic treatment options.
Sarah Olney
I am conscious that the hon. Member for Ipswich sought to intervene before me, but may I press the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley slightly on his point? When I asked Professor Sir Chris Whitty during oral evidence whether there could ever be a defined list of conditions that he would define as terminal, he was very clear that there could not be. Someone may suffer from a range of conditions. Most people who develop cancer survive, so cancer is a terminal illness, but not for everybody.
The question of what is and is not a terminal illness is quite contested; it is not clearcut. As the hon. Member for Bradford West says, it is quite possible that diabetes could be a terminal illness if someone refuses treatment for it. I am not entirely clear why the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley is saying that it is clear from the legislation what is and is not a terminal illness. As we heard in oral evidence, it is not clear.
The Chair
Order. I remind Members that the Committee will discuss terminal illnesses, and extending the list relating to terminal illnesses, under a later clause. Let us remain in scope this morning and continue the debate on the amendments before the Committee.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I will keep my answer very brief by saying that I will return to hon. Lady’s point when we come to the clause on terminal illness, when perhaps I can elucidate, improve and work on my responses in a way that is conducive to understanding.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I am aware that the hon. Member for Ipswich is waiting to intervene.
Jack Abbott
I am grateful to the hon. Member; he has given way a number of times, and I am sure he wants to make some progress. To return to the scope of the debate—I am sure you will be delighted to hear that, Ms McVey—part of the rationale cited for making this change from “capacity” to “ability” is depression, and given what we are talking about, there is a very real possibility that someone will become depressed after diagnosis. In the hon. Member’s experience, are patients with a clinical diagnosis of depression currently deemed capable under the Mental Capacity Act of making potentially life-changing decisions about treatment or whatever it might be? Are there any scenarios in which he would offer or remove certain treatment because of their depressed state? What I am getting at is that there are a huge number of scales and considerations to factor in with depression, but does the Act allow us to look at those when it comes to depression?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
The hon. Member is right: there is a huge spectrum of patients when dealing with these complex issues, and it would be absolute nonsense to arbitrarily say that anybody with depression is unable to make an informed decision on any issue. There are individuals who have mild depression—indeed, I suspect that most people with a terminal diagnosis would have some form of depression or reactive disorder, whether formally diagnosed or not, because of their circumstances. That does not mean that they are unable to make a rational, informed decision; we have to look at each patient individually. The Act is a tried and tested piece of legislation that doctors up and down the country use every day. Doctors over the road in St Tommy’s will be using it at this very moment, and they are adept at knowing and sensing when they need to escalate, whether by getting the opinion of a psychologist or a psychiatrist, because they have concerns about underlying issues. The Act is a robust piece of legislation, and we should be using it to enhance this Bill, not introducing further complexity, which will only put us into a quagmire of uncertainty.
Danny Kruger
My hon. Friend does not want uncertainty, so perhaps he could answer this question very directly: would he be content to see somebody who is depressed, and indeed suicidal, successfully apply for an assisted death?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
My hon. Friend puts it with his usual candour. He asked a straight question, so I will give him a straight answer: I think there is a difference between somebody who is depressed and somebody who is depressed and suicidal. I have no personal moral objections if someone who has a terminal illness, who suffers from depression and who has capacity as set out through the two-stage test in the Mental Capacity Act, ultimately wishes to end their life because of their terminal diagnosis. If they are doing it because they are suicidal as a consequence of their depression, that is a different and distinct issue. We are talking about individuals who want to end their life because of their terminal diagnosis, not because of their mental disorder.
Jake Richards
I keep making the point that clause 9 adds a different element to this process. It says that, when undertaking the assessment, one of the two doctors
“may, if they have doubt as to…capacity…refer the person for assessment”
of their capacity by a psychiatrist. Does that reassure the hon. Member that there is a further layer of safeguards in this area?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
That is one of the additional safeguards in the Bill. This Bill has more in-built safeguards than any similar piece of legislation across the world. I think the hon. Gentleman makes a valid point: when a doctor has concerns about somebody’s mental state, they can escalate the case and seek further, specialist opinion.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I will make some progress, if I may, because I think I have indulged your patience for far too long, Ms McVey.
I am cautious about introducing this new test. I may not have persuaded everyone, but I have set out my reasons. We risk making the system overcomplicated. We would move away from the well-established mechanism under the Mental Capacity Act and into tiger country, with untried and untested systems that the courts have not considered, which will inevitably lead to challenge. There is no need to do that, because we already have robust mechanisms in place and doing so will merely lead to ambiguity and potential complications.
This is not me reaching this conclusion in isolation. Of course, there will always be voices on different sides of the debate, and we can frame the evidence we have heard to favour one set of arguments over another. However, I am significantly persuaded by the chief medical officer, given his wide experience as not just a clinician but a public policymaker. In his evidence to the Committee on 28 January, he said:
“It is not clear to me what problem people are trying to solve by doing that,”
—he means moving away from the Mental Capacity Act—
“given that the Mental Capacity Act clearly makes the point that the more severe the decision, the greater the degree of capacity that has to be assumed before people can actually take that decision.” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 37, Q14.]
It is that foundation that we are building on, and it is central to how these things operate in practice.
Although I understand the position of the hon. Member for Richmond Park, and I have a degree of sympathy with those who support the amendments, I invite them to reflect, in the time we have left for this debate, on whether the amendments achieve their stated aim. Do they make the Bill better or do they make it more complicated and convoluted? I say that they make it more convoluted and that, despite the best of intentions, they should not be supported.
Daniel Francis
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge knows I am an ally on many of these issues, but I will humbly disagree with her on some matters. I am not a lawyer or a doctor, but like many people here I speak from lived experience. I speak as the parent of a learning-disabled child, so I see the kinds of decisions that have to be made day to day, and the kinds of arguments and conversations that have to be had with people who presume that my child has more or less capacity than she has. Believe me, that is a constant, daily battle for me and my wife.
My daughter has 12 words and a severe sight impairment, which makes it very difficult for her to make some of her decisions, as well as other complexities—predominantly her cerebral palsy, which caused a brain injury at birth. Therefore, in my own way, although I am not a lawyer or a doctor, I have become a bit of an expert on some of the capacity issues that people encounter day by day. This morning, as I do most mornings, I read to her the three choices for her breakfast. I give her a bit of time to think about them and then I repeat them. We get yes or no to those three choices, and that is the choice she makes. Because of her severe sight impairment, when I put those three options in front of her, I have to lift them up in front of my face so that she can see them; if I put them much lower down, she would not be able to see them and make a choice. She would be able to make the choice through pointing if it was within a certain range.
I have doctors calling my wife and me all the time, asking to have a conversation with my daughter, despite their having read the notes saying that she is an 11-year-old with 12 words and a severe sight impairment. I therefore query—I will refer to some of the oral evidence in a moment—how well some aspects of the Mental Capacity Act are currently being carried out. Equally, I deal with people who suggest that she has a greater level of capacity than she does.
I accept—I have had this conversation with the hon. Member for Spen Valley on a number of occasions—that this legislation would not be applicable to my daughter. However, we heard in evidence from Mencap that the vast majority of people with learning disabilities in this country are not in the same position. They are living their day-to-day lives, living in supported accommodation and making the kinds of decision we have discussed in this debate, such as buying coffee and going to the bank.
As a result of my 20 years as a councillor, and in the last 11 years since our children were born, I have become involved with a number of local disability charities, and I know the decisions that people make when their child is at that transition age. They are trying to understand the complexity of taking a power of attorney for a child, as well as other decision-making issues. I spend a lot of time with parents who do not put those measures in place, because they do not understand the complexity in terms of age. We could therefore have a young adult relying on doctors who do not know them and on a judge—I have not seen an amendment on that issue, so I am still talking about a judge—to make a decision about capacity.
Kim Leadbeater
I do not particularly have a question to ask my hon. Friend, but I want to pay tribute to him for engaging so positively with the scrutiny of the Bill and for the very personal experience he has shared with the Committee. I reassure him that I will do everything I can to work with him, as I have so far through this process, because his fears are real, and I hear them. We have a job to do through the Bill to solve the problems that exist for people who are dying, but we do not want to create other problems. I am happy to continue to work with him to ensure that we address as much of that as we can through the Committee.
Daniel Francis
I thank the Member in charge for her comments. That is the conversation we had when she invited me to join the Committee, and we will continue to have conversations as amendments come forward.
My concern is about some aspects of the Mental Capacity Act, which was not written for these scenarios, and the hon. Member for Richmond Park talked in particular about the statutory principles in it. I am not an expert on these issues, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud behind me is more of an expert on some of them. However, there is no obligation in the code of practice under the Act to consult carers involved in a person’s life. The code says:
“if it is practical and appropriate to do so, consult other people for their views about the person’s best interests”.
Therefore, given the way the Act and the code of practice are worded, there is no obligation in the scenarios I am discussing.
There is another issue I was going to raise before I took that intervention. Mencap does considerable hard work. At my local branch, there are many people whose parents are in their 70s and 80s and have cared for their child all their life. I am not being rude, but their child, who is in their 40s or 50s, does feel like a burden to their parents. They know the obligation their parents have to care for them for their whole life. I ask Members to consider what the Mental Capacity Act says: those adults are at a level of capacity to make decisions, but they have been supported in those decisions all their lives and do not—
Jack Abbott
We have spoken a lot today about further safeguards and provisions, beyond the Mental Capacity Act. However, I note that my hon. Friend has tabled amendment 339, which states that if a
“person has a learning disability or is autistic”
they
“must be provided with accessible information and given sufficient time to consider it”
and that, additionally, there must be a “supporter” or “advocate” with them. If that amendment was passed, would that satisfy some of my hon. Friend’s concerns about the Act?
Daniel Francis
I am hearing that that amendment will need some rewording, but it would address some of my concerns. I am working with Mencap, and further amendments will be tabled to later clauses of the Bill. I understand that one of our colleagues has also tabled amendments, which I welcome. However, I would still have concerns about the interpretation—and there are different interpretations—of the current code of practice when it comes to the involvement of carers and loved ones. Those concerns brought me to the place I came to on Second Reading. I did not seek to be the person standing here; indeed, a year ago, not only did I not believe that I would be a Member of Parliament, but I did not believe that I would be on this side of this argument. It is this particular point that has driven me to this position.
I will talk a little about evidence. The Law Society has a neutral position on the Bill, but it has said that, before the provisions become law, a comprehensive consultation should be undertaken to allow resident experts to share views on the appropriate definition of capacity for the purposes of the Bill. That is the position of the Law Society.
Kim Leadbeater
My hon. Friend cites some interesting observations from the oral evidence, and I welcome his doing so. I draw his attention to my amendments 186 and 198, which look at the training. This is something I feel passionately about. If the Bill were to pass, having gold standard training would be vital, as I said during that sitting. I will do whatever I can to embed that in the Bill, and I will certainly consider what that will look like in the instances that we are discussing.
Daniel Francis
I welcome that commitment and look forward to that discussion in due course.
Dr Hussain went on to say:
“Ultimately, I do not think the Mental Capacity Act and safeguarding training are fit for purpose.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 199, Q260.]
Professor Owen said:
“That conveys questionable confidence in the consent processes, of which mental capacity is part, in relation to the decision to end one’s life. It is significant evidence about the confidence that is out there among experienced practitioners.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 228, Q290.]
Dr Price said:
“I…refer back to Professor Gareth Owen’s oral submission, thinking about the purpose that the Mental Capacity Act was drawn up for and the fact that decisions about the ending of life were not one of the originally designed functions of it. We would need to think carefully about how that would then translate into a decision that was specifically about the capacity to end one’s life.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 268, Q349.]
Danny Kruger
I note the point about training, and of course we would all welcome the strongest possible training. As the hon. Gentleman implies, nobody has yet used the Mental Capacity Act to assess somebody for an assisted death; it would be completely uncharted territory for the whole system, including anybody providing training. How does he imagine that training might be designed to allow for the Mental Capacity Act to be applied in this case, when it would be completely novel?
Daniel Francis
As I say, I am not an expert on this matter from a legal or medical background, but those are the concerns that have driven me to the place that I am in.
Dan Scorer, from Mencap—as my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley knows, I was adamant that Mencap would give evidence to us—said:
“building on the previous question about the adequacy of the Mental Capacity Act, there is a question about the adequacy of training, awareness and compliance with that Act now.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 269, Q350.]
He clearly cited what many people know occurred during covid, with “do not resuscitate” orders and decisions being made on people’s behalf. That is what has driven me to this place, and that is why I will support the amendment. I also have further amendments on this issue later on down the line.
I completely understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley said about training in relation to these decisions and scenarios. At the end of life, people should have autonomy and choice, but if that comes at the price of one person, in a borderline capacity decision that is made on their behalf, it will be one death too many.
Danny Kruger
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, and I pay tribute to his powerful speech. I wish more people on our side of the debate and on the Committee had medical backgrounds, but I am glad that we have someone who has such direct personal experience of supporting people with learning disabilities. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for everything he said and I entirely agree with it.
I want to speak in support of new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, to replace the use of the Mental Capacity Act with a new ability test. This goes to the heart of the Bill: it is absolutely crucial. Clause 3, which her new clause would replace, is in a sense the essence of the Bill. It is the shortest clause, but perhaps the most important one, because it determines the means by which somebody will be assessed to be capable of making this decision. It is a very important protection—and, at its simplest, this is a very confusing and complicated area. I will no doubt confuse myself in the course of my speech, but I have a simple observation to make, which the hon. Lady also made very well. We are dealing with the issue of impaired judgment; currently, under the Mental Capacity Act, it will be possible, through the terms of this Bill, for somebody whose judgment is impaired by virtue of a mental disability or mental illness to successfully apply for an assisted death. I do not think that is what the public want and I do not think it is what the House of Commons voted for. I think it is a misunderstanding of the principle of the Bill, which did win support on Second Reading.
The simple fact is that somebody’s judgment can be impaired under the Mental Capacity Act, but they could still have capacity. We have repeatedly heard points made about how the Mental Capacity Act applies in the normal conduct of life for disabled people—for people with mental disabilities. For instance, people can be anorexic, depressed or suicidal, and of course they can still consent to all sorts of decisions that affect their life, including medical treatments. A person can consent to have surgery on a broken leg while depressed; there is no difficulty whatever with that and of course that is appropriate. That is rightly the basis on which we currently judge capacity.
New clause 1 would build on the terms of the Mental Capacity Act. It would add to the principles of autonomy and of people being able to understand, use and weigh the relevant information. As I said in an intervention, the key point is that using this new test of ability would ensure that the person was fully able to do those things—fully able to understand, use and weigh the relevant information. In the case of impaired ability, they would not be considered to pass the test.
We hear a lot that this is the toughest Bill in the world, with the highest safeguards. It is worth pointing out that in Oregon, which this Bill is largely inspired by, there is an impaired judgment test. There is a capacity test similar to that in the Mental Capacity Act, but people are also required to demonstrate that there is no impaired judgment, and that is exactly what the hon. Lady is seeking to achieve. Her new clause would build on the terms of the Mental Capacity Act with these key principles about understanding information, but would ensure that it was a full understanding, with no impairment. It would strengthen the Bill without complicating it. In fact, it would significantly simplify it, because at the moment—this is the substantial issue with the application of the Mental Capacity Act—a huge complication is involved when we go into the forest of the MCA and try to apply it in these terms. When we try to navigate our way through the MCA in pursuit of an assisted dying application, there is a whole series of complications.
I will cite some of the evidence that we received. The Royal College of Psychiatrists, which we heard from, stated in its written evidence:
“It is the RCPsych’s view that the MCA is not sufficient for the purposes of this Bill.”
We also had evidence from King’s College London’s Complex Life and Death Decisions group, which is a group of world-leading professionals working on issues relating to the end of life. They say that use of the MCA for assisted suicide would be “an entirely novel test”. I note that the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge—and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley—made the point that an “ability” test would be a novel term. I acknowledge that the term “ability” is not currently set out or recognised in law in the same way that capacity is, but as I said, it is clearly defined in new clause 1, as tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park. Of course it is going to be novel—we are talking about something that is entirely novel. Assisted suicide is a new measure that is being introduced, so of course we have to have a new measure by which we define who is appropriate.
Bambos Charalambous (Southgate and Wood Green) (Lab)
I am reading the text of new clause 1, and it is remarkably similar to the text of section 3(1) of the Mental Capacity Act, which says,
“For the purposes of section 2, a person is unable to make a decision for himself if he is unable—
to understand the information relevant to the decision,
to retain that information,
to use or weigh that information as part of the process of making the decision”.
It is not a novel concept—that wording is virtually the same as in new clause 1. I do not see why we need to have the new clause or the new definition, as it is already present in the Mental Capacity Act.
Danny Kruger
The hon. Gentleman’s intervention helps me to explain my point more clearly, which is that the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park builds on the terms of the Mental Capacity Act. It recognises the value of the terms, which have been well established in case law through the MCA—the ability to understand, use and weigh the relevant information.
The key difference is the word “fully”. The case law around the MCA allows for somebody to be deemed capacitous even though their judgment might be impaired. What is proposed in the new clause is the closing of that lacuna, so that it would not be possible for someone to get an assisted death if their judgment was impaired. That is the key difference.
It is also important to exclude the MCA because of the thicket of complications that it would entail. We have heard about the importance of simplification. A much simpler and better way to do the entirely novel thing that we are proposing, which is to authorise assisted suicide by the state, is to have a new definition.
Kim Leadbeater
I do struggle with that terminology. This is not assisted suicide by the state. The state is not involved. It is the person making an autonomous decision based on their choice at the end of life. I will say on the record that the term “suicide” is not accurate for the cases we are talking about. The people we are dealing with are not suicidal. They very much want to live; they do not want to die, but they are dying. It is important that we have that on the record.
Danny Kruger
I think it is totally valid for us to have this argument about terminology periodically. I will repeat the point that we have made before, which is that we are actually amending the Suicide Act 1961—or rather, we are disapplying that Act—in the process set out in the hon. Lady’s Bill. There is no getting away from the fact that we are talking about assisting suicide. I am afraid that I will continue to use the term, and I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me for that.
I am arguing that the MCA is a complicating factor in the process that is being proposed for the Bill; it makes things much more difficult and complicated. The point has already been made—the hon. Member for Richmond Park put it very well—that, in the case for the MCA, a lot of weight is being put on the evidence from Sir Chris Whitty, suggesting that the MCA works very well. I point out that Sir Chris made a significant mistake in his evidence, when he said that
“the more serious the decision, the greater the level of capacity that someone needs to have.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 30, Q3.]
There is no such requirement in the Mental Capacity Act. Of course, we would hope that doctors would take a serious decision more seriously than a trivial one, but there is no such requirement. I cite Alex Ruck Keene KC, who wrote to the hon. Member for Richmond Park after his evidence session; with the greatest of respect to Chris Whitty, the fact that he got that wrong does not inspire confidence in his comments that the Mental Capacity Act is well understood by doctors throughout the country. I very much echo that. We have had so much evidence on how the Mental Capacity Act does not work well in practice that I think it was regrettable for the chief medical to have made the Panglossian observation that every doctor interprets it in exactly the same way and it works perfectly everywhere.
The Mental Capacity Act does not detect coercion. We will discuss coercion more in subsequent debates, but that Act is certainly not the safeguard against it. Professor House made some comments to us about Down’s syndrome and about diagnostic overshadowing. That is a very important concept. I am afraid to say that it is frequently the case, regarding people with severe disabilities, that capacity—or, indeed, incapacity—is not correctly observed because the medical professional will not see beyond the more presenting of their conditions. Observing capacity in someone who does have disabilities is often mistaken; it is harder than it is regarding other people.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Can I clarify what the hon. Member is proposing by introducing a separate test for people accessing assisted dying? Say an individual is on a respirator at the end of their life. Under what the hon. Member is proposing, if they said, “Please turn this respirator off; I want to die”, he thinks that it is appropriate for capacity to be assessed under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, but somehow he thinks that that person should have a different legal test if they said, “I want to take a drug to end my life,” knowing full well that they would have exactly the same result.
Danny Kruger
The simple answer is yes, I do. I think it is a causatively different decision. In fact, this whole Bill entails causative differences between those decisions. I will come to that point more in a moment.
Professor Owen made an important point to us regarding capacity. He said:
“You might be talking about a kind of cognitive impairment that has not reached the threshold for a diagnosis of dementia; you might be talking about a kind of mood problem or an anxiety problem that is sub-clinical; or you might be talking about a level of intelligence that is not clinically a learning disability.”
He talked about
“pressure within a family, let us say, which is often not malign in its intentions, but it exists.”
and about situations
“where there is an impairment and also an interpersonal pressure”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 234, Q297.]
Although we are not talking at this point explicitly about coercion and family pressure, the issues around capacity and coercion are nevertheless intertwined, and it is often very difficult for doctors to determine what is really going on. Again, the challenges around capacity are intense.
The point has been made by hon. Members that under clause 9(3)(b), if the second doctor in the process is in doubt about capacity, they “may” refer the person to a psychiatrist, but the clause in fact refers to “a registered medical practitioner” who “has experience of” the assessment of capacity—so not a psychiatrist, but just someone who has experience, whatever that means, of the assessment of capacity. It is not totally obvious what that means. Amendment 365 has been tabled overnight by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) which would mean that both the first and second doctor, and indeed the court, if we are allowed to have a court process, “must”—not “may”— refer the person to a psychiatrist. That is not just if they are concerned about capacity, by the way. The court, or whoever it is, must conclude that there is no
“impairment of judgment arising from a mental disorder or other condition”.
I very much welcome that amendment and I hope that we will pass that in due course.
Kim Leadbeater
On that point about clause 9(3)(b), as I think was mentioned earlier, an amendment has been tabled by the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper)—an amendment that I would support and I hope the Committee will—that would indeed turn the “may” to a “must”, so that there has to be a referral to a psychiatrist if there is any doubt from either of those doctors.
Danny Kruger
That is excellent news. For the first time so far in the course of this debate, we have a strengthening of the Bill from the hon. Member. That is great news—we can chalk that up as a victory, and as good sense breaking out. I am grateful for that. Let’s see what more we can achieve.
The point that I want to make is that we are in the foothills of understanding the effects of depression, cognitive impairment and social pressure on the decision to end life. That is a point made strongly by a series of witnesses to us in both oral and written evidence: we are still very much in the early stages of understanding how capacity interacts with mental illness, disability and coercion. Then, into the mists of vagueness, we are proposing to insert this single clunking, clumsy question: “Is there evidence of incapacity?” I strongly suggest that the abuse of the Mental Capacity Act that we are seeing here is not a way of simplifying the process of ensuring that there are a small number of strong safeguards; it is a great complication of the process and introduces more complexity, as we see from the many additional things that clinicians should consider. That is in direct contradiction to the principle of the Mental Capacity Act, which simply asks the question: “Is there capacity?”
The point has been made that there is more to the Mental Capacity Act than simply the question of capacity. There are concepts of best interests and supporting decision making. As the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge suggested, it is a cumulative process. The Mental Capacity Act entails not only the question of capacity but the consideration of best interests and whether we are supporting the decision making of an individual. I am not sure how those terms apply in a situation of assisted dying. It is not similar or comparable to the sorts of decisions that the MCA is intended to apply to.
Lewis Atkinson
This touches on some of the evidence given by Mr Ruck Keene, particularly around the best interests decision. From my reading of this legislation, it is very clear that there is no possibility for someone to make a decision on behalf of or in the best interests of anyone else. As the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley mentioned earlier, there are a number of exclusions in the Mental Capacity Act. For example, someone is not able to make a best interests decision on someone getting married or adopting. Does the hon. Member agree that in order to have a guarantee, without any doubt, on the best interests point, an amendment could be included to clarify that nothing in the MCA would allow a best interests decision under this legislation?
Danny Kruger
That is absolutely right. I do not think best interests can apply in this case. That is why the Mental Capacity Act is being abused. As the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge said, it is supposed to be cumulative. We are supposed to consider all aspects of the Mental Capacity Act, and best interests should be part of a consideration—but how on earth does one make a best interests decision about somebody deciding to commit suicide? The hon. Gentleman is right that best interests are excluded in the Bill, so the Mental Capacity Act is not being used, except for this most basic, low-level bar to cross, which is the capacity decision.
Dr Tidball
For clarity, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central on what would strengthen the Bill. The exceptions only apply where the right and proper Mental Capacity Act process has been gone through and the person doing that assessment has arrived at the point that that person does not have capacity. It is only in that very narrow set of circumstances where they have determined that the person before them does not have capacity to make the decision at hand that they then go to the second look at whether making such a decision would be in the individual’s best interest. The specific exclusions listed in the MCA only apply in that stage.
What my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central is suggesting is that we table an amendment that would add to the list of specific exclusions; that would further strengthen the two stages. First, there would be the full Mental Capacity Act tests that may determine that the person does not have capacity. Such an amendment would give us belt and braces in circumstances where the person does not have capacity. Under the Bill currently, the person would fall out of scope and not be able to seek assistance if it had been determined that they did not have capacity. A belt-and-braces approach would make sure that there is no circumstance in which it could be determined by a medical practitioner or any other that it was in their best interests to follow this course of action.
Under the Bill as currently drafted, those people who have not got capacity as a result of the Mental Capacity Act would not be able to have access to the provisions in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central suggests that we augment that even further so that there can be no doubt that, where it has been determined that the person does not have capacity, following the Mental Capacity Act, we should also add a very clear exception—
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 5, in the name of the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher), is a probing new clause, and I sincerely hope it will generate debate and action. Its purpose is to make the holiday activities and food programme statutory provision. Following Marcus Rashford’s high-profile campaign, the HAF programme was rolled out across England to provide children with nutritious food, childcare and activities in the holidays. One of its aims is to ensure children receive healthy and nutritious meals during the school holidays.
Nutrition is a key concern. Recent reports show an increase in hospital admissions for nutrient deficiencies, and that data should really ring alarm bells. The longevity of the cost of living crisis—it has been with us for years now—means that food insecurity has become the norm for many families, who are unable to buy staple nutritious products. Stark health inequalities are highly prevalent, particularly when it comes to diet-related poor health. The most deprived communities are affected disproportionately by much higher rates of food-related ill health and disease, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and dental decay.
No doubt the Committee will be concerned by the food insecurity statistics collated by the Food Foundation, which show that 14% of UK households experience food insecurity, but inequalities mean that the number is much higher for certain groups. Among households with children, it is 18%. Among single-adult households with children, it is 31%. Among households of a non-white ethnicity, it is 26%—double the rate for white households. It is 32% for households with an adult limited a lot by disability, but 10% for households with non-disabled adults. Food insecurity and health inequalities go hand in hand.
In that already difficult context, school holidays are a known pressure point for families, which face extra food and childcare costs, and can have reduced incomes due to time of work to care for children. Evaluation of the HAF programme shows multiple benefits to families. In a qualitative review of HAF programme holiday clubs in Yorkshire, parents reported that children were eating more healthily and experiencing a wider variety of foods during those holiday programmes. Analysis of meals in five clubs in areas of high deprivation found that children eligible for free school meals who attended a club had better quality diets on days that they attended the club than on days that they did not attend.
HAF clubs provide free childcare to working families and help to reduce the costs associated with the loss of free school meals, which are significant for families in the holidays. Of course, they help to reduce learning loss over the summer holidays by providing enriching activities and physical activity for children.
But HAF funding is currently committed on a short-term basis. Although the current funding has just been extended for a year, short-term extensions periodically leave local authorities unable to plan provision in the long term. As a former councillor, I have seen for myself that a hand-to-mouth approach to funding creates uncertainty for club providers and leaves children at risk of holiday hunger if funding is not renewed. That is why the holiday activities and food programme must be secured and put on a statutory footing, alongside other crucial parts of the nutritional safety net such as free school meals and the Healthy Start scheme. I sincerely urge the Government to take this important step. Although this is a probing new clause, I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I turn to new clause 5, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher), on the topic of providing healthy meals and activities to children in receipt of free school meals during school holidays. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for speaking to the new clause. She makes an important point about how local authorities provide support to children who receive a free school meal during term time and during school holidays, and we fully support local authorities in continuing to provide this support through the existing holiday activities and food programme.
The highly regarded HAF programme is established in every local authority across England and is already delivering vital support to children and families across the country during school holidays. The programme’s grant conditions already place an obligation on local authorities to make free holiday club places available to children in their area who receive benefits-related free school meals, and to provide meals that meet our school foods standards and to deliver physical activities in line with the chief medical officer’s guidance. Our non-statutory programme guidance provides comprehensive support to local authorities and holiday clubs on how they might best provide this support.
However, HAF does not provide only meals and activities; it goes much further. HAF clubs work with children to teach them about the importance of healthy eating and maintaining a healthy lifestyle. Children and their families can learn how to cook nutritious and tasty low-cost meals, and clubs can act as a referral point for families to get information, help and access to other services and support when they need it. Our programme does not support just children who receive free school meals. We provide local authorities with the flexibility to use up to 15% of their total HAF budget to work with other children and families who they deem to be vulnerable or at risk, which might include looked-after children with an education, health and care plan, or children who are at risk of exploitation and need somewhere safe during the school holidays.
Flexibility has been key to delivering the HAF programme in thousands of holiday clubs across the country. Placing a legal duty on local authorities to deliver food and activities to free school meal recipients would risk stifling the innovation that local authorities have to deliver HAF in a way that is right for their communities, and to allow them to develop and evolve year to year, whether that is through working with schools to target children with low school attendance rates or working with police and community organisations to support children at risk of involvement in gang violence.
Since they began delivering this programme in 2021, local authorities have built partnerships with organisations across the community and we have seen some wonderful examples of collaboration. One of our 2023 regional champions, based not far from the constituency of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, was the Venture Community Hub in Gloucestershire, which was recognised for the work that it did with schools, businesses and charitable organisations. The local authority was instrumental in supporting it to build, adapt and develop a HAF programme that met the needs of the diverse community around it.
I am delighted to confirm that this great programme will be continuing for 2025-26, backed by funding of more than £200 million. Future funding for the programme will be determined by the spending review. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for highlighting this important issue and we look forward to carrying on our work with local authorities across the country to continue to provide vital support for children and families during the school holidays. I therefore recommend that the Committee does not press the new clause to a vote.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 8
Identification of children eligible for free school meals
“After section 512ZA of the Education Act 1996 (power to charge for meals etc.) insert—
‘512ZAA Identification of children eligible for free school meals
(1) The Secretary of State must identify all children eligible for free school meals in England.
(2) A child’s eligibility for free school meals is not dependent on any application having been made for free school meals on their behalf.
(3) Where a child has been identified as eligible for free school meals, the Secretary of State must provide for this information to be shared with—
(a) the school at which the child is registered; and
(b) the relevant local education authority.
(4) Where a school has been informed that a child on its pupil roll is eligible for free school meals, the school must provide that child with a free school meal.
(5) A local education authority must provide the means for a parent or guardian of a child who has been identified as eligible for free school meals to opt out of the provision of a free school meal under subsection (4).’”—(Ellie Chowns.)
This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to proactively identify all children eligible for free school meals in England, making the application process for free school meals opt-out rather than opt-in.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 31—Eligibility for free school lunches—
“In section 512ZB of the Education Act 1996 (provision of free school lunches and milk), before paragraph (a) insert—
‘(za) C’s household income is less than £20,000 per year;’”
New clause 67—Registration of children eligible for free school meals—
“After section 512ZA of the Education Act 1996 (power to charge for meals etc.) insert—
‘512ZAA Registration of children eligible for free school meals
(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that all children in England who are eligible to receive free school meals are registered to receive free school meals.
(2) The Secretary of State may make provision for children to be registered for free school meals upon their parents or guardians demonstrating the child’s eligibility through an application for relevant benefits.’”
Ellie Chowns
New clause 8 is another important probing amendment, tabled by the hon. Member for Stroud, that places a duty on the Secretary of State to proactively identify all children eligible for free school meals in England, making the application process for free school meals opt out, rather than opt in. I note that the Minister, in his comments on new clause 5, mentioned that making things statutory made it terribly restrictive. On that basis, why would one ever make anything statutory?
Ellie Chowns
This new clause seeks to address the very real problem that up to 250,000 children, or approximately 11% of those eligible for free school meals, even under the currently very restrictive eligibility criteria, miss out on them because it is an opt-in process. It is simply not okay that so many eligible children are missing out on free school meals. That is in addition to the roughly 900,000 children who are living in poverty, but still not qualifying for free school meals because the eligibility criteria are so tight. I believe that we may be coming on to discuss that a little later.
Early findings from areas with which the Fix Our Food research programme are working show that children from non-white communities, or lone-parent households, are more likely to not be registered for free school meals despite being eligible. Again, inequalities are reproducing themselves when it comes to people accessing their statutory rights. Charities working to address this totally unacceptable situation point to several reasons for the under-registration rate: parents may struggle to fill out complex forms; there may be language barriers for parents; there may be a lack of awareness of free school eligibility; and there may be stigma or embarrassment. The current system is regularly described by schools and local authorities as “cumbersome” and “financially and administratively inefficient”. Receiving statutory benefits should be easy and straightforward for people who are eligible.
There are obvious benefits to the child from getting a nutritious, filling lunch, which we have discussed already today and also on our last sitting day, including reduced food insecurity, improved nutrition and health, and increased attainment and lifetime earning potential, as I set out when I spoke to new clause 2. There are also important wider benefits to the child. Struggling families also miss out on other benefits that free school meal registration would give them access to, including the holiday activities and food programme and uniform grants.
There are also benefits to schools. If children are not registered for free school meals, schools miss out on much-needed pupil premium funding, worth £1,455 per pupil. There are also benefits to local authorities. The Fix Our Food research programme is supporting 66 local authorities to implement an opt-out, or right-to-object approach to free school meal registration. It is identifying and writing to families using existing datasets to inform them that their children will be automatically registered unless they opt out.
As I understand it, in many cases, this has resulted in children, who were previously missing out, becoming successfully registered, and opt-out rates are extremely low. However, only a few councils have successfully adopted this new process. In some cases, despite local authorities’ efforts, data sharing barriers have not been possible to overcome. Some have even been threatened with legal action. The local work still does not capture all eligible children, with families falling through the gaps, as access to datasets is patchy. Further, my understanding is that this process is resource-intensive. Again, it is administratively intensive, incurring onerous governance and administration at council and school level.
Meanwhile, the Greater London Authority has put resource into auto-enrolment. Although that is positive for children in London, the same level of support is not available for most children in the rest of England.
Free school meal auto-enrolment would register eligible families to receive free school meals using benefits data, unless families decide to opt out. This requires data sharing between the Department for Work and Pensions, which holds the data that identifies which children should be eligible for these schemes, and the Department for Education, which administers the scheme. I really hope that, as part of this important Bill,the Government will seriously consider how they can introduce auto-enrolment for free school meals to ensure that all those who are eligible are in receipt of their entitlement. This is a fantastic opportunity to do so now.
As a statutory scheme, funding for the meals for these children should already be available. There is just an administrative barrier that stops far too many children getting what they are entitled to. In the meantime, until this is established, I hope the Government will instigate collaborative working across local government so that we can agree to make progress on this issue.
In conclusion, I want to underscore the fact that we should see this as a first step towards expanding eligibility for free school meals to more children to ensure that no child misses out on a nutritious hot meal at school every day.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Christopher, on our final day in Committee. I rise to speak to new clauses 31 and 67 on free school meals. New clause 67 largely mirrors the provisions of new clause 8, which the hon. Member for North Herefordshire has just spoken to. I will address the issue of auto-enrolment in a moment.
New clause 31 seeks to expand the eligibility threshold for free school meals to children from households earning less than £20,000 per year, ensuring that no child living in poverty goes hungry at school. The Child Poverty Action Group currently estimates that some 900,000 children living in poverty are missing out on a free school meal, because free school meal eligibility in England is linked to specific benefits, with a household income threshold of just £7,400 per year, after tax, excluding benefits. That leaves many struggling families without support.
The threshold was last uprated in 2018. We know the huge cost of living crisis that households have had to deal with since then. For those on low incomes, that has often meant the difference between heating and eating, and children turning up to school with empty lunchboxes. I saw a mother at my surgery last year who was having to skip her mental health medication to use the prescription money she saved to pay for lunch for her daughter, who is now at college.
Ellie Chowns
The hon. Member makes an absolutely excellent point, not just about the excruciatingly low threshold for eligibility of free school meals, but about the fact that these thresholds, when set in law, get stuck at the numbers. Does she agree that thresholds should be set at, for example, a percentage of average household income, or a similar threshold that moves over time, so that we do not end up with children’s eligibility being squeezed and squeezed year on year as incomes rise but the threshold does not?
Munira Wilson
I certainly agree that there should be a principle in law that thresholds are uprated, by whatever mechanism or measure, because, as we have seen, the threshold has not moved since 2018 and more and more children in poverty are being left without a hot meal at lunchtime.
The threshold is far too low. Both the previous Government’s adviser on food strategy, Henry Dimbleby, and the former Conservative Education Secretary, Michael Gove, have said the threshold should rise, ideally to all those households in receipt of universal credit, but with the public finances so constrained, at the very least to £20,000.
Last week, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, when speaking to the new clause about universal provision of free school meals to all primary children, set out the moral and economic case for expanding free school meal provision. I will not rehearse all those arguments again, but I say to her and other hon. Members that hunger does not end at the age of 11. Every primary and secondary school child living in poverty should be able to access a hot, healthy meal at lunchtime.
All the evidence points to better concentration, better behaviour and better academic results for those children. While I would love to extend universal free school meals to all children in primary schools—that has long been a Liberal Democrat ambition and policy after we extended it in government to all infant children—we heard from a number of witnesses during the oral evidence sessions that resources would be better targeted at those most in need both at primary and secondary school.
New clause 67 mirrors new clause 8 to a large extent. Frankly, auto-enrolment for free school meals should be a no-brainer for Government. As we have heard, too many are missing out at the moment due to administrative barriers and an unwillingness to apply. These new clauses seek to ensure that no eligible child is left behind.
The exact number of how many children are missing out is unknown. In a recent response to a parliamentary question I tabled, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South, admitted that the Department for Education had not made an estimate of how many children were missing out on free school meals since 2013, although estimates suggest that about 11% of children are missing out.
Stephen Morgan
Clause 31 is about the important issue of increasing the earnings threshold when it comes to families who receive free school meals. The Government have a central mission to break down barriers to opportunity for every child, which is why we would roll out a free breakfast club in every state-funded primary school so that children can start the day ready to learn. The continued provision of free school meals to disadvantaged pupils plays a crucial role in this mission, as well as in tackling child poverty.
The Government’s free school meal programme is more important than ever because we have inherited a trend of rising child poverty and a widening attainment gap between children eligible for free school meals and their peers. Child poverty has increased by 700,000 since 2010, with over 4 million children now growing up in a low-income family. Of course, that is the legacy of the previous Government, which the hon. Member for Twickenham has described as shameful. That is why we have committed to delivering a strategy to reduce child poverty through the new Child Poverty Taskforce. The taskforce will consider a range of policies, including free school meals, to assess what will have the biggest impact on driving down rates of child poverty.
I want to reassure the hon. Member for Twickenham about the reach of current programmes, under which 2.1 million disadvantaged children, accounting for 24.6% of all pupils in state-funded schools, are already eligible to receive benefits-based free school meals. A further 90,000 16 to 18-year-old students in further education are entitled to receive free school meals on the basis of low income. In addition, all pupils in reception, year 1 and year 2 in state-funded schools in England are entitled to universal infant free school meals, which benefits around 1.3 million children, ensuring that they receive a nutritious lunchtime meal.
The meals provide much-needed nutrition for pupils and can boost school attendance, improve behaviour and set children up for success by ensuring that they can concentrate and learn in the classroom, and get the most out of their education. In total, we already spend over £1.5 billion on delivering these programmes, and eligibility for benefits-based free school meals provides for the allocation of billions of additional pounds of funding for disadvantaged children.
We appreciate the continued engagement by the hon. Member for Twickenham with the issue of expanding the provision of free school meals to more pupils. We also recognise how important the issue is and want to ensure that free school meals are being delivered to the families who need them most. However, given the funding involved, this matter must be considered through the Child Poverty Taskforce and the multi-year spending review. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Twickenham not to press the amendment.
I turn to new clauses 8 and 67, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and the hon. Member for Twickenham respectively; of course, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire also spoke passionately to them earlier. The new clauses call for a system to be introduced that would increase registration for free school meals among families who meet the eligibility criteria for them, but are not currently claiming the entitlement.
At their core, we consider that the aim of these measures is to ensure that those who need it receive the support they are entitled to—a goal that we all support. We currently facilitate the process of claiming free school meals through provision of the eligibility checking system. That is a digital portal available to local authorities that makes verification of eligibility for free lunches quick and simple. That checking system is being redesigned to allow parents and schools to check eligibility independently of their local authorities. The system will make it quicker and easier to check eligibility for free school meals, and has the potential to further boost take-up by families who meet the eligibility criteria.
Further to that, we are aware of a range of measures being implemented by local authorities to boost the take-up of free lunches, as we heard earlier. Locally led efforts are more likely to meet the particular needs of the community, and we welcome local authorities taking action to ensure that families access the support for which they are eligible, subject to those activities meeting legal requirements, including those on data protection. In order to support those local efforts, my Department is working with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to explore legal gateways that could enable better data sharing.
In the meantime, we will continue to engage with stakeholders to understand the barriers for households who meet criteria for free lunches but are not claiming them. We are also considering further work to improve auto-enrolment. Improved enrolment for meals is needed in the context of the spending review and through the work of the child poverty taskforce. I thank hon. Members for their continued engagement on this policy, but I ask that new clauses 8 and 67 be withdrawn while we continue to keep free meals under review.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 9
Requirement to provide information about bereavement services
“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish a protocol for the collection and dissemination of information relating to bereavement support services for children and young people.
(2) A protocol made under subsection (1) must—
(a) define the bereavement support services to which the protocol applies, which must include services provided by—
(i) local authorities;
(ii) NHS bodies; and
(iii) charities and other third sector organisations;
(b) place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish information, including online, about services to which the protocol applies;
(c) place a duty on specified public bodies and other persons to provide information to children and young people about services to which the protocol applies, including—
(i) specialist services for children and young people;
(ii) services provided online; and
(iii) accessible services for deaf and disabled children and young people;
(d) where a duty under paragraph (c) applies, require the identification of children or young people who may require a service to which the protocol applies.
(3) The Secretary of State must make regulations under this section by statutory instrument.
(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft statutory instrument containing regulations under this section within 12 months of the passing of this Act.”—(Ian Sollom.)
This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to establish a protocol for the collection and dissemination of information about bereavement support services to children and young people.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 52— Bereavement policy in schools—
“(1) The governing body of a relevant school in England has a duty to develop and publish a bereavement policy.
(2) A policy developed under this section must include—
(a) a process for supporting a pupil or staff member facing or following bereavement;
(b) details of how the school will incorporate opportunities to learn about death and bereavement as part of life in its taught curriculum;
(c) details of partnership arrangements with child bereavement services; and
(d) arrangements for staff training.
(3) In developing a policy under this section, the governing body of the school must consult with bereaved pupils and their parents or carers.
(4) The Secretary of State must provide, or make arrangements for the provision of, appropriate financial and other support to school governing bodies for their purposes of facilitating the fulfilling of the duty in this section.
(5) For the purposes of this section, “relevant school” means—
(a) an academy school,
(b) an alternative provision Academy,
(c) a maintained school,
(d) a non-maintained special school,
(e) an independent school, or
(f) a pupil referral unit.”
This new clause would require schools to develop and publish a bereavement policy.
Ian Sollom
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I am moving this new clause on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine). According to the Childhood Bereavement Network, around one in 29 school-aged children—about one per classroom—has been bereaved of a parent or sibling. Many more will lose grandparents, and sadly some will have lost their friends. Each year, data is collected on the number of adults bereaved of their husband, wife or child, and until recently data was collected on the number of children affected by the divorce of their parents. However, no similar data is collected on the number who face the devastating loss of their mum or dad or someone else really important in their life.
All that means that when a child is bereaved, there is no obvious way of letting them know what support is available to them, despite a diverse range of services offered by organisations across the country, including Winston’s Wish, Child Bereavement UK and the Childhood Bereavement Network, which all offer online and group sessions with trained professionals and peer-to-peer services for young people to share their experience with each other. Those services are really important in engaging those young people going through quite a diverse range of circumstances, many of which will need quite bespoke support, whether that is specifically around children with disabilities or additional needs, children who might be in a rural community where they are more isolated, or simply the difference between losing someone suddenly versus through a long-term illness.
We know that schools do very good work in supporting vulnerable young people through bereavement, but it is not consistent in every school. Many young people will need help at times when school is not available, such as in the holidays and in the evenings, and they may just feel embarrassed about asking people at school. New clause 9 would finally put in a simple protocol to ensure that every child who is bereaved knows that support is out there if they would like to access it. This is a relatively low-cost, low-effort task that would help those charities to connect with grieving families and young people and provide that support to children to help them to process those difficult, traumatic experiences and, in turn, try to prevent the long-term negative impacts that can arise from bereavement.
Ellie Chowns
I rise to speak to new clause 52 on bereavement policy in schools, which is closely related to new clause 9.
The hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire has already alluded to the fact that no official data is collected on the number of children and young people who are bereaved of someone important in their lives. In the absence of annual statistics, the Childhood Bereavement Network has estimated that over 46,000 children and young people are bereaved of a parent each year in the UK. That is a huge number—around 127 each day. Data from representative samples suggest that about one in 29 children and young people in school today—roughly one per classroom—has been bereaved of a parent or sibling at some point in their childhood. Some 70% of primary schools have at least one recently bereaved pupil on roll. That means that all schools are likely to be touched by bereavement, and those ripples of grief can be felt across the whole school community.
When somebody in the family is terminally ill or has died, just getting to school, concentrating, getting on with peers and managing emotions can be hugely challenging, and can have major consequences for attendance and achievement in the long term. Parentally bereaved young people’s GCSE scores are an average of half a grade lower than their non-bereaved peers; in one study, girls bereaved of a sibling scored almost a full grade below their matched controls. Bereavement also has long-term effects further in life. The death of a parent by age 16 is associated with women failing to gain any sort of qualification, and both men and women being unemployed at the age of 30.
Schools clearly have a huge role to play in supporting children facing such tragic circumstances. Two years ago, the independent UK Commission on Bereavement surveyed children, young people and adults about their experiences of bereavement. It found some examples of fantastic practice and support in schools, but it was far from universal. Just under half of the bereaved children, young people and adults who shared their experiences said that they got little or no support from their education setting after their bereavement. That is such a tragic missed opportunity.
Many children and young people shared the loneliness, isolation, and lack of acknowledgment and support that they had faced. For example, a young teenager said:
“I knew my teachers all knew, but no-one spoke to me about the fact they knew, so it felt like an unspoken secret.”
A primary-aged child said:
“I felt like I was the only one whose daddy had died.”
Another teenager said:
“Everyone sees it as me just misbehaving. Maybe if teachers and any other adults involved were trained to see the signs I wouldn’t of been left for the last 18 months with no support.”
These young people are crying out for support from their schools and from us.
To address the challenges, the commission recommended that all education establishments should be required to have a bereavement policy, including staff training and a process for supporting bereaved children and their families. In line with wider evidence from parents, teachers, and children and young people themselves supporting the inclusion of grief education in the curriculum, the commission also recommended that students should have opportunities to learn about coping with grief as a life skill.
New clause 52 would directly address the inconsistencies in support that grieving children and young people face, and it would help schools to get on the front foot. At the moment, they often reach out for support in crisis mode when a pupil is facing bereavement or has been recently bereaved. They make contact with local child bereavement services, scrambling for guidance on how to respond, how to tell the rest of the school community, and how to make a plan to support grieving pupils coming back to school. All too often, they wish they had done that work in advance of the crisis. The new clause would help schools to be wise before the event, to respond calmly and consistently, and to help children and young people stay on course as they navigate this most challenging of events in their life.
I have tabled this as a probing amendment; I am interested to hear the Minister’s response. I hope that the Government will consider taking this opportunity to write into legislation the requirement for schools to provide support, consistently across the country, to the children and young people who desperately need it, to ensure that bereavement is addressed by every school to improve the life chances of children facing these most difficult circumstances.
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
I thank the hon. Members for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire and for North Herefordshire for raising those important issues. Bereavement touches the lives of everyone, and it has a unique impact on each person. It is particularly important that children and young people who lose someone close to them are able to access support when they need it.
New clause 9 seeks to improve access to bereavement support services for children. It seeks to establish a duty to make regulations to establish a protocol to provide information on those services. The Government continue to consider how to improve access to existing support. The cross-Government bereavement group, chaired by the Department of Health and Social Care and attended by representatives from the Department for Education, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Home Office, continues to look at how we can improve access to support and options to improve data collection. There are many fantastic charities and community groups—the Childhood Bereavement Network, Hope Again, the Anna Freud centre and the Ruth Strauss Foundation, to name just four—that provide vital support, and schools and other public bodies perform vital roles in supporting bereaved children and families. A legislative solution would therefore not be the most appropriate way to ensure bereaved children and young people access the support they need.
On new clause 52 and the matter of requiring schools to publish a bereavement policy, including the approach to grief education, we know that teachers and other school staff do an excellent job in understanding the specific needs of their pupils and identifying what support is needed for a range of life experiences, including bereavement. To support them in that, the Department for Education provides a list of resources for schools on supporting pupils’ mental health and wellbeing. That includes resources from charities and organisations, including those I just mentioned, and resources hosted on the Mentally Healthy Schools site for mental health needs, which includes supporting children dealing with loss and bereavement.
On the curriculum, following the consultation that ended in July last year, we are currently reviewing the relationships, sex and health education statutory guidance, which sets out the content of what children and young people are taught about these subjects. It is also clear in the current RSHE statutory guidance that teachers should be aware of common adverse childhood experiences, including bereavement. We want to ensure that children’s wellbeing is at the heart of the guidance, and we are looking carefully at the consultation responses, considering the relevant evidence and talking to stakeholders before setting out next steps to take the RSHE guidance forward. It would not be appropriate to pre-empt our response to the consultation, nor the publication of the RSHE curriculum guidance. I hope the hon. Member for North Herefordshire is reassured that we will consider that as part of our work on RSHE. We will continue to provide support from the Department and right across Government to help schools support children and young people who experience bereavement and other significant adverse experiences in their childhood.
Ian Sollom
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 11
Benefits of outdoor education to children’s wellbeing
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review on the benefits of outdoor education to children's wellbeing.
(2) A report on the review must be published within six months of the conclusion of the review.”—(Ian Sollom.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 12—Provision of residential outdoor education for children in kinship care—
“(1) A local authority must take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that children living in kinship care receive at least one residential outdoor education experience.
(2) For the purposes of this section, children living in kinship care has the meaning provided for by section 22I of the Children Act 1989 (as amended by this Act).”
Ian Sollom
I am moving the new clauses on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). Many hon. Members will know that he has long been a champion of the benefits of outdoor education. Academic research has shown that greater exposure to natural environments improves learning behaviour and emotional health. Studies have found measurable academic and wellbeing benefits from nature-specific outdoor learning. Even a single outdoor educational experience reduces anxiety, builds resilience and improves focus in the long term, especially for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or anxiety disorders.
We know that children’s wellbeing is suffering. Children are experiencing rising mental health concerns, reduced physical activity and limited access to nature, so there is a real need to support their wellbeing. Outdoor education is proven to improve physical, emotional and social health.
New clause 11 would require the Government to review the impact of outdoor education on children’s wellbeing, with the aim of providing a foundation to embed outdoor education into the curriculum. New clause 12 considers children in kinship care, or those with kinship care experience, and would give them at least one residential outdoor education opportunity and ensure that they are not left behind in accessing those benefits. We would like to hear from the Government about these new clauses.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for his campaign to promote the positive effects of outdoor learning on young people. He clearly has the advantage of living in and representing one of the most beautiful parts of the world.
We believe that all children and young people should have the opportunity to learn about and connect with nature. Access to green space has been shown to have positive impacts on the physical, mental and emotional wellbeing of young people. The national education nature park provides opportunities for children and young people to benefit from spending time in nature, as well as to take positive climate action and to drive solutions to address the growing concerns about climate change and biodiversity loss. The nature park is a key initiative of the Department for Education’s sustainability and climate change strategy, which was launched in 2022.
In the light of progress in the past three years, we are now beginning a process of refreshing and updating the strategic vision for sustainability in the education sector. We are also working with the University of Oxford on research intended to assess the evidence of the impact of nature-based programmes, delivered through schools, on the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people. Once those results are published, I will be happy to share them with the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire.
The Government are committed to improving mental health support for all children and young people, and to giving them access to a variety of enrichment opportunities at school. Those are both important parts of our mission to break down barriers to opportunity, helping pupils to achieve and thrive in education.
There is no statutory requirement to offer extracurricular activities, but the majority of schools do because those activities complement a rich and broad curriculum. Schools include a wide range of activities, such as enabling students to take part in the Duke of Edinburgh’s award scheme, supporting them to access local youth services, and building in trips to outdoor education settings. It is right that schools should be free to decide what activities to offer their pupils so as to best support their development, to help them work with others as part of a team, and to support positive wellbeing.
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s adventures away from home fund provides bursaries for disadvantaged or vulnerable young people to participate in day trips and residentials to outdoor spaces. There are bursaries available for young people aged 11 to 18—or up to 25 for those with special educational needs and disabilities—who face significant barriers to participation and are under-represented in the sector. We are also extending local authority statutory duties to include promoting the educational achievement of all children living in kinship care, within the meaning of the proposed new section 22I(1) of the Children Act 1989, which will be inserted by the Bill. We will also extend virtual school heads’ duty to provide information and advice to include all children living with a special guardian or a child arrangement order, where the child is living with a kinship carer, within the meaning of proposed new section 22I(6).
On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire to withdraw new clause 11 and not to press new clause 12 to a vote.
Ian Sollom
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 13
Foster carers’ delegated authority for children in their care
“(1) Where a child (‘C’) who is looked after by the local authority is placed with a foster parent (‘F’) by a local authority, F may make decisions on C’s behalf in relation to the matters set out in subsection (2) where C’s placement plan does not specify an alternative decision maker.
(2) The matters referred to in subsection (1) are—
(a) medical and dental treatment,
(b) education,
(c) leisure and home life,
(d) faith and religious observance,
(e) use of social media,
(f) personal care, and
(g) any other matters which F considers appropriate.” —(Ellie Chowns.)
This new clause would enable foster carers to make day-to-day decisions on behalf of the children and young people they foster.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am pleased to speak to new clause 13, which proposes that the Bill should provide a default delegated authority for foster carers to make day-to-day decisions for the children and young people in their care, which I think is quite straightforward.
Foster carers should have delegated authority to make these everyday decisions for children in their care—for example, about day-to-day activities such as school trips, holidays and sleepovers; about important appointments for their health and wellbeing or medical appointments; or indeed about haircuts, which is an issue that has been raised regularly by young people in care and their foster carers.
The guidance around delegated authority has not been strengthened since 2013. As a result, practice varies across fostering services, and foster carers are often unclear about which decisions they can take and which decisions they have to get permission for from elsewhere. Many foster carers report experiencing a lack of communication, clarity and information from social workers, with unnecessary paperwork and box ticking, and complicated processes.
In the Fostering Network’s 2024 state of the nations survey, less than a third of foster carers said children’s social workers are always clear about which decisions they have the authority to make in relation to the children they foster. That lack of clarity is clearly a huge issue for a large majority of foster carers. Only half of foster carers said that social workers are able to respond to requests for decisions in a timely manner; we all know social workers are under huge pressure. Foster carers reported that the most difficult decisions to make were around social opportunities, followed by healthcare, relationships and childhood experiences.
This new clause would set out in legislation that foster carers have default delegated authority on key everyday decisions where the child’s placement plan does not specify an alternative decision maker—and the placement plan can always specify that alternative. That default delegated authority would include decisions in day-to-day parenting, such as healthcare and leisure activities, and it would exclude routine but longer-term decisions such as school choice and significant events, such as surgery. It would provide more clarity, speed up decision making within foster families and for social workers, and provide foster carers with the confidence and autonomy that they need to make day-to-day decisions for the children who are in their care.
I urge the Government to take on board these points, and the content of this new clause, to make it easier for foster carers to make those decisions for children who, after all, they know best as they are caring for them. The new clause would ensure that children and young people do not miss out on the opportunities that they need to live a happy and healthy childhood.
Catherine McKinnell
I appreciate the hon. Member’s concern for foster carers having delegated authority on day-to-day decisions for the children in their care. Foster carers offer crucial support to some of the most vulnerable children in our society. They provide love, stability and compassion to children and young people when they need it most.
All foster carers should have delegated authority in relation to day-to-day parenting of the child in their care, such as routine decisions about health, hygiene, education and leisure activities, and where that is not appropriate, the child’s placement plan should set out reasons for that. That is so that the foster carers can support the child in having a normal upbringing, full of the experiences and opportunities that any other child would have. For all decisions relating to the foster child, the foster carer has delegated authority only if it is recorded in the child’s placement plan. That means that if something is not listed on the placement plan, the foster carer does not have that delegated authority and they have to check with their social worker before any decision can be made.
Foster carers can take decisions in relation to the child in their care only in line with the child’s agreed placement plan and the law governing parental responsibility. New clause 13 would mean that foster carers would, by default, have delegated authority on day-to-day issues, except where an alternative decision maker is listed on the child’s placement plan.
The change outlined in the new clause does not require a change to primary legislation. Delegated authority is outlined in secondary legislation in the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010. We have begun conversations with foster carers and foster care providers about a proposed change, ensuring that all foster carers have delegated authority by default in relation to day-to-day parenting of the child in their care. We believe that reform to this policy area would benefit from a period of consultation with stakeholders to ensure that any change to delegated authority best reflects the interests of all parties.
Following consultation, we are committed to implementing the necessary amendments to secondary legislation. I hope that in the light of that, the hon. Member will feel able to withdraw the clause.
Ellie Chowns
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 15
National statutory inquiry into grooming gangs
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 3 months of the passing of this Act, set up a statutory inquiry into grooming gangs.
(2) An inquiry established under subsection (1) must seek to—
(a) identify common patterns of behaviour and offending between grooming gangs;
(b) identify the type, extent and volume of crimes committed by grooming gangs;
(c) identify the number of victims of crimes committed by grooming gangs;
(d) identify the ethnicity of members of grooming gangs;
(e) identify any failings, by action, omission or deliberate suppression, by—
(i) police,
(ii) local authorities,
(iii) prosecutors,
(iv) charities,
(v) political parties,
(vi) local and national government,
(vii) healthcare providers and health services, or
(viii) other agencies or bodies, in the committal of crimes by grooming gangs, including by considering whether the ethnicity of the perpetrators of such crimes affected the response by such agencies or bodies;
(f) identify such national safeguarding actions as may be required to minimise the risk of further such offending occurring in future;
(g) identify good practice in protecting children.
(3) The inquiry may do anything it considers is calculated to facilitate, or is incidental or conducive to, the carrying out of its functions and the achievement of the requirements of subsection (2).
(4) An inquiry established under this section must publish a report within two years of the launch of the inquiry.
(5) For the purposes of this section—
‘gang’ means a group of at least three adult males whose purpose or intention is to commit a sexual offence against the same victim or group of victims;
‘grooming’ means—
(a) activity carried out with the primary intention of committing sexual offences against the victim;
(b) activity that is carried out, or predominantly carried out, in person;
(c) activity that includes the provision of illicit substances and/or alcohol either as part of the grooming or concurrent with the commission of the sexual offence.”—(Neil O'Brien.)
This new clause would set up a national statutory inquiry into grooming gangs.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The arguments around this issue are reasonably well known, so I will be brief. This discussion started when Oldham asked for a national inquiry into what happened there, which it did because a local inquiry would not have the powers that are needed. For example, a local inquiry cannot summon witnesses, take evidence under oath, or requisition evidence. We have already seen the two men leading the local investigation in Greater Manchester resign because they felt they were being blocked, yet the Government say no to a national inquiry, and that there should be local inquiries instead.
However, there have been years during which those places could have held their own local inquiries, but they have not. In many cases, as is well known, local officials at different levels were part of the problem, and even part of the deflection, so they cannot be the people to fix it. In Keighley, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) has been calling for an inquiry for years, but even as Ministers argued in the House that there should be local inquiries, local politicians decided again not to hold one.
In these debates the Government often refer to the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, which was an important first step, but it was not—indeed, it was never intended to be—a report on the grooming gangs. It barely touches on them. IICSA looked at about half a dozen places where grooming gangs have operated, but there were between 40 to 50 places where those gangs operated, and the inquiry touches on them very lightly and does not look at the places where there were the most severe problems. It means that victims in those places have never had a chance to be heard.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I welcome what the hon. Member says about the importance of victims, as they must be at the centre of all we do in this area. Will he outline whether he has met any victims of child sexual abuse in the past 12 months, and if he has, what they have said about the new clause? Is the new clause based on conversations with victims?
Neil O’Brien
The new clause is based on calls by victims for a national inquiry; I was about to come to that point. Having a proper national inquiry does not stop us from getting on and implementing any of the recommendations in the previous report. Indeed, awareness raising was one of the recommendations that was made. Without a national inquiry, we will clearly not get to the bottom of this issue, and people who looked the other way, or who covered up or deflected, will not be held to account for doing that. So far, nobody in authority has been held to account.
The Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester and the hon. Members for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden), for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) have backed some form of national inquiry, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), said that there should be a national inquiry if victims wanted one. Numerous victims are calling for an inquiry, so the real question is what we are waiting for.
Neil O’Brien
As a constituency MP I have met victims of sexual abuse, yes, and it is clear, if people have been following the debate, that victims are calling for an inquiry. Indeed, numerous people in the Labour party agree that we should have a proper inquiry, for all the reasons that Oldham originally asked for one, namely that it does not have the powers locally to get to the truth and to get justice for the victims. The new clause would create a national inquiry and we hope that at some point the Government will support it so that justice can be done and those who have let victims down can finally be held to account.
Tom Hayes
I want to press the point about whether any victims of child sexual abuse have been directly consulted about the proposed new clause. Before I became an MP I ran a service to support victims of child sexual abuse. I have sat with survivors and listened to some of the stories they have shared about the worst things that could happen to a human being, in order to understand the difficulties and trauma that they are experiencing. I know that rebuilding their life will involve many long years of painstaking support alongside many types of services, and I know that what they need most is the implementation of the national inquiry that has already concluded, which heard from many victims of child sexual abuse.
Having sat with and listened to victims of abuse, my big concern is that not implementing those recommendations will be a signal to them that all they have shared and said—after significant difficulty—will have been discarded. That will make people who have gone through awful experiences that have made them feel as though they lack dignity, once again feel as though the system that was there to support and listen to them has let them down, and that as a consequence they are not worthy of the dignity that, as human beings, they really ought to be entitled to.
Neil O’Brien
It is wrong to pretend that IICSA was a report into the grooming gangs. It was not; it was never intended to be. It looked a tiny handful of places, so many of the people who were affected by that scandal have never had the chance to have their story told. It has never been clear why having a new national inquiry would prevent us from implementing any of those previous things—it obviously would not. The argument that the Government cannot do two things at the same time is clearly wrong, so it cannot be used as an excuse not to listen to all those who have never had the chance to tell their story.
Tom Hayes
I appreciate that. I will return to the important topic at hand.
The Minister will comment explicitly on what the hon. Member said but I will say that, although I agree that the Government can do more than one thing, a significant amount of time and money would be invested on a second inquiry. I would want that money to be funnelled directly into the support of survivors and victims, who for so many years under a Conservative Government were denied the funding that they require to receive the support that they need in response to some of the worst experiences that a human being can go through.
Neil O’Brien
The hon. Member is in danger of literally saying it is too expensive to get to the truth. He just said that the cost of a national inquiry was the obstacle to having one. I really hope that he will rethink that point.
Tom Hayes
I disagree strongly with the hon. Member. He knows exactly what I said, and he is choosing to put words into my mouth, as he has chosen to put words into the mouths of many other Committee members. If he wants to play that game, let us talk about whether he has focused properly on child sexual abuse in his time as an MP, quite apart from whether he spoke with any victims or survivors before tabling the amendment.
The hon. Member has been in this House since 8 June 2017, a total of 2,849 days. It took him 2,801 days before he spoke in Parliament for the first time about child sexual abuse. He may say, “Of course, I was a Minister for some of that time,” so I calculated the amount of time that you were a Minister. It is approximately 25% of your total time as an MP. I think it is important, obviously—
The Chair
Order. [Interruption.] Sit down, please. The hon. Gentleman is now quite an experienced Member at speaking, but why does he keep using “you” and “your”? Just avoid those expressions, because I am not involved in this debate. I am trying to be neutral. Mr O’Brien may wish to respond to your points, but please try to control yourself in that respect.
Tom Hayes
Thank you, Sir Christopher.
I have made my point about whether the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston has used his time here to press the case on behalf of survivors and victims. I have made the point about whether he has chosen to sit with survivors and victims and listen to their stories before calling for another national inquiry that discards the views that have been given by survivors.
I have talked about the importance of the money that could be spent on a second inquiry being better spent on the support that victims and survivors so desperately need. I really wish that the Conservative party, which did so little in government to implement the recommendations that were called for by survivors, would put down the politics of this issue and stop focusing on a desperate pursuit of Reform voters, rather than the other voters they lost to the Liberal Democrats and Greens.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my puzzlement that, given that the independent national inquiry covered so many types of child sexual exploitation—so many horrors that have been visited upon our young people—only one aspect of it has become the focus of political debate? We should focus on all the children and young people who have been violated, abused and hurt, mostly by men, but they seem to be forgotten even though the national inquiry covered a whole range of child sexual exploitation.
Tom Hayes
I could not agree more, and my hon. Friend helps me make a point that I had forgotten. You urged me to exercise control, Sir Christopher, but as you and other Members can see, I feel deeply about this topic. I feel very strongly about the importance of standing alongside survivors, and I am prepared to work with anybody in this House, of any party or none, to enhance the support that survivors receive. But having sat with survivors, I am not prepared to allow people to play politics with their experience, and for those individuals then to feign disappointment, hurt and abuse. This is not about how Members of this House feel about the honesty and truth of the words I am speaking; it is about the importance of survivors out in our communities, who have been let down for 14 years, who have suffered exploitative, abusive practices, and who will be looking to this House today to do the right thing by them. I call on the Conservatives in this Committee and across the House to do the right thing, stop playing politics, actually read the report if they have not done so already, and as a consequence show some dignity.
Ellie Chowns
Shortly after Christmas, a person came to see me who had given evidence to the IICSA inquiry and who was deeply upset by their perception that their experience, and the experience of others like them, was being used as a political football. They were outraged to find that the conclusions and recommendations of the inquiry had not yet been implemented. In this room, my role is to represent them. Their call is not for another public inquiry but for the implementation of the recommendations of the inquiry that has already been done.
I find it really disappointing that such serious matters are being used as a political football. The hon. Member for Bournemouth East made a valid point about the degree to which these issues were not addressed until very recently. I ask rhetorically: would this new clause even have been tabled were it not for pot-stirring tweets by Elon Musk? I very much doubt it. I therefore think this Committee should do the job we are here to do. We should scrutinise this Bill and not use it as an opportunity to play games with the lives of victims and survivors.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East for his incredible experience and work in this area. I rise to speak about new clause 15, and I hope I can be of service to the Committee, having spent the past seven years of my work as a barrister serving on a public inquiry. I went straight from that to representing a constituency in Derby, the city that was the subject of the first local inquiry into grooming gangs in 2010. Those crimes are despicable and must be rooted out in Derby and elsewhere. Without the bravery of the girls in Derby, those crimes would not have been punished.
I am committed to supporting the considerable action that the Government are taking to ensure that others are punished, and victims and survivors protected and supported. I am really proud to sit on this Bill Committee, which will give the next generation of children and young people in Derby better protection and life chances. The Education Secretary rightly described this as the “single biggest piece” of children’s safeguarding legislation in a generation. I will seek to set out why new clause 15 does nothing to contribute to that aim.
Neil O’Brien
Could the hon. Lady say how many different places it looked at?
Catherine Atkinson
I will come to that. First, I make the point that I have the report in my hands; it is an inch thick, printed double-sided and it is nearly 200 pages. That is the specific inquiry into organised networks. Its contents are horrific, and I hope that by the end of my contribution, we will cease to hear the shadow Minister referring to the fact that it “barely touches” on grooming gangs.
For clarity, organised networks that conduct child sexual exploitation, as anyone who has carried out work in child protection will know, are grooming gangs. Organised networks are defined in this report as
“two or more individuals…who are known to (or associated with) one another”.
Section C.3 of the report sets out carefully why that definition was used. In comparison, new clause 15 seeks to define grooming gangs as a group of at least three adult males. As we saw in the convictions of women involved in grooming gangs in Rotherham, Newcastle and elsewhere, involvement in grooming gangs is not limited to men. Sadly, several of the cases mentioned in the investigation into grooming gangs make it clear that they are not always adults, as older children and teenagers can also be involved in grooming.
A further justification for another inquiry, as we heard from the shadow Minister, was that the previous inquiry covered just half a dozen places where grooming gangs have operated—namely, the areas covered by Durham county council, the City and County of Swansea council, Warwickshire county council, St Helens council in Merseyside, the London borough of Tower Hamlets and Bristol city council. The shadow Minister knows, I assume, that that was a deliberate sampling of local authorities from across England and Wales, and they were selected not because grooming gangs operated there—I do not think that was necessarily even known at the time of selection—but to consider a range of features including size, demography, geography and social characteristics. It was to illustrate different policies, practices and performance. It was a deliberate choice not to look again at areas like Rotherham, Rochdale and Oxford, which had already been the subject of independent investigation. Sampling, and looking at particular case studies like this, is very common and good practice in public inquiries. The fact that there were cases of child sexual exploitation by gangs in all six of the case study areas clearly indicated how common and pervasive this disgusting crime is.
On Second Reading, the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), implied that there was new information that child sexual exploitation takes place in many areas. He said:
“We now believe that as many as 50 towns could have been affected”.—[Official Report, 16 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 564.]
But as the previous specific inquiry made clear three years ago, on page 4, when it comes to grooming gangs:
“Any denial of the scale of child sexual exploitation—either at national level or locally in England and Wales—must be challenged.”
In looking at whether new clause 15 is a rerun of questions IICSA already considered in the previous specific inquiry into grooming gangs, it is helpful to cross-refer the contents of new clause 15 with the scope of the previous investigations into grooming gangs, which is set out on page 148 of this report. New clause 15(2)(a) seeks an inquiry into grooming gangs to
“identify common patterns of behaviour and offending”.
But the scope of the previous grooming gangs inquiry states that it will investigate “the nature” of sexual exploitation by grooming gangs.
New clause 15(2)(b) and (c) seek another inquiry to look at the
“type, extent and volume of crimes”
and “the number of victims”. The specific inquiry looked at the “extent” of sexual exploitation.
New clause 15(2)(e) seeks a new inquiry to identify failings by
“(i) police,
(ii) local authorities,
(iii) prosecutors,
(iv) charities,
(v) political parties,
(vi) local…government,
(vii) healthcare providers…or
(viii) other agencies or bodies”.
But the grooming gangs inquiry investigated and considered the institutional responses to the sexual exploitation of children, and that specific inquiry also examined the extent to which
“children who were subjected to child sexual exploitation were known to local authorities and other public authorities such as law enforcement agencies, schools and/or the NHS”.
It also examined the extent to which
“relevant public authorities…effectively identified the risk of child sexual exploitation in communities and took action to prevent it”.
It examined the extent to which
“the response of the constituent parts of the criminal justice system was appropriate in cases of child sexual exploitation”.
The inquiry into grooming gangs heard from complainants, academics, local authorities, police officers, voluntary sector representatives, Government officials and representatives from victim support and campaign groups—a list that looks very similar to that set out at new clause 15(2)(e).
New clause 15(2)(g) seeks to “identify good practice” in protecting children. Was that left out of the previous inquiry? No, because paragraph 2.5 of the scope of the investigation makes it clear that the inquiry would also examine
“effective strategies…implemented to prevent child sexual exploitation in the future, and to monitor the safety of vulnerable children including missing children”.
On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston accused the Government of not wanting to
“hear the voices of the victims.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 951.].
The new clause compounds the last Government’s crime of not listening to the victims when they had the chance to implement the recommendations of the specific national grooming gangs inquiry and the wider IICSA recommendations.
What new clause 15—the hon. Gentleman’s blueprint for a new inquiry—does not include is any requirement to look at the extent to which recommendations in previous reports and reviews were implemented by relevant public authorities at national and local levels. That requirement was in the previous grooming gangs inquiry, which was an attempt to build on learning rather than to be a rerun of previous inquiries. The previous grooming gangs inquiry notes that more than 400 previous recommendations were considered in this, as well as those arising from other recent reports and inquiries. This would be an obvious inclusion in any future inquiry, unless we did not want to draw attention to the previous Government’s failure to carry out a single one of the recommendations of the specific investigation into grooming gangs, or in the wider independent inquiry into child sexual abuse more broadly.
The three main functions of public inquiries are to investigate what happened, why it happened, and what can be done to prevent it happening again. Inquiries can make recommendations. What they cannot do is implement those recommendations; that is our job. Professor Alexis Jay, who knows more about this than anyone on this Committee, does not call for another national inquiry. She says that a new inquiry would cause further delay.
Having spent seven of my 17 years as a barrister on a public inquiry—although not into grooming gangs or the broader IICA—I can say quite forcefully that there is a universal principle here. Public inquiries cost time and enormous amounts of public money, but the biggest tab that they run up is in the hope that they give to victims—the hope that what they suffered will not be suffered in future by others. We must pay our debt to the victims by fully responding to the recommendations and implementing them where we can. If we call for inquiry after inquiry along the same lines, we are undermining the whole system of public inquiries, including public trust in them and public tolerance for the resources of the state that they demand. Therefore, rather than the gesture politics of rerunning an inquiry without the evidence and data that we need, it is the Government’s approach that makes sense, with Baroness Louise Casey’s audit to fill in the gaps that have already been identified by the previous inquiry.
This Government are setting up a new victims and survivors panel not just to guide Ministers on the design, delivery and implementation of plans on IICSA, but to produce wider work around child sexual exploitation and abuse. In the policing and crime Bill, they are making it mandatory to report abuse and will make it an offence to fail to report, or to cover up, child sexual abuse, as well as introducing further measures to tackle those organising online child sex abuse. They are legislating to make grooming an aggravating factor in sentencing for child sexual offences. They are already drawing up a duty of candour as part of the long-awaited Hillsborough law. And they are overhauling the information and evidence that is gathered on child sexual abuse and exploitation to implement the first recommendation of IICSA on a single core dataset on child abuse and protection.
New clause 15(2)(d) seeks to identify the ethnicity of members of grooming gangs. Sections B.5 and H.5 of the 2022 inquiry into grooming gangs identified the widespread failure to record the ethnicity of perpetrators and victims and the inconsistency of definitions in the data, which meant that the limited research available relied on poor-quality data.
Recommendation 5 from the report in February 2022 relates to child sexual exploitation data and states that the data must include
“the sex, ethnicity and disability of both the victim and perpetrator”.
In the final list of IICSA recommendations from October 2022, it was the first recommendation—a single core set of data. We do not have a core dataset, and the ethnicity data that was published in November from police forces has been found to be haphazard, because there is not a proper system for collecting data. It is this Government who have committed to gathering and publishing new ethnicity data, and it is this Government who are providing backing for local inquiries that can delve into local detail and deliver more locally relevant answers and change than a lengthy national inquiry of the type that I was involved in.
Damian Hinds
The hon. Lady makes an important point. This is an incredibly serious issue, and we should not be introducing anything that might inadvertently mislead. The Government control the time of the House of Commons. This Bill should probably have been two Bills to begin with; there are two distinct subjects in part 1 and part 2, but, for some reason, they were put together. There was nothing to stop the Government, at any point, from separating out parts of the Bill and reintroducing them immediately into the House of Commons—they literally control the timetable. On the Order Paper today, there was a statement on the business of the House. The Government can change the time and change what is considered in the House of Commons as they choose.
Catherine Atkinson
Can the right hon. Gentleman imagine if the wrecking amendment—
Catherine Atkinson
I will not, because I am nearly finished—the right hon. Gentleman will then be able to speak about whatever he wants. Grabbing at headlines to call for an inquiry to address the same questions already asked in a national inquiry at the expense of a Bill that will protect children—
Catherine Atkinson
I will not. The hon. Gentleman will have every opportunity to speak. I am nearly finished.
It is important to imagine the case had Conservative colleagues been successful—new clause 15 is a weak echo of that reckless shout for attention on Second Reading, and a shameful reminder. Alongside all the provisions in the Bill, which they agree will keep children safer, they should get behind the actions that the Home Secretary and the Minister for Safeguarding are driving on the issue of grooming gangs—real action, which means a great deal to me and many others in the Committee. Knowing the horrific abuse that girls from my city have gone through, I am hugely thankful for those actions. Opposition Members in Committee should not just withdraw the new clause, but apologise for risking protections for children by recklessly chasing headlines in this way.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I pay huge tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North for her frankly masterful navigation through the facts. This moment demands the facts—not misrepresentation and the dismissal of previous inquiries, but the gravitas and experience that she has brought to the debate. I believe that has kept the Committee on the track that it is meant to be on.
I simply make the observation against the new clause that this Bill and this moment require leadership. Leadership looks like getting on with making the changes that we have heard about in great detail. The subject has already been thoroughly and fully investigated, with recommendations made by a leading expert. It is time to make those changes to our country, to our law and to our services, first, to allow us to reflect on the past, and the report does that, and, secondly, so that we can get on with catching those who continue to do such things—and that is the horror of it. We are not just talking about something historical. Without doubt, such things are going on as we speak.
It is time to ensure that the whole of Government work together so that our law enforcement agencies are resourced to catch those who perpetrate such disgusting crimes. Crucially, this is the moment to ensure that we prevent them happening in the future. Several of the report’s 20 recommendations are already in train and implementation should be the absolute priority.
That is what leading looks like at this moment, but when it comes to following I am afraid that I agree with the observation made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. Some people have become a little bedazzled by social media suggestion and innuendo from certain individuals, wherever they are in the world. Opposition Members should be honest about it: such individuals have absolutely no genuine interest in the victims whose sufferings are known, but have their own political agenda to follow. They use their social media platform to do that, and none of it moves us any closer to doing what we need to do, which is to reflect, to catch the criminals and to prevent such crimes in future.
Those who are able to separate fact from trend will know that the urgent priority at this moment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North so thoughtfully set out, is to act. Anything that becomes a distraction from that should not be supported.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I want to start by agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen that leadership and action are needed. Indeed, leadership and action were needed three years ago in February 2022 when the IICSA report came out. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North for her knowledgeable insights and her forensic examination of the Bill, the recommendations and the report. I will spend a moment establishing for the record what exactly those 20 recommendations are asking for, which we as a Government have committed to implementing in full—albeit three years too late for some victims.
Let me list the headings of the report. The first is on a mandatory aggravating factor for CSE offences. The second is on statutory guidance on preventing CSE. The third is on data collection and analysis, and establishing a national database. The fourth is about strengthening the criminal justice response. The fifth is about training for professionals and requiring mandatory training for all professionals working with children, including social workers, police and healthcare staff, to help them recognise the signs of exploitation and act accordingly. The sixth is about a national framework for support, and developing a national framework for services to ensure that appropriate support is available for victims. The seventh is about supporting victims and improving the availability and accessibility of specialised support services for victims. The eighth concerns tailored responses to CSE victims, ensuring authorities provide a tailored response to the specific needs of children who are victims. The ninth is about launching a national public awareness campaign to raise awareness of CSE, educating the public and reducing the stigma that surrounds the victims. The 10th is to strengthen safeguarding in schools and introduce better protocols. The 11th is about tackling perpetrators of CSE, strengthening law enforcement’s abilities to target them. The 12th is for a Government review of safeguarding systems, conducting a review of the national safeguarding system to ensure current measures are sufficiently robust to address child sexual exploitation and victims. The 13th is to ensure adequate local authority resources. The 14th concerns independence for local safeguarding boards. The 15th recommends a review of the placement of settings for vulnerable children. The 16th calls for a stronger legal framework for CSE. The 17th is about increasing the use of risk assessment tools. The 18th is about rehabilitation and reintegration services. The 19th is on specialised support for parents and families and the 20th on a regular review of local authority practices. Each one of those 20 recommendations has the victims at its heart.
Catherine McKinnell
I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth East, for Derby North, for Southampton Itchen and for Portsmouth North, and to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, for their thoughtful and measured contributions on this incredibly challenging issue. The Prime Minister has made clear that as a Government we are focused on delivering the change and justice that victims deserve.
On 7 January, the Home Secretary outlined in Parliament commitments to introduce a mandatory duty for those engaging with children to report sexual abuse and exploitation, making grooming an aggravating factor to toughen up sentencing and introduce a new performance framework for policing.
On 16 January, the Home Secretary made a further statement to the House that before Easter the Government will lay out a clear timetable for taking forward the 20 recommendations in the final IICSA report, which my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North powerfully set out. All of those recommendations were for the Home Office, including on disclosing and barring, and work on them is already under way.
The Government will implement all the remaining recommendations in IICSA’s separate stand-alone report on grooming gangs from February 2022, and as part of that we will update key Department for Education guidance. As the Home Secretary states, a cross-Government ministerial group is considering and working through the remaining recommendations, and that group will be supported by a new victims and survivors panel.
Other measures that the Government are taking forward include the appointment of Baroness Casey to lead a rapid audit of existing evidence on grooming gangs, to support a better understanding of the current scale and nature of gang-based exploitation across the country and to make recommendations on the further work needed; extending the remit of the independent Child Sexual Abuse Review Panel so that it covers not just historical cases, from before 2013, but all cases since, so that any victim of abuse will have a right to seek an independent review without having to go back to local institutions that decided not to proceed with their case; and providing stronger national backing for local inquiries by providing £5 million of funding to help local councils to set up their own reviews. Working in partnership with Tom Crowther KC, the Home Office will develop a new effective framework for victim-centred, locally led inquiries.
Neil O’Brien
I want to point out a tension between the arguments that we have heard. One type of argument says that the job is done; there is nothing more to find out. It dismisses calls for further work as “gesture politics”—that is one phrase that we heard this morning. The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen said that the grooming gangs had been “fully investigated”. I do not believe that, nor do the victims—in fact, not a single official has been held to account. More importantly perhaps, the Government do not believe it either. They argue that more work is needed—the disagreement is simply whether there should be local inquiries rather than a national inquiry. Members continue to make arguments that the Government were perhaps making at the start of the year, but that is not where the Government are now.
Tom Hayes
On the hon. Gentleman’s point that members of this Committee have said, in so many words, that the job is done and we do not have anything more to learn, I want to be categorical in saying that those are not the words that I use and I did not imply that in anything that I said. I look to Committee colleagues to nod if they agree. All people who spoke today have nodded to affirm that what the hon. Gentleman has just said is not a true representation of what in fact they were saying or even implying, so may I please ask him to withdraw that statement?
Neil O’Brien
The people who read the transcript of this debate or perhaps have been listening to it at home can judge for themselves whether what I said was a fair summary of the arguments put forward by Government Members.
Catherine McKinnell
On the point about putting words in people’s mouths, nobody has said this is job done—quite the contrary. What we have consistently said is that we do not believe another national inquiry is needed. The Alexis Jay report took seven years, engaged 7,000 victims and had 15 separate strands. In the last 12 years, we have had hundreds of inquiries, serious case reviews and 600 recommendations. It is time for action. It is time to put this into practice and provide the justice that these victims deserve. That is what this Government are focused on doing.
Neil O’Brien
I wonder whether the Minister agreed with the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen, who said that the grooming gangs had been “fully investigated”. Does she agree with that? I am happy to take another intervention if she does. She does not want to stand up and say that she agrees with her hon. Friend, so the tension I pointed out is real. On one hand there is an argument that there is nothing more to be found out; everyone who should be held to account has been held to account; and we must not go back into it—there is no need to go back into it. On the other hand there is the Government’s admission that we need more local inquiries.
This whole discussion did not start with some person on social media. This whole conversation started because Oldham council formally asked for a national inquiry into what happened there, and it did so because it did not have, at local level, the powers needed: it cannot summon witnesses, take evidence under oath or requisition evidence. It was that request from a council—a good and sensible request—that started this discussion. I have already listed some of the Labour people who have argued for a national inquiry. I hope that in the end they will win the argument in the Labour party, but until then, I want to put the new clause to the vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 19—Trust Capacity Fund—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, establish a Trust Capacity Fund.
(2) The purpose of the Trust Capacity Fund will be to support the growth of multi-academy trusts.
(3) The Trust Capacity Fund may provide funding to maintained schools and academy trusts which—
(a) are considered by the Education and Skills Funding Agency to be of sound financial health; and
(b) have an eligible growth project that has been approved by the Secretary of State.
(4) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, specify applications for funding to which the Trust Capacity Fund will give particular regard, which may include applications from trusts—
(a) taking on or formed from schools which have received specified judgements in their most recent inspections; or
(b) taking on or comprising schools in Education Investment Areas.
(5) The Secretary of State must provide the Trust Capacity Fund with such funding and resources as are required for the carrying out of its duties.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a Trust Capacity Fund to support the growth of multi-academy trusts.
Neil O’Brien
The proposed new clauses press the Government to restore some schemes they have cut, namely the academy conversion support grant and the trust capacity fund. The latter spent about £126 million over the last Parliament, helping to grow and deepen strong trusts, helping them to do more to help their schools, and helping to create a self-improving system. Unfortunately, the fund was ended on 1 January this year. Its closure is a real loss and there is uncertainty now about who is responsible for school improvement in the Government’s vision. Is that still to be trust-led, or will it be led by RISE from the centre? What happens if ideas from RISE conflict with those of a trust?
The removal of that funding sharpens the sense of a shift away from trusts as the engine for school improvement. The Confederation of School Trusts has said that this funding
“has been very successful in enabling trusts to support maintained schools that need help, especially in areas with a history of poor education outcomes…That will become more difficult to do now. Trust leaders will be especially angry that Ministers have scrapped this summer’s funding round: trusts spent considerable time and effort creating bids and have been waiting for a decision for four months…School trusts have a wealth of experience in school improvement but sharing that effectively takes time and money, and we need to make sure that the wider school sector doesn’t suffer from this decision.”
The confederation also says that it is “incredibly disappointed” at the decision to withdraw the academy conversion grant. It says:
“Ending this grant will leave, in particular, smaller primary schools very vulnerable and without the financial and educational sustainability that comes from being part of a trust. It is a short-sighted decision that will weaken the school system.”
It adds that that will have
“clear consequences for the strength and sustainability of our school system…This is not a neutral decision and will impact the capacity of the system to keep improving.”
Forum Strategy, another membership organisation for school trust leaders, has said of the decision to cut this funding:
“It is difficult to see the vision or strategy that leads to these decisions, or what it means for making the most of the capacity and expertise of the school-led improvement system.”
I hope that Ministers will listen to school leaders and reverse the decisions, as the proposed new clauses suggest.
Catherine McKinnell
We have made it clear that the Government’s mission is to break down barriers to opportunity, by driving high and rising standards, so that all children are supported to achieve and thrive. The Government are focused on improving outcomes for all children, regardless of the type of school they attend. Our energies and funding are tilted towards that, including through the new regional improvement for standards and excellence teams.
Nevertheless, we want high-quality trusts to continue to grow where schools wish to join them and there is a strong case for them to do so. We know that where schools have worked together, sharing their knowledge and expertise, as happens in our best multi-academy trusts and best local authorities, we can secure the highest standards and best outcomes for our children.
We will continue to consider applications from trusts that want to transfer their schools to a high-quality academy trust, or where there is a need locally to form new trusts through consolidation or merger. In September, the Government were supporting a higher number of schools through the process of converting to academy status than at any point under the previous Government, since at least 2018. Voluntary conversion remains a choice for schools. The Government believe that the benefits, including the financial benefits, of joining a strong structure are well understood, and for most schools and trusts that will mean that the case for converting will still outweigh the costs.
It was the previous Government who decided to significantly curtail the availability of the conversion grant—a decision that did not have any negative impact on the rate of voluntary academisation. While I recognise that the sector welcomed the trust capacity fund, the truth is that most multi-academy trusts that expanded in recent years did so without accessing the limited fund, including those that applied to the fund but were unsuccessful.
The current financial health of schools and academies suggests that the cost of conversion, where there is a strong case to do so, is likely to be affordable for them. The latest published figures show that the vast majority of academy trusts and local authority maintained schools are in cumulative surplus or breaking even. We do, however, keep this under review.
Let me also make it clear that, where necessary, and in cases of the most serious concern, the Government will continue to intervene and transfer schools to new management, and we will continue to provide support and funding for trusts that take on those schools eligible for intervention.
For the reasons I have outlined, I kindly ask the shadow Minister to withdraw his new clause.
Neil O’Brien
It is nice to hear from the Minister that, following our decision to increase funding per pupil by 11% in real terms over the last Parliament, most trusts are in surplus or breaking even. None the less, I hope that Ministers will reconsider this matter. There has been something of a change in tone in recent weeks from the Government, particularly regarding academisation, which they say is now going to happen normally in certain cases, so I hope that Ministers will rethink some of their decisions about funding to enable that to happen, and to enable the best trusts to grow, to become stronger and to do even more to turn around our struggling schools. However, on this occasion, we will withdraw the new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 18
School Trust CEO Programme
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, make provision for the delivery of a programme of development for Chief Executive Officers of large multi-academy trusts (‘the School Trust CEO Programme’).
(2) The School Trust CEO Programme shall be provided by—
(a) the National Institute of Teaching; or
(b) a different provider nominated by the Secretary of State.
(3) The purposes of the School Trust CEO Programme shall include, but not be limited to—
(a) building the next generation of CEOs and system architects;
(b) providing the knowledge, insight and practice to ensure CEOs can run successful, sustainable, thriving trusts that develop as anchor institutions in their communities;
(c) building a network of CEOs to improve practice in academy trusts and shape the system; and
(d) nurturing the talents of CEOs to lead and grow large multi-academy trusts, especially in areas where such trusts are most needed.
(4) The Secretary of State must provide the School Trust CEO Programme with such funding and resources as are required for the carrying out of its duties.”—(Neil O’Brien.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to provide a School Trust CEO Programme.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Neil O’Brien
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 18 essentially raises the same issues as new clauses 17 and 19, but for a different programme—in this case, the trust leadership programme, which helps teachers and heads move up to running a trust and helps to create a self-improving system. A huge amount of work has gone into getting it right in recent years. It has been designed by the profession. It really has had a lot of work put into it, and it is a product of school leaders, not just the Government.
My understanding is that the programme will end after the current cohort completes it, and that there is no plan for another cohort. After all the work that has gone into the programme, that seems a real shame. The new clause would require Ministers to commit to the programme for further intakes and to put it on a permanent basis. I hope that Ministers will make that commitment, and that we can get good news from them today about the continuation of this really important programme.
Catherine McKinnell
The Government are committed to supporting the development of leaders at all levels. As such, we have announced a review of national professional qualifications, which are evidence-based qualifications available to leaders at all levels. The review will include consideration of the training needs of those leading several schools, including large multi-academy trusts. However, committing to a specific service or provider in the Bill would contravene civil service governance procedures and public procurement legislation respectively, so we will not put in place a legal obligation to provide training or commit funding for the development of the chief executive officers of large multi-academy trusts. On that basis, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw his new clause.
Neil O’Brien
The new clause makes it clear that there would be a choice about who would provide the scheme. We heard from the Minister that there is a review of national professional qualifications going on. I will be happy to take an intervention if she is happy to tell us a date by which we will find out the results of that review. I do not know when school leaders who are currently benefiting from, or hoping to benefit from, this very important programme, designed by the sector, will find out from Ministers what its future will be. It sounds like Ministers are saying that it will not be until the review is completed, so I now have a question about when that will be and when we will have a definitive answer one way or the other. I wonder whether the Minister will consider writing to me to tell us roughly when the review will be complete. She is sort of nodding, but I am not going to probe the point.
We will withdraw the new clause for now, but this is a wonderful scheme and a crucial part of the self-improving system, and I hope that, whatever happens at the end of the review, something along these lines will be maintained. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 20
Approved free schools and university training colleges in pre-opening
“The Secretary of State must make provision for the opening of all free schools and university training colleges whose applications were approved prior to October 2024.”—(Neil O’Brien.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to proceed with the opening of free schools whose opening was paused in October 2024.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Neil O’Brien
I beg to move That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause presses Ministers to un-pause the final free schools. In October Ministers “paused” plans to open 44 new state schools, including three sixth-form colleges backed by Eton and, more importantly, by the brilliant Star Trust in Dudley, Middlesbrough and Oldham. Many of the proposals have had years of work put into them, and they are the passion projects of huge numbers of teachers and school leaders. They have the potential to do tremendous good in communities across the country, including some deprived communities. The new clause encourages the Government to end the damaging uncertainty for those schools, which have now been in limbo for a long time.
Free schools generally have fantastic progress scores, which are a quarter of a grade higher across all grades than would be expected given their intakes. That is exceptional across an entire type of school—an amazing result. When we look at Progress 8 scores in this country, free schools dominate the top of the league table. That is an amazing achievement from these passion projects—these labours of love—that have been created by teachers to help communities. We hope that Ministers will unblock the proposals soon, and end the uncertainty, so will the Minister give the Committee some sense of when these schools can expect a decision?
Stephen Morgan
I understand the hon. Member’s desire to ensure that approved free school projects, including two university technical college projects, open as planned, and I acknowledge the work that trusts and local authorities undertake to support free school projects to open. However, accepting the new clause would commit the Secretary of State to opening all projects in the current pipeline, regardless of whether they are still needed or represent value for money.
A range of factors can create barriers to a new school opening successfully, including insufficient pupil numbers to fill the school, or not being able to find a suitable site. That is why the Government have established practice of reviewing free school projects on an ongoing basis. As a result, over the lifetime of the programme, nearly 150 projects have been withdrawn by their sponsor trusts or cancelled by the Department.
The review that this Government announced in October 2024 has a strong focus on the need for places, and will ensure that we only open viable schools that offer value for taxpayers’ money. It would be wrong to spend funding on new schools that cannot be financially viable while existing schools urgently need that funding to improve the condition of their buildings. I therefore ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the new clause.
Neil O’Brien
I am disappointed to hear that from the Minister, and we are also disappointed not to hear any date for when the schools, which all those people—people with an incredible track record in our deprived communities—have worked so hard to bring into existence, will open. Will he commit to write to us to say when those people can expect a decision? The uncertainty, which is so damaging, has been going on for so long. At the moment it is without end, and no one knows when they will get an answer from the Government. I wonder whether the Minister write to us—or, more to the point, to those people—to say when they can at least expect an answer one way or the other.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 21
School attendance: general duties on local authorities
“In Chapter 2 of Part 6 of the Education Act 1996 (school attendance), after section 443 insert—
‘School attendance: registered pupils, offences etc
443A School attendance: general duties on local authorities in England
(1) A local authority in England must exercise their functions with a view to—
(a) promoting regular attendance by registered pupils at schools in the local authority’s area, and
(b) reducing the number and duration of absences of registered pupils from schools in that area.
(2) In exercising their functions, a local authority in England must have regard to any guidance issued from time to time by the Secretary of State in relation to school attendance.’”—(Neil O’Brien.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 22—School attendance policies—
“In Chapter 2 of Part 6 of the Education Act 1996 (school attendance), after section 443 insert—
‘443A School attendance policies
(1) The proprietor of a school in England must ensure—
(a) that policies designed to promote regular attendance by registered pupils are pursued at the school, and
(b) that those policies are set out in a written document (an “attendance policy”).
(2) An attendance policy must in particular include details of—
(a) the practical procedures to be followed at the school in relation to attendance,
(b) the measures in place at the school to promote regular attendance by its registered pupils,
(c) the responsibilities of particular members of staff in relation to attendance,
(d) the action to be taken by staff if a registered pupil fails to attend the school regularly, and
(e) if relevant, the school’s strategy for addressing any specific concerns identified in relation to attendance.
(3) The proprietor must ensure—
(a) that the attendance policy and its contents are generally made known within the school and to parents of registered pupils at the school, and
(b) that steps are taken at least once in every school year to bring the attendance policy to the attention of all those parents and pupils and all persons who work at the school (whether or not for payment).
(4) In complying with the duties under this section, the proprietor must have regard to any guidance issued from time to time by the Secretary of State in relation to school attendance.’”
New clause 23—Penalty notices: regulations—
“In section 444B of the Education Act 1996 (penalty notices: attendance), after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), regulations under subsection (1) may make provision in relation to England—
(a) as to the circumstances in which authorised officers must consider giving a penalty notice;
(b) for or in connection with co-ordination arrangements between local authorities and neighbouring local authorities (where appropriate), the police and authorised officers.’”
New clause 24—Academies: regulations as to granting a leave of absence—
“(1) Section 551 of the Education Act 1996 (regulations as to duration of school day etc) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for ‘to which this section applies’ substitute ‘mentioned in subsection (2)’.
(3) In subsection (2), omit ‘to which this section applies’.
(4) After subsection (2) insert—
‘(3) Regulations may also make provision with respect to the granting of leave of absence from any schools which are Academies not already falling within subsection (2)(c).’”
Neil O’Brien
This series of new clauses on attendance is intended, as with other amendments on discipline, to add to the Bill content on some of the biggest issues that are facing our schools, and which our teachers consistently rate as among the most important issues facing the school system. Although there has been recovery since the nadir of the post-pandemic period, as I look at attendance figures every week I worry that we are topping out at a level that is below pre-pandemic norms. For the current academic year we are at 18.7% persistent absence, compared with 10.9% pre-pandemic. That is a huge increase. When debating proposals in Westminster Hall from people who wanted to make it easier to take children out of schools, we and Ministers strongly agreed about the powerful negative impact that can have. Even small changes in attendance can have unbelievably large effects on overall achievement.
I will not labour the new clauses, because I am conscious of the time we have today and the need for many Members to get in. They were tabled to emphasise how important this issue is. I am sure Ministers agree; we are really just encouraging them to try to do more. In the most recent data, unauthorised absence is slightly up on last year. I am left with a feeling that something big is needed on this front. The new clauses are really just a way of encouraging Ministers to push hard on this vital issue.
Stephen Morgan
New clauses 21 and 22 seek to place new duties on local authorities and schools with regard to school attendance. Absence from school is one of the biggest barriers to success for children and young people, and has soared over recent years. We inherited a legacy of record levels of poor attendance, which impacts the life chances of all our young people, particularly the most disadvantaged. We are determined to work with the sector to tackle that legacy. That includes working with schools, which are uniquely placed to address the issue, and local authorities, which play a key role in supporting pupils whose absence is more entrenched and who face out-of-school barriers to attendance.
We naturally want to see consistency in this area, and to ensure that parents clearly understand how they will be supported if their child is having difficulties. However, we do not need the new clauses to do that. Both schools and local authorities are already subject to the statutory guidance on attendance introduced last summer. Since then, we have been supporting schools through a network of attendance hubs and our recently released attendance toolkit, and local authorities through our team of attendance advisers. Both have made significant progress in improving the support that they offer to children on attendance.
The challenge is to build on that progress, working in partnership. We will continue to ensure that teachers and staff are equipped to make school the best place to be for every child, by delivering free breakfast clubs in every primary school so that every child is on time and ready to learn, by delivering better mental health support through access to professionals, and by improving inclusivity in mainstream schools. We will support local authorities through the £263 million in new funding that we have already announced in the new children’s social care prevention grant, so that families can get the support they need, when they need it.
Schools and local authorities understand their responsibilities to promote school attendance, and we will provide them with the tools that they need to fulfil those responsibilities. The new clauses are not necessary for us to do that. Therefore, for the reasons I have outlined, I kindly ask the shadow Minister not to press them.
New clause 23 relates to the circumstances in which a fixed penalty notice for school absence may be issued. The right approach to tackling school absence is one of support first. One of the most important things that parents do for their children’s learning, wellbeing and life chances is ensuring that they go to school every day, and that they are well enough to do so. We want to support the system and support parents to provide help where needed to overcome attendance problems. However, there are cases where support has been provided and not engaged with, and cases where support would not be appropriate. In such cases, there is a range of legal interventions available to ensure that children are not deprived of their right to an education.
It is important that the system treats families equally and that there is consistency across the country in how fixed penalty notices are considered, but the new clause is not needed to achieve that. The previous Government introduced a national threshold for considering when a fixed penalty notice should be issued, and an expectation that support should be offered first in cases other than term-time holidays. This Government have continued that policy. On the basis that neither this Government nor the previous one considered the new clause to be necessary, I ask hon. Members not to press it.
Finally, I turn to new clause 24. I appreciate hon. Members’ concern on this matter, and their desire for academies to follow rules on granting leave of absence. One of the many ways in which schools encourage regular attendance is by making it clear to parents—
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Ninth sitting)
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 15 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Members may remove their jackets if they wish to do so. I reiterate the instruction—you will note that it is an instruction, not a request—that Members address one another through the Chair and do not, therefore, use the expression “you” when speaking. I understand we had a slight problem with that this morning.
I remind the Committee that with amendment 34 we are discussing the following:
Amendment 36, in clause 7, page 4, line 7, leave out “capacity” and insert “the ability”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 34 and NC1.
Amendment 37, in clause 8, page 4, line 34, leave out “capacity” and insert “the ability”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 34 and NC1.
Amendment 38, in clause 9, page 6, line 27, leave out “capacity” and insert “ability”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 34 and NC1.
Amendment 202, in clause 9, page 6, line 31, leave out “capability” and insert “capacity”.
This amendment corrects a typographical error.
Amendment 39, in clause 9, page 6, line 31, leave out “capability” and insert “ability”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 34 and NC1.
Amendment 40, in clause 12, page 8, line 2, leave out “capacity” and insert “the ability”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 34 and NC1.
Amendment 41, in clause 13, page 9, line 31, leave out “capacity” and insert “ability”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 34 and NC1.
Amendment 42, in clause 18, page 12, line 23, leave out “capacity” and insert “the ability”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 34 and NC1.
Amendment 43, in clause 30, page 18, line 16, leave out “capacity” and insert “the ability”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 34 and NC1.
Amendment 44, in clause 40, page 23, line 26, leave out from “capacity” and insert “ability”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 34 and NC1.
New clause 1—Ability to make decision—
“The person is to be considered as having the ability to make a decision to request assistance to end their life if they can fully understand, use and weigh the relevant information in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State under affirmative resolution.”
This new clause defines the concept of ability which is intended to replace the concept of capacity. This new clause is intended to replace Clause 3.
Amendment 45, in schedule 2, page 26, line 36, leave out “capacity” and insert
“the ability to make a decision”.
Amendment 46, in schedule 3, page 28, line 1, leave out “capacity” and insert
“the ability to make a decision”.
Amendment 47, in schedule 5, page 30, line 14, leave out “capacity” and insert
“the ability to make a decision”.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
Before the break, the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge gave a helpful account of the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, with particular reference to the concept of “best interests” that applies in that Act. She explained that the best interests consideration kicks in only once the capacity test has been failed—once it has been concluded that someone does not have capacity. Therefore, there would be no best interests consideration in the case of assisted dying. Either a person has capacity and that is that—a rather low bar, which is, as we have discussed, appropriate for buying a cup of coffee, is got over, and they are off to the assisted dying commission, or whatever process we eventually try to set up—or they do not have capacity and are ejected from the system, and there is no best interests consideration.
I reference that because my whole point is that the Bill does not use the Mental Capacity Act; it just uses the definition of capacity that is in it, and that definition is very weak. It is designed to assume capacity in the patient and, as we discussed earlier today, it can include somebody who has impaired judgment—they could be depressed or even suicidal. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley said earlier, very honestly, that he would be content with somebody who had depression accessing assisted suicide, as would be possible under the legislation.
The point is that once the test of capacity has been passed, there is no best interests consideration. It is a great abuse of the Mental Capacity Act, the whole purpose of which is concern for the vulnerable, for that purpose to be ignored once the usefulness of the Act has been fulfilled. This Bill does violence to the Mental Capacity Act in using it for this purpose. The fact is that that Act was designed for the opposite situation: to protect people from having things done to them.
I will conclude shortly, Sir Roger, but that brings me to the point we have discussed at length already today: the crucial question of whether the decision to have an assisted death is different from the decision to decline or to cease treatment. I start by pointing out that case law specifies that to decline treatment is not to commit suicide —I recognise that the hon. Member for Spen Valley does not like the term suicide, and I apologise, but we are using legal terms here. The fact is that there is a distinction in law between the act of suicide and the decision to decline treatment.
I refer in particular to the famous case of Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland in 1993, and quote Lord Goff, of the House of Lords, who said that
“in cases of this kind, there is no question of the patient having committed suicide, nor therefore of the doctor having aided or abetted him in doing so. It is simply that the patient has, as he is entitled to do, declined to consent to treatment which might or would have the effect of prolonging his life, and the doctor has, in accordance with his duty, complied with his patient’s wishes.”
I also quote Sir Thomas Bingham, as he then was, who said that in the case of Tony Bland it was plainly not suicide, and that
“it was not the discontinuance of artificial feeding but the patient’s condition and its underlying cause which caused his death”.
In the withdrawal of treatment, it is not the act of withdrawing treatment that kills someone, but their disease, or the condition they have, whereas in assisted suicide it is the act that kills them. That is a crucial distinction, and that distinction is apparent. We heard it this morning in remarks from my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley and my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, and I think from the hon. Member for Spen Valley, who pointed out that there is a difference between the two cases, as is evident with respect to advanced directives that allow for the withdrawal of treatment. They do not allow for the active administration of treatment; they allow for the withdrawal of treatment. They would not allow for assisted dying, as the hon. Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire accurately said.
This goes to the heart of the matter. There is a difference between being left alone and demanding that something is done to us. The state protects our right to be left alone. It does not yet give us the right to have something done to us simply because we asked for it.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
The proposal in the Bill is not about someone doing something to someone: it is about self-administration and someone being able to do something to themselves. The point is about the choice to do that.
Danny Kruger
I recognise that, and that the Bill makes a distinction in respect of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, which would be the doctor doing it to us. The Bill specifies that the drugs must be self-administered. I do not understand the logic of that distinction, but I recognise that there is an attempt to make the Bill more palatable and that the distinction has been preserved. Nevertheless, the Bill would enable a doctor to prescribe lethal drugs with the purpose of ending a life. That is an act that is performed: a person is prescribed drugs to end their life. Whether they take the pills or press the syringe themselves, the act has been performed, and the prescribed drugs kill the person.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend will recall the evidence from Professor Hoyano, who said she could not legally see the distinction between a doctor handing the pills to somebody to take themselves and the doctor pulling the plug out of the wall to turn off the ventilator or whatever machine might be keeping the person alive. Both of them are an act by a doctor at the request of the patient to foreshorten their death and avoid whatever they contemplate at the end.
I realise we are dealing with semantics here. We might have an irreconcilable difference about such an act, but I have to say that from the point of view of a patient—the person approaching their death—those two acts seem to be broadly the same. In both circumstances I am requesting that a doctor do something to hasten my death, because I do not wish to continue living in the circumstances presented to me.
Danny Kruger
My right hon. Friend articulates the point well. I do not think it is a semantic decision: there is a real distinction. The fact is that unplugging the ventilator leads to death, but what kills the patient is not the administration of any treatment or drugs that have been provided. The patient dies naturally, whereas the administration of drugs designed to kill them is a qualitatively different event. I agree that of course the ultimate effect is the same, but the act that is performed is qualitatively different, and indeed the intention of the doctor is different.
Kit Malthouse
Forgive me, but surely the whole point of what we are trying to do here is to give people the opportunity to avoid the natural death that is presented to them. We hear again and again, and we heard it from the families who gave evidence, that people profoundly wished to avoid their natural end because it was going to be degrading, unpleasant and profoundly painful on every level. That is the whole purpose of the act. To say that we should avoid that issue seems to me to negate our whole reason for being here.
Danny Kruger
We are trying to avoid suffering, pain and bad deaths. We all share that view. Indeed, later amendments look explicitly at the purpose of an assisted death and the question of the avoidance of pain. I am simply making the important distinction between the decision to withdraw treatment and the decision to administer fatal drugs, which, as I say, are qualitatively different—different in principle and different in practice.
Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)
To build on the point made by the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire, this is the heart of the issue. You are right that they are slightly different things.
Kim Leadbeater
Sorry, Sir Roger. The hon. Member is correct. It gets to the heart of whether we think this is the right thing to do. The Bill Committee’s job is to put that decision back to the House. It is not for us to decide today; it is for us to have the discussion about how we can improve the Bill and send it back to the House.
The hon. Member is absolutely right to say that it gets to the heart of the issue. I think dying people should be given that choice. In the same way that they are given the choice to have treatment withdrawn or the machine turned off, they should be given the choice to take control and to have the autonomy and dignity that assisted death will provide.
Danny Kruger
The hon. Lady has expressed very well her whole purpose for the Bill. In a sense, all the debates we are having about safeguards, protections, process and eligibility are secondary to her purpose, which is to give autonomy to patients. One has to ask about the purpose of the safeguards, particularly the one on people having to administer the drugs themselves. In all jurisdictions where physician-assisted suicide is legal, that is the option that people overwhelmingly opt for—I certainly would if I were in that situation.
The hon. Lady is right, and that is what she is trying to do: she simply wants the Bill to go through. I take strong issue with her implied point that our purpose here is simply to work out the Bill’s implementation. We are looking at each clause, line by line, to decide whether it is safe or not. As she said herself at the time, the decision on Second Reading was a vote in principle to continue the discussion, which is what we are doing now. We are closely and minutely examining whether every clause is safe.
Kim Leadbeater
On that point, it is not an either/or. It is not just about passing legislation that improves choice and gives autonomy and dignity to dying people, and indeed fixes the current failings of the law as it stands, as we have discussed in great detail. It is about providing safeguards that make sure that is done safely, securely and robustly, and that address the issues and concerns we are discussing. It is not an either/or and it is important to make that distinction.
The Chair
Order. You cannot intervene on an intervention. Let us be absolutely clear about that. The hon. Lady was intervening on the hon. Gentleman who has the floor. If he now wishes to give way, he may do so.
Danny Kruger
If the hon. Lady would like to intervene on me, I would be happy to give way.
Juliet Campbell
To go back to the amendment, we were talking about the Mental Capacity Act. The use of that Act must be drawn into question, because it was never intended as legislation for assisted dying. Much of what has been said in favour of using the MCA relates to it being tried and tested, and people understanding it, and the idea that to use anything else would make life complicated for professionals who use it as part of their day-to-day activities when assessing capacity.
On the surface, those reasons seem reasonable, and it is an easy option. However, if the MCA does not meet the threshold of meeting the needs of everyone, convenience should not be the deciding factor. Convenience cannot be considered as a sufficient reason to use the MCA as a fundamental element of the Bill. The assisted dying Bill in itself is enough reason to have an alternative measure to determine an individual’s eligibility to be considered for assisted dying.
The Chair
Order. I am going to have to draw the hon. Lady to order. An intervention is an intervention. I accept that we have slightly more flexibility in Committee than we do on the Floor of the House, but the hon Lady, and indeed all hon. Members, have to understand that speeches are speeches and interventions are interventions. That said, it is the job of the Chair to make absolutely certain that every Member has the right and the opportunity to speak. If the hon. Lady wishes to make a speech, that is entirely within her right: all she has to do is indicate to the Chair that she would like to be called and she will get called.
Danny Kruger
I am grateful to the hon. Lady; her points are absolutely right. Even if the House concludes that the overall principle is right, as the hon. Member for Spen Valley suggested, if it is not possible to do it safely, we should not do it at all. My great concern is that proceeding with the use of the Mental Capacity Act as it currently stands in the Bill will make the Bill dangerous.
Let me conclude my point about the difference between assisted dying and the withdrawing of treatment. To decline treatment is to assent to nature; it is to let one’s body do what it will. To commit suicide is to contradict nature; it is to do something to one’s body that interrupts its own plans. I recognise that the outcome is the same —it is death—but we are considering the process of decision making in the clause, and the decision is fundamentally different.
The Chair
It might be helpful for the Committee to know that I was bequeathed a list by Ms McVey. I understand that those wishing to speak are the hon. Member for Bradford West, the Minister, and the promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for Spen Valley. I shall then call the hon. Member for Richmond Park, who tabled the amendment, to wind up the debate.
If anybody else wishes to speak, please indicate in the normal fashion by rising. I will call the hon. Member for Broxtowe if she wishes to speak, but I need to know whether she wants to. If she stands up at the right time, that will be fine. Please be aware that once I have called the mover of the amendment to wind up, there will be no further debate on the subject. That really will be the end of the debate.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park.
The key word here is “capacity”. There has been much debate around the Mental Capacity Act. I will go back to the oral evidence we heard, as well as the written evidence and submissions in relation to the amendments and the clause. The psychiatrists who have advised are against it. I appreciate and recognise the contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Penistone and Stocksbridge and for Bexleyheath and Crayford, who spoke eloquently about the word “ability” from his experience. I recognise that we have not had the opportunity to test the concept of ability.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
I appreciate my hon. Friend bringing up that point. It is important to note that all Commonwealth jurisdictions that have assisted dying use the concept of mental capacity. We are basing the utility of the Mental Capacity Act not only on 20 years of the courts and medics dealing with it, but on the learning of other jurisdictions that have put assisted dying in place. The concept of ability, however, has no basis in law.
Naz Shah
I absolutely concur that we are testing in regard to other jurisdictions. In Oregon, there is not just the assessment of capacity but a referral to a counsellor.
We have had lots of evidence when it comes to capacity, and I will go back to some of the key points. The Royal College of Psychiatrists stated explicitly that the Mental Capacity Act is
“not sufficient for the purposes of this Bill.”
Explaining why, the Royal College of Psychiatrists said that assessing the capacity to end one’s life is “entirely different” from assessing for the capacity to decide treatment.
Three psychiatrists who gave evidence to the Committee —Professor Allan House, Dr Annabel Price and Professor Gareth Owen—all expressed doubts about the use of the Mental Capacity Act to assess whether a person was in a fit state of mind to undertake assisted dying. When Professor Allan House was asked why some people might choose assisted dying, he said they are vulnerable. When asked what he meant by that, he said:
“They are not people asserting autonomy and pleasure in their ability to make a choice; they are people describing to you things that are negative influences on their life.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 161, Q202.]
Professor Gareth Owen said:
“I have looked at mental capacity a lot in research, and there is no experience of the decision to end one’s own life. It is outside the experience of the Mental Capacity Act, the Court of Protection, the associated research and practitioners on the ground. The reference to the Mental Capacity Act in clause 3 puts you into an area where there is no experience of the central capacity question under consideration. It is very important that Parliament be clear-eyed about that.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 226, Q287.]
Dr Tidball
On the hon. Lady’s point about being clear-eyed, it is important that we look closely at the drafting of the Bill and the utility of the Mental Capacity Act. There are eight occasions on which a person who might seek assistance can formally consider their decision making, and the Mental Capacity Act would come into play at each of those stages. A person with a terminal illness who wishes to seek assistance does not make a one-off decision; they make the decision eight times during the process, so we have a wide variety of opportunities to ensure that their consent is ongoing.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
A very good point has been made about looking at the Mental Capacity Act at different times during the process. However, it does not matter how many times a bad process is applied; if the process is insufficient and does not have a high enough safeguard, it will never give the right answer. We need to ensure that we have the right test. It is absolutely right that we apply it multiple times, but does the hon. Lady agree that we need to consider the quality of what we are applying in the first place?
Naz Shah
I completely agree.
Professor Owen also said:
“I have had over 20 years of research interest in mental capacity. When I look at the issues relating to mental capacity with the Bill…the other important point to understand is that they are very novel. We are in uncharted territory with respect to mental capacity, which is very much at the hub of the Bill.” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 226, Q286.]
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford, I am certainly not a doctor, although I have experience in the NHS, but I do know that we do not have psychiatric experts or experts on capacity in this Committee.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
Earlier, the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley made a point about public confidence in the Bill. In oral evidence, the representatives from the Royal College of Psychiatrists—we nearly did not hear from them; we had a vote about whether we would, and they were added later—made it clear that they have severe doubts about applying the Mental Capacity Act to the Bill. Does my hon. Friend share those concerns?
Naz Shah
I absolutely share those concerns, which is why I pressed the issue to a vote. As I have explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, I am grateful that the Royal College of Psychiatrists gave evidence. It said that the Mental Capacity Act
“is not sufficient for the purposes of this Bill”.
In oral evidence, Professor Jamilla Hussain, an expert in palliative care and health inequalities, highlighted an inequity in assessment using the Mental Capacity Act. She said that she does not think that
“the Mental Capacity Act and safeguarding training are fit for purpose. For something like assisted dying, we need a higher bar—we need to reduce the variability in practice.” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 199, Q260.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge mentioned the process in the Bill being repeated eight times, but I want to bring us back to the issue of capacity in relation to coercion. The Royal College of Psychiatrists said:
“In any assessment of capacity, we must also consider whether a person is making the request because they consider that they are a burden or because they do not consider that they have access to effective treatments or good-quality palliative care. At a population level, palliative care, social care and mental health service provision may impact the demand”
for an assisted dying service. Although I appreciate that we will debate this in greater detail later, on clauses relating to coercion, it relates to the issue of capacity. In her evidence to the Committee, Chelsea Roff, a specialist in eating disorders, said:
“One thing I would like to highlight in our study is that all 60 people who died”
by assisted dying after suffering from anorexia, who were mostly young women,
“were found to have mental capacity to make the decision to end their life, so I worry that mental capacity will not be an effective safeguard to prevent people with eating disorders from qualifying under the Bill.
I also note that Oregon and California, where I am from and where we have found cases, have an additional safeguard to mental capacity. That is, if there are any indications that the person might have a mental disorder, that person must be referred for a mental health assessment.” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 141, Q177.]
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
I completely agree with the point the hon. Lady is making about mental capacity applying to eating disorders, but would that not be better debated in relation to defining an eating disorder as a terminal illness, rather than in regard to mental capacity?
Naz Shah
I will be speaking to the issue in relation to terminal illness, because it relates to my amendment in another grouping. The reason I am making this point now is that it also impacts on capacity. When we are assessing capacity—again, this talks to the point—the truth is that nobody in this Bill Committee or otherwise can tell me that the Mental Capacity Act has been applied to the question, “Would you like assisted dying?”
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
First, it is impossible to argue that, because we have never been able to have assisted dying in this country, so it is a spurious argument. However, I do not quite understand the argument here. You are suggesting—
Dr Opher
I am sorry. My hon. Friend is suggesting that a system that has been tried and tested in court and by clinicians throughout the country over the last 20 years is not preferrable to a new system that is completely untried. I thought this Committee was about making these things safe for patients, and I cannot see how the amendment makes them more safe.
Naz Shah
My hon. Friend speaks to my point and the idea that the Act has been tried and tested. When we are talking about coercion, and capacity in relation to coercion, I come back to the point that we in this House have only just, in 2015 and 2021, made legislation using the word “coercion”. It was not recognised before. On the idea that this has been tried and tested for the last 20 years, I simply beg to differ.
Coercion does come into the issue of capacity. We are looking at the Mental Capacity Act, which was introduced in 2005 and is 20 years old. These conversations were not being had in Parliament at that time; the vocabulary did not include “coercion” or “undue influence”, even at the time the Mental Capacity Act was passed by this House. Again, that speaks to my point: are we really saying that we want to test the Mental Capacity Act on something that has never been done before?
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
I am trying to understand my hon. Friend’s argument. In terms of a person choosing to ask their doctor to turn off their life support machine, as opposed to someone offering a person drugs to self-administer, I understand that there are differences in terms of public policy and that, for some, there are differences morally. However, in terms of capacity—the decision as to whether that person can make that choice themselves—why is it different?
Naz Shah
The hon. Member for East Wiltshire answered that question eloquently earlier. Although the outcome is the same, we are asking two different questions. The question is not about turning off and unplugging a machine; it is about whether someone will take drugs to end their life.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
To follow the basic premise of your argument—
Jack Abbott
It is not your argument, Sir Roger; it is my hon. Friend’s argument. I apologise.
To follow the basic premise of my hon. Friend’s argument, she is saying that the Mental Capacity Act is not tried and tested for what we are discussing. However, by definition, neither is this amendment; if anything, it is even worse, because words such as “ability”, which we are discussing here, have absolutely no basis, as was admitted by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire. On that basic premise, my hon. Friend will not agree with any amendment that is tabled today, because none of them is tried and tested. Is that correct?
Naz Shah
My hon. Friend is not wrong, in so far as there can be two truths. There is a truth, for me, that the Mental Capacity Act does not deliver what we need it to deliver, and that is the concern we have heard from people who have given us evidence. We have not talked about the word “ability”—as hon. Members have pointed out, it is not set out in law—so there is a conversation to be had.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, the promoter of the Bill, clearly stated, this is about strengthening the Bill and bringing the best Bill to Parliament to give people a choice. That is what this is about.
Danny Kruger
The hon. Member is making such an important speech, and I am very grateful to her. This is a crucial discussion. The hon. Member for Ipswich suggested that the amendment would make things worse because it would apply a new test.
Danny Kruger
I respect that. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that there would be a new test, but it is for a new situation. I want to alert the Committee to the purpose behind this amendment. I understand that we are in a slightly polarised discussion. The hon. Member for Bradford West and I both voted against the Bill on Second Reading, and it is not likely that we will ever support it. Nevertheless, I encourage hon. Members to consider that the amendment, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park, who is not opposed to assisted dying in principle, is genuinely trying to ensure that the Bill is as safe as it can be. All that has been proposed, as the hon. Member for Bradford West suggests, is a strengthening and a recognition of the importance of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act, without the—
Danny Kruger
I will conclude my intervention very quickly. I fear that I may have mischaracterised the hon. Member for Bradford West when I said that she is opposed to the Bill in principle; in fact, I do not think that is the case. I am not sure what the difference is between opposition in principle and opposition to the detail, but I recognise that she is certainly not opposed to the Bill in principle, so I apologise to her.
Does the hon. Lady agree that the Bill would take a great leap in the dark by legalising assisted dying? At the moment, that leap lands on the uneven ground of the Mental Capacity Act. Does she agree that, if we want to do this properly, we should prepare a solid, cushioned, safe landing space that is appropriate for the Bill, rather than the inappropriate mess that the Mental Capacity Act would induce?
Naz Shah
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his correction. To clarify, I do not think anybody in this House disagrees in principle with the idea of not letting people suffer. I am very much about principle, and I came to this Committee very much in that spirit. When I was asked to join this Committee, I had to sleep on it, and I now realise why.
I am grateful for the interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Rother Valley and for Ipswich. There are a couple of things that are important for us to understand. The Mental Capacity Act has not been tried in any of the other jurisdictions across the world on which we are basing this law, so we cannot make a comparison.
On the issue of whether it is either/or—whether it is the Mental Capacity Act or the word “ability”—the Secretary of State has the power to change that. If we are to be true to the spirit in which we have come to this debate to make the Bill as safe as possible, given that so many psychiatrists and experts have said that they are not convinced that the Mental Capacity Act is fit for purpose in this regard, surely it is incumbent on us to make that case.
Jack Abbott
My hon. Friend said that the Mental Capacity Act is not tried and tested, and I was challenging the premise that we should apply a concept that is not tried and tested in this or any other country. She is saying, “I can’t support the Mental Capacity Act in its current form because it is not tried and tested,” but, following that argument, she would presumably not support this amendment or any others because what they propose is also not tried and tested.
Naz Shah
This amendment is an attempt to have that conversation and to strengthen the concepts that we are debating. That is the whole point of the Committee. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley said, there is no point in having witnesses if we do not listen to what they say. This is what the witnesses said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich makes a valid point. He asks whether I would, by that definition, support this amendment. I support it because it has led to a debate that we have had all morning, and that we are carrying on into the afternoon. As it is, the Bill does not give me confidence, whether it is due to the use of the Mental Capacity Act or the definition of “ability”. I feel that it needs to go much further, perhaps through the Secretary of State tabling another amendment at a later point.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
We heard many pieces of oral evidence from expert psychiatrists, including from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, saying that the Mental Capacity Act is not fit for the Bill. Even if we use the Act, many conditions such as depression or delirium —or the effects of some medication—can impact on people’s decision making. It is worrying when someone like Dr Rachel Clarke, who has extensive experience in the Mental Capacity Act and has been training medical students and nurses, says of those mental capacity assessments that
“it is often the case that they are…poorly conducted.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 71, Q85.]
Would my hon. Friend agree that rather than use the Mental Capacity Act, the “ability” amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park would be more suitable and make the Bill safer?
Naz Shah
I know that my hon. Friend comes from a mental health background and has worked as a professional in this area. I absolutely agree that we need to strengthen the Bill, which is why I will support the amendment. I feel that we must strengthen it because the Secretary of State can make some interventions.
Kit Malthouse
I want to clarify what the Royal College of Psychiatrists actually said, because I realise that the hon. Member is relying a lot on that evidence. In an exchange with me in their oral evidence, the doctor from the royal college said that if I were to equate the decision to refuse treatment with the decision to request a hastening of my death in extremis as qualitatively the same, and of the same seriousness and outcome, then the Mental Capacity Act may well be appropriate for the decision. The difference was information. We would be relying on the notion of informed consent, and therefore on the information that the person was being given about the consequences of that decision.
We will be debating later in Committee the information that is given to a person to form that decision, but I do not think it is quite the case that the psychiatrist said that it could not be or was not fit for purpose. Actually, they said that it may well be sufficient if we equate those two decisions—and many of us do.
Naz Shah
I know the right hon. Member speaks with a huge amount of experience. I am very new to the subject, but I know that the evidence from the psychiatrist was very certain—not “may well be”. The language that they used, which I referred to earlier, was very clear that it is not a good standard. They said:
“We are in uncharted territory with respect to mental capacity, which is very much at the hub of the Bill”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 226, Q286.]
and there is an inequity in assessment using the Mental Capacity Act. There were other categorical statements made—there was no “maybe” in there. For me, a “maybe” does not cut it at this level; the test should be much higher in order to take the option of assisted death.
Kit Malthouse
If the hon. Lady goes to column 277 of Hansard from that oral evidence session, Dr Price said:
“You are equating a refusal of treatment, in capacity terms, to hastening death by assisted dying. If those two things are equated, in terms of the gravity and the quality of the decision, the Mental Capacity Act may well be sufficient, but there are differences. There are differences in the information that the person would need and what they would need to understand.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 277, Q361.]
It is clear what Dr Price said. To be honest, the question was partly prompted as we had become a little confused, because the whole practice of psychiatry in the UK is founded on the Act at the moment. She seemed to be implying that somehow the entire practice of psychiatry in the UK was on unstable ground—and I do not think anybody is claiming that.
Danny Kruger
It is interesting that my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire has cited that, and I will look at Hansard. However, what I just heard him say, quoting the doctor from the Royal College, was that if we equate the gravity of the cases, it would be appropriate. That is the equivalent of saying that if the two cases are the same, the mechanism can be the same.
Crucially, I do not believe that the Royal College does equate the gravity of the two cases. Its written evidence states that while
“a person’s capacity to decide treatment can be reliably assessed, an assessment of a person’s mental capacity to decide to end their own life is an entirely different and more complex determination requiring a higher level of understanding.”
It regards the two cases as different in principle and therefore requiring different tests.
Naz Shah
I think that the hon. Member’s intervention responds to some of the points of the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire.
We have heard a lot about the equivalence of endings versus decisions. The example given earlier, of somebody pulling the plug because they did not want treatment any more, happens in very few cases. From my experience of working in the NHS and with disabled people, when people are at the end of life, their cases sometimes do end up in court in front of a judge. That may be because there is a difference of opinion—be it medical, between the family, to do with capacity, or whatever the issue is. We are removing that. My understanding is that the promoter of the Bill is removing the need for the judge and is proposing a panel, which is what I read in The Guardian earlier.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
I wonder whether the hon. Lady can help me with an area of her argument that I am conflicted by. I have heard the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire, drawing the distinction between those who refuse treatment for a condition that is then terminal and those actively seeking assistance in ending their life. There is a third group who choose to refuse food and nutrition. That is not a treatment in the conventional sense, to combat a disease process, that is normal sustenance that would keep someone alive. Given that the MCA applies to that decision and someone’s ability to refuse on that basis, how does that interplay with the amendment as proposed?
Naz Shah
I have tabled an amendment to a later clause that talks specifically to that. The word “only” needs to be removed. We have seen this in Oregon, which I will come to later. We heard in the oral evidence that 60 women assessed to have capacity died because they had anorexia.
Kim Leadbeater
In respect of those numbers, it is important to be really clear that the vast majority of those circumstances were in the Netherlands and in other jurisdictions that have a much broader set of eligibility criteria than the Bill. We are talking about a very small number of cases in jurisdictions with a similar set of criteria to ours. It is important to make that point.
Naz Shah
My understanding, which comes from Chelsea Roff, was that that happened specifically in places such as Oregon and California, but I am happy to revisit that. Coming back to the point, we must ensure that people with an eating disorder such as anorexia or a mental health condition will be excluded from the Bill. That will be my second amendment. I do not know if that answers the question.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
It may well have been the way that I phrased it, but the point I was seeking to make was that the Mental Capacity Act, as it currently operates, can be used for those patients who choose to refuse food and water. My view would be that that is a distinct group of people who are refusing active treatment. Given the hon. Lady’s distinction between those who refuse treatment in the conventional sense and those who are seeking assisted dying and her view that for the latter group the MCA is not the appropriate mechanism, is she saying that for that group of individuals who refuse food and water—effectively choosing to end their life through starvation—the MCA is not an appropriate mechanism to assess their capacity?
Kim Leadbeater
I do not think that the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley is saying that this is about people with eating disorders or anorexia; he is asking about people who are terminally ill who stop eating and drinking. They do that as a course of action to essentially end their own lives. It does happen on a fairly regular basis. We have had testimonies from families who have watched loved ones essentially starve themselves to death. It is different from having an eating disorder or being anorexic.
Rebecca Paul
I think that one of the points being made is the difference between something that is active and something that is passive—for example, someone who chooses not to take that next level of chemotherapy because they have had enough, they have gone through a lot of it or it was painful, and chooses, in the example the hon. Member for Spen Valley just gave, not to eat and drink. That is one case, but it is very different from someone choosing to end their own life, which requires active participation and involves other people too. That would be the key difference, which I wonder if the Member for Bradford West agrees with.
Naz Shah
I do agree. I also want to push back on the idea that it happens fairly regularly. I would welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley giving us the evidence of where it says that, because that is not my recollection of the evidence we have gone through so far. I appreciate that we have not gone through all of it; there might be more that we have not seen.
Sojan Joseph
On a point of clarification, under the Mental Capacity Act, if somebody decided to stop eating and drinking, we would let them do it until they became unconscious, and then their best interests would come into effect. We would take them into treatment if there were a risk to their life. Would my hon. Friend agree that that needs to be clarified?
Naz Shah
This whole conversation has taught me that we are not on top of the Mental Capacity Act or the conversation about ability, which is why it is so important to have these conversations, even if it is just to try to get to the nub of the issue. Amendments that I will speak to later will clarify my position, but from the evidence I have heard, I will be supporting the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park. That is because the test needs to be much higher than the Mental Capacity Act on its own when it concerns the issue of choosing assisted dying. For that reason, I will support the amendment.
Juliet Campbell
I thank the Committee for allowing me to reiterate the importance of a stand-alone approach. The use of the Mental Capacity Act must be questioned, as the Act was never intended to legislate for assisted dying. Much of what has been said in favour of using the Mental Capacity Act has been about it being tried and tested, so people understand it and to use anything else would make life complicated for professionals who use it as part of their day-to-day activities in assessing capacity.
On the surface, those reasons do seem reasonable and make the Mental Capacity Act an easy option. If, however, the Act does not pass the threshold of meeting everyone’s needs, convenience should not be the deciding factor. Convenience cannot be considered a sufficient reason to use the Mental Capacity Act, as it is a fundamental element of the Bill. The Bill is in itself enough reason to have an alternative or stand-alone approach to determine an individual’s eligibility to be considered for an assisted death.
Capacity is a complicated issue and cannot be oversimplified for convenience. The MCA may be fit for its current purpose, but it is not fit for the purpose of the assisted dying Bill. I have spent more than 20 years working on the equalities agenda, and one of the things that I have learned—this has been a consistent shortfall—is that we try to address new challenges with old solutions, rather than trying to meet the needs of the people we intend to serve. That is the reason why I will be supporting the amendment.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. As was noted earlier, the Government remain neutral. My role here is not to offer a Government view on the merits of the amendments but to provide a factual explanation of their technical and practical effect, to assist the Committee in its scrutiny. This group of amendments focuses on the concept of mental capacity. As drafted, the Bill, in clause 3, states that
“references to a person having capacity are to be read in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005”,
with sections 1 to 3 of that Act establishing the principles and criteria for assessing a person’s capacity to make decisions. New clause 1, which would replace clause 3, and amendments 34 to 47, would collectively introduce the concept of an individual having the ability to make the decision to request assistance to end their life. A person’s ability would be determined by whether they could
“fully understand, use and weigh the relevant information in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State”.
That is intended to replace the term “capacity”, used in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which provides a very specific definition of what it means to lack capacity in relation to a particular decision. A lack of capacity under this framework means that a person must be unable to understand, use and weigh information relevant to the decision, and that that must be directly caused by
“an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain.”
The “ability” proposal, as drafted, deals only with the use and weight of information.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
To go back to the point I made this morning—I am happy to stand corrected, but nobody has disputed it—two issues continue to concern me in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and the code of conduct. The first is that the doctor would have a choice, under chapter 5 of the guidance, as to whether it is practical and appropriate to consult other people—with regard to learning disability, for instance.
Also, we have not discussed principle 2 in chapter 2, which says that the doctor has to do everything practicable to try to help the person to make the decision for themselves, before concluding that they do not have the capacity to do so. The principal concern for some Members remains those issues in relation to the Mental Capacity Act, which have not been considered for this scenario. I would like the Minister to address them and the fact that that Act, which was written 20 years ago, was not written for this scenario.
Stephen Kinnock
The fundamental position of the Government is that the Mental Capacity Act as it stands is a known quantity. It provides the legal base for a whole range of measures and interventions, and the Government’s view is that it would be an adequate legal base to operationalise the Bill should it receive Royal Assent. Our position on it goes no further than that; it is simply a matter of fact that there is a piece of legislation that is a known quantity.
Naz Shah
The Minister makes an important point. I just want to understand something. He speaks on behalf of the Government and says that the Mental Capacity Act is an adequate legal base as it stands. Perhaps the issue is just that I am new to the process—I am happy to be guided, Sir Roger—but we have not had an impact assessment. Normally, Bills do have impact assessments beforehand and the Government go out to consult; they have a consultation process. None of that has happened because the Bill is a private Member’s Bill. I am just trying to understand: is what has been said still true? How do the Government come to that conclusion without all those robust mechanisms that would normally go before a Government Bill?
Stephen Kinnock
As I set out from the Dispatch Box when we had the money resolution, the Government will publish an impact assessment before Report. Given that this is a highly dynamic Bill, with a whole range of amendments having been tabled, and that it is not really possible to publish an impact assessment on the basis of a Bill that has not cleared a Bill Committee, there is a simple point of sequencing. That is why we are going to publish the impact assessment after the Bill Committee has completed.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
I was glad to hear what the Minister said about the Government accepting the Mental Capacity Act as a basis. We should remember that in 2005, that Act widened the availability of autonomy for individuals. We are discussing that here: how to enable autonomy for individuals. I also really welcome what the hon. Member for Bradford West said about impact assessments. Can the Minister commit now to an impact assessment specifically for Wales? The context of health and social care there is very different from that in England.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the right hon. Member for her intervention. We have had a conversation about the need to ensure that the impact assessment has a clear and specific focus on the impact in Wales. I can absolutely assure her that either there will be a separate impact assessment for Wales, or we will ensure that the impact assessment that we produce is absolutely clear in terms of the impact that it will have in Wales; it will be one of those two.
Personally, I am agnostic as to which of those it is. It is simply a question of what works best given the highly integrated nature of the conversation because the criminal justice aspects of it are a reserved competence, while health and care are a devolved competence. What is the best way to present that—having a single document or two separate documents? I am not entirely clear, but I have undertaken to check the matter with officials. I will get back to the right hon. Lady as soon as possible on that point.
Danny Kruger
I am very puzzled, on two grounds. The first is about the impact assessment. I simply do not understand the argument that the Government have to wait until the end of the Committee stage before they can have a view on the Bill and present it for Report. The fact is that the Bill could change again on Report, and the impact assessment would have to be updated further. Why on earth do we not have an impact assessment, which could advise the members of the Committee and the Government themselves on the appropriateness of the measures?
That brings me to my second point of confusion: I simply do not understand what on earth the Minister means when he says that he is neutral about the clauses. He has just given the view, from his position, that he objects to the amendment and that he supports the use of the Mental Capacity Act. He is basing his view— I had understood that, as a neutral member of the Committee, he was not going to express one—on something. What is he basing it on? Secondly, how can he express a view when he is supposed to be neutral?
Stephen Kinnock
The Government choose when to bring forward an impact assessment based on the passage of the Bill through the House. We have had reports today about a very substantial amendment to clause 12 that may well be brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, for example. It is not possible for the Government to conduct and publish an impact assessment when quite significant changes are being made.
I also gently point out to the hon. Member for East Wiltshire that this is not a Government Bill; it is a private Member’s Bill. It is also worth noting that it is unprecedented, as far as I know, to have oral evidence sessions for a private Member’s Bill, so we are already on relatively uncharted territory. It is also relatively uncharted territory to have, on a Bill Committee, Ministers who are neutral because the position of the Government is neutral. But that reflects the fact that this is indeed uncharted territory, so that is where we stand.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about our own positions on the subject; I speak also for the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green. It is a matter of public record that I supported the Bill on Second Reading. It is also the case that we vote, as members of the Committee, on the basis of our conscience because this is a matter of conscience; that is why the Government are neutral on it. There is no whipping from the usual channels.
At the same time, we are articulating the position of the Government. The hon. Member for East Wiltshire asked how we come to that position. It is through the usual process of engaging with officials and experts in the field, and through taking into account all the considerations that the Government need to take into account for the operationalisation of the Bill. The Government then come to a view, and that is the view that I express when I am on the Committee.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Minister says that the Government have made their own choice about when to do the impact assessment on the Bill. Does he not accept that it would have made sense to have done it before the Committee stage? Then, any evidence that the assessment threw up could have given rise to amendments tabled during the Committee stage—that would have made it an appropriate time to have done the impact assessment. The impact assessment could then always have been updated depending on how the Bill was then amended during Committee.
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Member makes an interesting point. I simply reiterate that this is a very dynamic Bill Committee; I believe that 362 amendments have been tabled. Given the Government’s focus on establishing the Bill’s implementability, the coherence of the statute, the legal dimensions and the complexity of what we are dealing with, we took the position that it was better to wait for the Bill to clear Committee stage before producing an impact assessment. To do otherwise could have involved a large amount of second-guessing based on radical changes that might well have come out of the Bill Committee. I reiterate the logic of that sequencing.
On the point about the established legal framework, which clinicians have been applying since 2007, “capacity” would still be used for other decisions about care and treatment.
I turn to amendment 202, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on the advice of the Government. It ensures that the assessment of “capacity” is utilised by the assessing doctor, and corrects a typographical error in clause 9 to ensure that an assessment of capacity will apply consistently throughout the Bill. As I said earlier, how and whether the law on assisted dying should change is a matter for this Committee and for Parliament as a whole. However, I hope that these observations are helpful to the Committee when considering potential changes put forward.
Kim Leadbeater
I will try to keep my comments brief. It is excellent that we have had such a thorough debate on this particular issue, but I am also very conscious of time.
I will do the quick and easy bit first. As the Minister has just said, amendment 202 is to correct a typographical error in the initial drafting of the Bill—despite the high level of expertise involved in the initial drafting of the Bill, that one managed to sneak through. The amendment would simply change the word “capability” to “capacity”, to be consistent with the rest of the Bill.
I now come to amendments 34 to 47 and new clause 1. As we have discussed, those would replace the concept of “capacity”, which is based on the Mental Capacity Act, with a new concept of “ability”. I think that suggestion is coming from a good place and is made with good intention by the hon. Member for Richmond Park; I thank her for her positive engagement with the Bill. However, based on the oral evidence that we received, particularly from the chief medical officer and many other experts, the suggestion would seem unnecessary given that we already have—as has been discussed at length this afternoon—a very well established piece of legislation that is effective in this regard.
The primary purpose of the Mental Capacity Act is to promote and safeguard decision making within a legal framework. As the CMO and other colleagues have said, issues around mental capacity
“are dealt with every day, in every hospital up and down the country; every doctor and nurse above a certain level of seniority should be able to do that normally.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 31, Q3.]
That view was supported by Yogi Amin, an expert in Court of Protection work, human rights and civil liberties, who told us during the oral evidence sessions:
“It is well understood how capacity assessments are done, and it is ingrained”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 140, Q176.]
Sean Woodcock
We all understand the evidence of the chief medical officer and why he and others, including Members here, prefer the use of the Mental Capacity Act. It is understood by doctors and it is used every day.
What this debate is fundamentally about is that assisted dying is not done every day. It is not something doctors are used to. As somebody who has said that she wants the toughest safeguards, it is incumbent on my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley to understand that what those of us who have concerns about the Bill are saying is that this is unusual. It is a step into the dark.
The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park is about making sure that the issue is not just about what doctors are used to, but that there is another safeguard to ensure that people are not being exploited. Does my hon. Friend understand that?
Kim Leadbeater
I do. I take my hon. Friend’s comments on board and I will come to address them. As other colleagues have established, it would seem nonsensical to try to introduce a brand new legislative framework rather than use an existing piece of legislation that has stood the test of time. Indeed, Professor Laura Hoyano, emeritus professor of law at the University of Oxford, who has worked in civil liberties, human rights and domestic abuse, said:
“It is interesting that a number of Members of Parliament who are practising physicians pointed out in the debate that they have to evaluate freedom of decision making and absence of coercion in many different medical contexts.”
She talked about the withdrawal of medical treatment, as others have this afternoon, and went on:
“It is considered to be a fundamental human right that lies at the heart of medical law that a patient has personal autonomy to decide what to do with their body and whether or not to accept medical treatment, provided that they have the capacity to do so...Doctors have to make those assessments all the time.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 227, Q289.]
In the light of that evidence, it would seem unnecessary to create a whole new legal framework around the new concept of ability.
However, although I think the Mental Capacity Act is the correct legal framework to use, I strongly agree with palliative care doctor Rachel Clarke when it comes to additional training on assessing capacity for the purposes of this Bill, which relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury. She strongly encouraged us to give serious consideration to this matter, saying:
“If there is one thing that I would say to the Committee regarding making the Bill as robust, strong and safe as possible, it is: please consider seriously the matter of education and training from day one of medical school onwards.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 71, Q85.]
The CMO also suggested that training on capacity, as has been discussed, may require some slight adjustment. He said:
“There is an absolute expectation within the Act, for example, that the more serious the decision, the greater the level of capacity that someone needs to have...That training should be generic, but may need some adaption.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 30-31, Q3.]
I agree. As I have said, I think one of the best things about the Bill is the opportunity it gives us to develop gold-standard training around end-of-life care, end-of-life conversations and choice for terminally ill people. That should include training in assessing capacity specifically for the purposes of the Bill, for a decision that is clearly of such a high level of consequence and seriousness.
Daniel Francis
I absolutely accept what my hon. Friend says about training. I know we have separately discussed places in the Bill where we could replace the word “may” for “must” to make the safeguards stronger. However, I come back to the same points as I made to the Minister. The Mental Capacity Act code of practice, which I presume is what we will be relying on, says:
“If it is practical and appropriate to do so, consult other people for their views about the person’s best interests”.
However, it does not say “must”, and for adults with learning disabilities particularly, that remains a principal concern. Chapter 2 of the code of practice says:
“It is important to do everything practical...to help a person make a decision for themselves before concluding that they lack capacity to do so.”
I know this is not my hon. Friend’s intention, but that is the wording that would lead a doctor to have to help somebody make this decision. My question is: how will we overcome that issue?
Kim Leadbeater
That is a point worth making, and something we will look at through the amendments that my hon. Friend has proposed. I am very happy to look at those, as I have already said, but the idea of creating a whole new concept of ability seems wholly unnecessary in the context of a piece of legislation that has stood the test of time for over 20 years.
I come back to training. Although the full details of the training programme that would accompany the Bill cannot be put on the face of the Bill, I have discussed the issue at length with officials in the Department of Health and I have included amendments to that effect. Amendments 186 and 198 specifically state that training must include assessing capacity and assessing whether a person has been coerced or pressured by any other person. Further comprehensive training will be included in regulations set out by the Secretary of State, and the chief medical officer is confident that that is the correct way to proceed.
Furthermore, as has been referred to, there are multiple opportunities within the process to assess capacity by a range of professionals. I have also tabled new clause 8, which would create a duty for the Secretary of State to consult before making regulations relating to training. Within that, there would be a duty to consult not only the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which is important, but persons with expertise in matters relating to whether persons have capacity and whether persons have been coerced.
Naz Shah
To go back to the point about multiple opportunities and capacity, my understanding from this morning’s Guardian is that an amendment has been tabled—it was mentioned earlier; I do not know whether others have had sight of it, but I certainly have not—on potentially having a panel instead of a judge. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford has just asked a question, and my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley responded by saying that she would come back to it, but my concern is that we are looking at the clause now, and once we have discussed it there will be no going back to it. I am trying to understand at what stage in the process she will come back and fix it. If we are going to address it under clause 9, clause 8 or wherever, how will that impact on clause 1? How will it address the issues that we are debating right now?
Kim Leadbeater
At the moment, we are addressing the fitness for purpose of the Mental Capacity Act, but there are other amendments that will take on board some of my hon. Friend’s points, particularly about people with learning disabilities. I am very happy to look at that. I am working to table an amendment before the recess, to give the Committee an opportunity to look at it in great detail. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West is right that that would provide another opportunity for assessment of capacity with the involvement of psychiatrists and social workers, who have said that that is their expertise and what they excel in, and who feel that they have a valuable role to play in the process.
Naz Shah
At what stage will we know how the amendments that my hon. Friend proposes have an impact on clause 1? If we make amendments later in the Bill, how will that have an impact on the amendments that we have discussed this morning, in particular in relation to capacity?
Kim Leadbeater
Clause 1 is very specifically about the Mental Capacity Act, on which we should get a chance to vote this afternoon. Other amendments can be tabled ahead of Report, but the fitness for purpose of the Mental Capacity Act is a concept on which we will get a chance to vote this afternoon. Other things can be added to the Bill that would enhance other aspects, but the point that we have discussed this afternoon is about the fitness for purpose of the Act. There are different views on the Committee, which is understandable. I believe that using the well-established legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act, introducing gold-standard training and consulting experts in assessing capacity will mean that there is no need to develop a whole new framework around the concept of ability, particularly on the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge. I therefore do not support the amendments.
Sarah Olney
The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley used an arresting phrase this morning: he said that to abandon the Mental Capacity Act would take us “into tiger country”. The concept appeals greatly to me, but what I would say to him and other Committee members is that it is the Bill itself that takes us into tiger country. It is unprecedented, and this is very new territory for legislation in this country. That is the tiger country, right there. If we are going to let those tigers out into the wild, we need to ensure that the British public, and particularly the most vulnerable members of it, have the right protections. That is what the amendment seeks.
There was not a consensus among those who gave oral or written evidence that the Mental Capacity Act is a sufficient safeguard for the purpose proposed in the Bill. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford for his speech this morning, which illustrated vividly for all of us how the Mental Capacity Act is used in practice. I particularly thank him for his personal reflection.
Let me reiterate what the amendment seeks. The Bill proposes to judge mental capacity for a decision to request assisted dying in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. There are elements of the Mental Capacity Act that are tried and tested, and should be retained in assessments of capacity in relation to this legislation, but as per the written evidence of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Mental Capacity Act is not sufficient for the purposes of assisted dying, because it cannot distinguish between those who suffer from a mental disorder and those who do not. It needs to be adapted for the purposes of the Bill.
My amendment 34 would therefore substitute “capacity” with “ability” and reserve to the Secretary of State the power to define ability for the purposes of the Bill. To me, that is a pragmatic response. The debate in the Committee Room today reflects the lack of consensus among the experts who gave witness. That is why I think the matter is better resolved by those experts giving advice to the Secretary of the State, so the definition of ability can be expertly decided on.
The difference between choosing assisting dying and choosing to end treatment was a big topic of debate both this morning and this afternoon. It goes to the heart of the different approaches that people take towards the Bill. I support the observation from the hon. Member for East Wiltshire that the difference is between dying of an illness itself, or dying of the effects of the approved substance, as laid out in the Bill. To me, that is a substantial and material difference, so our approach to establishing capacity should reflect that.
The hon. Member for Reigate made an important point about the difference between a passive and an active choice. That very much reflects what I am trying to achieve through the amendment, which would allow us to strengthen the safeguards around the assessment of capacity. Given that there was not a consensus, among the experts who gave evidence, on whether the Mental Capacity Act is sufficient for the purpose, the pragmatic step is to allow the amendment to create the conditions under which a stronger safeguard can be adopted if necessary.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Danny Kruger
On a point of order, Sir Roger. I wonder whether you can advise me. I am perplexed about the position of the Government Ministers. It is an absolute pleasure to have them here, but I am confused by this Jekyll and Hyde character. They seem to have two personalities on the Committee, voting as private Members but speaking as Ministers. I wonder whether there is any precedent for that in any private Member’s Bill, or indeed any Bill, and whether Parliament admits the split personas that they have.
I totally understand the rationale for having Government Ministers here. It makes me query the whole concept of this being entirely a private Member’s Bill, but I recognise the role of the Government in it. However, if the Government want Ministers present at this Committee, there are Standing Orders that enable Law Officers to attend in their official capacity but not vote. That seems to me to be the appropriate way in which Ministers should be represented here. If they want to speak on the appropriateness of particular measures in terms of Government policy and applicability, that is perfectly appropriate, but I do not understand why they are also voting on this amendment in their capacity as private Members. I wonder whether you can advise me, Sir Roger.
The Chair
Happily, that is not a matter for the Chair. However, let me make it clear that the two Ministers present are members of the Committee in their own right as Members of Parliament and are therefore permitted to speak and vote, as are all other Committee members. Were any Minister to feel that there was a conflict between their personal view and the view that the Government wish to express, my understanding is that that would be a matter for discussion between that Minister and the Government. More than that I am afraid I cannot offer.
Stephen Kinnock
Further to that point of order, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for East Wiltshire for his question. Let us take this back to first principles.
This is a private Member’s Bill. A Bill Committee had to be formed. The Committee was formed in discussions between the Member sponsoring the Bill, the Whips and the House authorities. The principle of formulating the Committee was based in large part on the steer given by the debate and the vote on Second Reading, which delivered a majority of 55 in the House. The numerical composition of this Committee was therefore based on that majority of 55, broadly speaking. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley needed to put together a Committee that reflected that.
The position was also taken that there should be Government Ministers on the Committee who had to speak for the Government with neutrality. It is with those two factors in mind that the Committee was put together. The two functions that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green and I have reflect the two purposes that were in mind when the Committee was put together.
The Chair
Again, that is not a matter for the Chair. Points of order are not matters for debate; they are points of order.
Stephen Kinnock
My apologies, Sir Roger. It was just a point of clarification.
The Chair
That is all right. Nevertheless, I am minded to refer the matter to the Clerk of the House for his consideration. This is no reflection on either of the hon. Gentlemen, or indeed on the Committee, but there are issues here that I think the Clerk of the House perhaps needs to consider in the broader context.
The Chair
No, I am not taking any further points of order on the subject. I have made my judgment. If it is on a different matter—
Kit Malthouse
I was just going to say that it is not unprecedented: it has happened before, in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill.
Kim Leadbeater
On a point of order, Sir Roger. I am not sure that we have voted on amendment 202.
The Chair
We will take it when we get to it. Thank you for raising that point, because this is a learning process for a lot of people. We decide on the amendment that is moved; we will then decide on any further amendments, if any Member wishes to propose them, in the order in which they appear in the Bill. In this case, that is not yet.
Danny Kruger
I beg to move amendment 353, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert
“, and
(e) is not a prisoner”.
This amendment makes prisoners ineligible for assisted dying.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 356, in clause 1, page 1, line 12, at end insert
“, and
(e) is not homeless within the meaning of section 175 of the Housing Act 1996 (Homelessness and threatened homelessness).”
Amendment 354, in clause 7, page 4, line 12, at end insert—
“(ea) is not a prisoner,”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 353.
Amendment 357, in clause 7, page 4, line 12, at end insert—
“(ea) is not homeless within the meaning of section 175 of the Housing Act 1996 (Homelessness and threatened homelessness).”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 356.
Amendment 355, in clause 12, page 8, line 9, at end insert—
“(fa) the person is not a prisoner”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 353.
Amendment 358, in clause 12, page 8, line 9, at end insert—
“(fa) the person is not homeless within the meaning of section 175 of the Housing Act 1996 (Homelessness and threatened homelessness).”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 356.
Danny Kruger
Me again, I’m afraid. The amendments in my name would exclude from eligibility people who are in prison and people who are classified as homeless. In this debate and in our evidence sessions, we have heard it said quite a lot that most people who opt for an assisted death in countries that have it are advantaged—they are middle-class, in our idiom—but the plan is to offer it to everybody; it would be a universal right. My amendments would address some of the most disadvantaged people in our country.
I have had a very privileged life, but for 20 years I have run a charity working in London prisons; I spent about 10 years as full-time chief executive and have spent another 10 years as chairman. I have known hundreds of prisoners and ex-offenders, and I still do. Although I firmly believe in criminal justice—indeed, I think we need to be tougher on certain categories of offender—I recognise from my personal experience the dignity in all prisoners and the absolute necessity of respecting their dignity. In fact, I once wrote a speech for a Conservative leader of yesteryear that made some of those points and got headlined “Hug a hoodie”.
Kim Leadbeater
Did the polling ask people’s view on whether terminally ill homeless people should have access to assisted dying, or on whether it should be offered to homeless people just for being homeless? That would seem very strange.
Danny Kruger
The hon. Lady might well be right. I totally take that point. I dare say it is people who are homeless. I think the question put was, “Should those who are homeless simply be able to ask for assisted dying?” People in this country say no. In Canada, asked the same question, a quarter of people say yes. The effect of the law has been to institute this principle of assisted dying being an acceptable choice under any circumstances, which is indeed, I am afraid, what happens.
I will end with a powerful quote from Fazilet Hadi, who spoke to us representing disabled people. She said:
“This Bill is not an abstract exercise; it will land in a society that is rife with inequality.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 185, Q242.]
She said that the society the Bill will land in is the thing that needs to change, not the Bill. She thinks we need to change our society before we do anything like introducing assisted dying. I agree.
Kit Malthouse
I should start by recognising that my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire, who is my constituency neighbour, has devoted much of his adult life to public service. He should know that I have always admired him for that, and particularly for his work with the vulnerable and underprivileged in prisons. As he knows, I have spent much of my time in politics working with a similar population, so, like him, I understand their particular vulnerabilities. However, I oppose his amendments, and I hope he will bear with me while I enumerate why.
I believe that there are some definitional problems with the amendments, as well as some quite serious moral and ethical problems, and they compound into a practical difficulty. The first definitional one is who exactly my hon. Friend means by “prisoners”. As he knows, not all prisoners are the same. Would he seek to deny assisted dying to prisoners on remand who have yet to be found guilty of a crime but are being held in advance of the criminal justice process? Would he deny assisted dying—which will be available to everybody else if the Bill passes—to people who are held in prison for not paying their council tax, for example, or for contempt of court? There is a variety of vulnerability in the criminal justice system, and prisoners are inside for different lengths of time and in different institutions. Quite a lot of white-collar criminals go to open prisons, for example. Would he seek to deny them?
To me, if my hon. Friend’s objective is to protect vulnerable prisoners, the definition that he is using is far too wide. There are many people who may well find themselves in extremis while they are in prison and are likely to be released at some point, after a short sentence or because of the nature of their sentence, who would therefore have their ability to access assisted dying foreshortened.
Similarly, when my hon. Friend speaks of homeless people and uses the definition in the Housing Act 1996, I think he actually means rough sleepers. The definition of homelessness that he referred to includes people who are staying with friends, people who are moving between homes and people who are likely to become homeless at some point in the future. It is a very wide definition, which covers a large number of people, some of whom would not necessarily be classified as vulnerable and may well be assessed as perfectly capable and have the capacity to make this decision. So my first point is that there is a definitional problem with the broad terms that my hon. Friend has chosen.
Danny Kruger
I accept those points. Nevertheless, the Bill itself has broad definitions and large exclusions—people who have more than a six-month prognosis, and so on. The Bill, I am afraid, operates in pretty broad brush strokes in order to try to defend large categories of people, so I think it is appropriate to exclude all people who are currently incarcerated—people who are in prison—whatever the reason or the length of their sentence, until they are released, and then they can start the process if they wish to and if they qualify.
On homelessness, yes, we should use the official definition of homelessness, which basically means “in precarious housing”. The purpose of the Bill is to enable people who have full autonomy to make a decision in their own best interest. I think it is legitimate to ask whether people who are living in insecure accommodation, whose lives are in flux, who are experiencing extreme precariousness in their lives, should meet the appropriate criteria for autonomy that we wish to set out.
Kit Malthouse
I was about to come on to the fact that those questions would indeed be asked through the assessment that takes place. As my hon. Friend knows—we have had a long discussion about it—the Mental Capacity Act relies to a certain extent on context to assess capacity.
Turning to my hon. Friend’s point on prisoners, this may come as a surprise to him, but some people who are held on remand are found innocent and are released from prison. During their period on remand, which could be quite lengthy, they would be denied access to something they would not otherwise be denied access to.
Danny Kruger
My objection is not on the basis of criminality, innocence or guilt. I would not deny criminals this right because they are criminals. I would deny them what I regard as a dangerous opportunity because they are vulnerable. Whether guilty or not, whether they are on remand or not, they are in an equally precarious position and equally vulnerable, and that is why they should be excluded.
Kit Malthouse
I understand my hon. Friend’s point, but we are talking about people who do not have much time. We have to remember throughout this debate that we are talking about people who have limited time; they have been diagnosed, and their prognosis is six months or less. In fact, the experience from overseas is that quite a lot of people come to assisted dying beyond six months. We are operating on the basis that suddenly everybody at six months decides they are going to apply for it. Quite a lot apply with just days or weeks to go; time is therefore important to them, and so it should be to us. I am concerned that the definitions interfere with that.
Secondly, there is a distinct moral issue about the denial of services, particularly medical services, to groups of individuals based on their circumstances. We do not currently do that. We do not deny medical services to prisoners because they are prisoners. We believe it is a sign of a civilised society that they access the same healthcare as everybody else through our national health service. The same is true of those homeless groups. That includes allowing them to make the kind of decisions that we have talked about in the previous debate: decisions about life-threatening surgery and about the continuation of their life. It is certainly the case, as my hon. Friend will know from his work in prisons, that a number of prisons have developed hospice facilities within the prison to deal with end-of-life issues. Indeed those that do not have hospice care work closely with NHS palliative care outside and very often bring in specialists to deal with end-of-life issues in the prison.
Rebecca Paul
Some incredibly important points have been made. I would like to give an example. Let us consider someone who is homeless. Perhaps they are staying with friends, as my right hon. Friend said. If they find themselves to be terminally ill, they may well face difficulties in accessing palliative care and getting the right treatments simply because they are homeless. This is about protecting that vulnerable group from choosing assisted dying simply because they are in a precarious and difficult situation and assisted dying seems like the best option in the light of lack of palliative care and their current circumstances. Would my right hon. Friend concede that that is what my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire is trying to address?
Kit Malthouse
I would certainly concede that; absolutely, I agree. The whole purpose of the safeguards in the Bill is to protect those who would be vulnerable, to ensure they have the capacity to make the decisions they want to make, and to ensure that they are making them for the right reasons. However, I think a lot of people would find it unfair and immoral that they were excluded not because of their own sense of themselves and their ability and capacity but simply because of their circumstances. As I am trying to point out, those who are homeless or prisoners in the widest definition of those words can find their circumstances changing quite significantly within the timeframe of six months. Given that they have only got six months under this Bill, we should not interfere with that and say, “Well, you are in; you are out.”
This may seem like a narrow example, but imagine that somebody diagnosed with a progressive disease were to commit a criminal act and end up going to prison, and during their time in prison, they reach the six-month period. Are they to be denied assisted dying if it is available to everybody else in the population? To me, that would not seem morally right, particularly given that we have a duty to deliver, and we do deliver, end-of-life services to them in the prison to help them cope with those circumstances. As my hon. Friend will know, there are charities which provide end-of-life care in prison as well.
Danny Kruger
In the circumstances my right hon. Friend is describing, the prisoner would be eligible for the compassionate release scheme.
Danny Kruger
That is what I hope would happen if it was necessary for the prisoner to be released in order to avail himself of opportunities on the outside. If he is terminally ill, that is what should happen.
Kit Malthouse
I am very pleased my hon. Friend raised that issue, because I was about to come to the practical difficulties that this presents, for exactly that reason. As he rightly pointed out, for a large number of prisoners, subject to assessment of the safety of the public, if they contract a terminal disease in prison, as they reach the end of their life, they qualify for compassionate early release. Often, that is within weeks of their death—naturally, as one would expect. It is carefully reviewed by prison governors and, I think, has to be signed off by the Secretary of State, as a final control. The problem with denying them the services while they are in prison is that if they are eventually compassionately released, they may have only a matter of weeks or days to go through what will be quite an onerous process to avoid a horrible death.
Naz Shah
I support the amendment for a number of reasons. I have a huge amount of experience of dealing with women, domestic violence and prisons. The first time I came to this House was to lobby the then Labour Home Secretary to reduce my mother’s tariff, because she served 14 years in prison. When my mother was in prison, I was left homeless, so I have experience of that as well. I have experience of, while I was homeless, attempting suicide on two occasions, and I ended up having my stomach pumped. I therefore speak with a reasonable amount of experience in dealing with this.
From a domestic violence point of view, which is why my mother killed an abusive partner, and having been a victim of domestic abuse, I also understand the vulnerabilities concerning women in particular—less so men, although I know the hon. Member for East Wiltshire has done a lot of work on that in his adult life. The majority of women who end up in prison—we have seen this from review of the courts, time and again—are victims of abuse, whether sexual, domestic or another kind. The majority of our women prisoners are in that position.
The suicide rate among the population in England and Wales is 11.4 per 100,000, but for prisoners, that goes up to 108 per 100,000, which is nearly 10 times as high. We also know from research that one third of female prisoners in England and Wales self-harm. We know from the Home Affairs Committee report in the last Parliament on health in the English prison system that standards of health deteriorated in recent years due to budget reduction, loss of prison officers, staff shortages and overcrowding. We know that the Government have had to bring forward early releases, because the prison system is not fit for purpose after the cutbacks of the last 14 years.
All this speaks to me of vulnerability. I hear the points that both the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire and the hon. Member for East Wiltshire have made that, in an ideal world, people should absolutely have equal access to healthcare, but the problem is that we are not in an ideal world. From my perspective, we have a prison system that has had to have emergency interventions since the Labour party came into government, because it is not fit for purpose.
From a healthcare perspective, going back to what Dr Jamilla said and the numerous bits of evidence we heard about health inequalities, I know from a place such as Bradford West that people from ethnic minority backgrounds have less trust in healthcare services. I know that we do not have equity in healthcare services. As a former NHS commissioner, I know that those health inequalities impact on quality of life and that it is a postcode lottery. I am thinking about New Hall women’s prison in Wakefield and Armley prison, which is near Bradford. I am not familiar with London prisons, but I imagine the vulnerability of the women at New Hall. This comes back to the conversation about capacity: by some definition, they might have capacity.
However, we also heard from eminent psychiatrists that when someone has a diagnosis, it impacts on their mental health. In this instance, we are talking about six months, which the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire referred to a number of times. In that six months, access to visitors might not come for another few weeks. A person might not even have a member of their family next to them when they get that diagnosis. They could well be innocent; they could well have been a victim of domestic violence and ended up in prison because they killed an abusive partner after years of abuse.
They could be in a number of situations, but the one thing I concur with is the amount of vulnerability here, in particular for women, which speaks to the issues of capacity and coercion. It speaks to all the things that we are debating here, which is why I support this amendment: it would protect those who are vulnerable. If there was a diagnosis, prison systems would kick in. If someone was given less than six months to live, they would invoke compassionate grounds to leave the prison system, but I would be really uncomfortable seeing anybody in prison being given the option without that comfort.
I cannot imagine being in the position of, say, my mum. I cannot imagine—I would not dare imagine; I do not think I could handle it—the idea of being taken away from my family and being incarcerated, rightfully or wrongfully, guilty or not guilty. I would be in a place, a system and an institution where, depending on which category of prison I was in, the institutional wraparound and the interventions are very different. It depends on the stage of the sentence that somebody is in. If they are in at stage 1 at a category A prison, there are much stricter rules and regulations. Imagine a person being faced with all that and finding out that they have six months to live. As the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire said, there is no guarantee that it is six months—more than 40% of those diagnoses do not turn out to be correct, and they could live longer. What would the impact be on that person? Could they make that decision? From a capacity point of view, I am not sure that that would exist.
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Lady is feeling towards the point I was trying to make, perhaps slightly incoherently. The point is that in my view, whether or not those people have access to this service, it should be based on an assessment of them as themselves, including their mental capacity, particular characteristics and their settled will, just as it would be for everyone else under the Bill. The fact that they are, at that point, a prisoner impacts on the context in which their capacity is assessed, which must be the critical factor. Having a blanket ban on all prisoners, capable or otherwise, seems cruel, if I am honest.
We know that prisons have to assess capacity in difficult circumstances. There are prisoners who decide to decline food and water and starve themselves to death. They are assessed as having capacity, if that is not the case, and in certain circumstances they are force fed, if it is seen that they do not have the capacity to take that decision themselves. In fact, the reason why prisons have created hospices within prisons is to deal with exactly such end of life decisions.
If we are doing it for non-assisted dying, why would we deny people the choice and autonomy, having been assessed as capable of making the decision, to do it in prison? Worse than that, if we are going to release them on compassionate grounds, why would we give them a shorter period to access the service than anybody else?
Naz Shah
I appreciate where the right hon. Member is coming from—I sincerely do. It comes back to the heart of the issue around capacity. We heard from the psychiatrist—her name escapes me, but she was on the right-hand side—that, where there is an increase of vulnerability, if somebody is told they would get pain relief, they would choose an alternative path. Those were similar words, and I will find the reference.
My point is that we do not have equal healthcare access in prison. We provide prisoners with healthcare, but it is in no way equitable. The health inequalities that exist outside prison are bad enough. Palliative care is not fit for purpose in our country—it is a postcode lottery. Depending on which prison someone goes to, that will determine what kind of access they have to palliative care. It is not a level playing field.
Naz Shah
It would be if we were making treatment equitable, but if we apply the test of legality, and this is about pain—we have already seen the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, which would widen the scope from six months to 12 months—where do we draw the line in terms of equity and legality? The Bill is open to a lot of legal challenges, and if we want to go down that route, there would be plenty of them.
Tom Gordon
There is a fundamental difference between trying to ensure that people have equal access to assisted dying and prohibiting a specific group or category. Does the hon. Member understand that?
Naz Shah
I understand that perfectly well. On the idea of not giving people assisted dying, as the Bill stands, the category also includes people who decide to stop eating or taking insulin and people who decide not to go on dialysis. It includes a whole host of illnesses. If we are talking about the legal challenges, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud started with, the legal challenges for the Bill are vast as it stands.
Danny Kruger
On the point of legality, of course a law could be challenged under the European convention on human rights, but Parliament is sovereign. If Parliament decides to exclude a particular category, we in this place have to take this enormous responsibility—we make the law in this country.
Kim Leadbeater
My hon. Friend has listed certain categories of people, and we will come on to the definition of terminal illness. I am confident that, given the definition of terminal illness in the Bill, some of the groups of people she has talked about will not be included in its scope.
Naz Shah
Where does it specify that? I know we are going to debate that subject later, but right now there is nothing that gives me assurance that those people will be excluded. Unless there is an amendment that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley will support, the Bill, as drafted, would still apply to somebody if they decided not to carry on with treatment, or if they decided they did not want to take their insulin or other medication and that would lead to their death. I am happy to give way to my hon. Friend so that she can explain how she is going to deal with that.
Kim Leadbeater
I will. Let me read from the Bill. The definition of “terminal illness” under the Bill is that
“the person has an inevitably progressive illness, disease or medical condition which cannot be reversed by treatment”.
The conditions that my hon. Friend is describing can be reversed by treatment and are not inevitably progressive. We will come to that debate in due course, but that definition is crucial.
Naz Shah
I beg to differ on the wording that my hon. Friend just used. It actually makes my point. As it stands, if I were an insulin-dependent diabetic—and I have been so on three occasions, with my children— I could say that if I stopped taking that insulin, I would become terminally ill. In the Bill as it stands, and as it is drafted, I would meet the criteria.
Kim Leadbeater
My hon. Friend would not meet the criteria. She might be describing a condition that cannot be reversed, but it is the “inevitably progressive” part that we are talking about. Because it can be treated, it is not an
“inevitably progressive illness, disease or medical condition”.
The Chair
Order. A debate about the definition of “terminal illness” will come later in the Bill, and it might help us all if we were to swiftly move forward to that point.
Sean Woodcock
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, in his rebuttal to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West, described assisted dying as “medical care”. Personally, I do not regard assisted dying as medical care. Does my hon. Friend agree?
Naz Shah
I am still having that debate in my head, and I am not convinced. I will not digress—I will come to the point—but there is a conversation about whether it is “treatment”, “assisted suicide” or “assisted death”. Those terms have been bandied about. I genuinely think that, ultimately, we have to use the word “suicide” because we are amending the Suicide Act 1961. I appreciate the context in which the promoter of the Bill puts it forward, but the truth is that it is about taking one’s life, so that is how I respond to that question.
To come back to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, the reason why I will support them is that I have way too much experience of people in vulnerable positions, and I have a lifetime of experience of seeing what happens. I do think there are options when somebody has a diagnosis of terminal illness. The prison systems are set up to be able to give them compassionate leave and to explore other avenues. Once they are outside that system, they can access support and have their vulnerability reduced.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
Will the hon. Lady help me to understand her position? Is it a fundamental disagreement with any prisoner having access to assisted dying, or is it a fundamental issue with completing the final act, as set out in clause 18, while being a prisoner? For example, the hon. Lady touched on early release on compassionate grounds. Under those circumstances, there may be a prisoner who has been given a six-month diagnosis, and their early release may not be until the last couple of weeks of their life. Should they be deprived of going through the process and the assessment, albeit not enacting the final act until they have been released?
Naz Shah
Yes, I think there should be a deprivation of that final act, because there are vulnerabilities with that prisoner while they are inside a prison. What they need is not an option of assisted death at that point. That speaks to the amendment that I tabled, which is about making sure that we do not have the conversation in the first four weeks in any case, because a diagnosis of terminal illness affects people’s mental capacity and mental health. We know that: we have heard it from the psychiatrists. It is common sense; it does not take a genius to work it out.
We know that people in prison have additional vulnerabilities. We are having a debate about the issue of capacity, which we have clearly not agreed on. A person-centred care package needs to be about supporting the person, removing vulnerabilities, giving autonomy, and offering choices around accessing palliative care and medication, so that they are in a much stronger position to make an informed choice.
Kit Malthouse
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene again. Can she not see that by supporting the hon. Gentleman’s amendment she is basically defining all prisoners as de facto vulnerable? It is not the case. Although many are vulnerable, both my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire and I have met a lot of criminals and prisoners in our time, and quite a lot of them are smart, capable people who made a stupid decision. They are not vulnerable; they deeply regret what they did and go on to live perfectly functional lives.
We should be applying to prisoners exactly the same criteria of assessment—around capacity, vulnerability and settled will—at the time they are diagnosed with a terminal disease as we do to everybody else, because if we are not going to differentiate among prisoners, in many ways we are dehumanising the entire population. We are saying, “You are all vulnerable—no question—and we are excluding you completely on that basis.” As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough said, that is in many ways a fundamental denial of a basic human right.
Naz Shah
The idea that it is the fundamental denial of a human right is not quite correct. We are talking about the denial of a provision in a Bill that has not come into law. It is a potential legal position; it is not necessarily a human right yet. If the Bill comes into force, at that point it becomes an option that could be denied. There are many prisoners. Prison serves many purposes, one of which is to reform. There will be many prisoners who go in there and get a degree in criminality because they are surrounded by other prisoners. There are people who make choices.
In the first four weeks we should not have the conversation around assisted death in any case. I have tabled an amendment to that effect and will speak to it when we come to it. In the meantime, a person has an added layer of pressure if they are in prison. It does not mean that everybody is necessarily vulnerable from a starting position. I agree that there may be prisoners who are not vulnerable, but there is an added pressure if somebody is homeless or in prison, not having family or security, that would no doubt compound their mental health. Whether that is a slight or a large impact is for somebody else to assess, but as it is I support the amendment.
Tom Gordon
I can understand where the hon. Lady is coming from, but I wonder whether she has any specific examples of groups such as people who are homeless or prisoners having other rights denied to them. That is what I am struggling with, although I can understand her point about people being vulnerable. The only other example that strikes me is that people who are incarcerated are unable to vote. I cannot think of any other instance where people would have any particular right removed from them. Does the hon. Lady have any other examples or comparable situations she can share to help us?
Danny Kruger
Prisoners are denied their liberty, not just their vote. They are treated as a single class of people who the state has specific responsibilities for, because it essentially owns them for the time that they are incarcerated. Prisoners have particular protections, but they are also denied a whole range of human rights and opportunities that the rest of society can have. It is not inappropriate to treat prisoners as a distinct class of people to whom the state has a specific responsibility.
Sojan Joseph
I want to contribute to this discussion based on my experience as a mental health nurse. I worked in mental health services for 22 years, including managing a medium secure forensic unit. I have worked with many homeless people and people who were detained under the Mental Health Act by the criminal justice system in those medium secure units and who had been involved in criminal activities.
With my experience, I can categorically say that that group of people is very vulnerable. As the hon. Member for East Wiltshire said, self-harming and suicidal tendencies are very high among that group. As part of the risk assessments that we carry out in the mental health system, one of the questions is whether they are homeless. That question is asked to identify that vulnerability.
These amendments bring up the importance of a psychosocial assessment, which was highlighted in many pieces of our oral evidence. If we are looking to bring more safeguards into this Bill, that is something we should consider to safeguard this group of people.
I want to make one more point about what the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire said: not all homeless people are homeless in the same way; some people choose to sleep rough. I am not clear whether, if somebody is sleeping rough and is diagnosed with a terminal illness, we are looking to bring them back into an NHS bed to assist them to die. I do not know whether there is a provision to identify how we would manage those sorts of situations.
Kit Malthouse
I was not necessarily saying what the hon. Member said that I said—that all homeless people are the same. However, it is the case that, for rough sleepers in particular, a number of charities, such as St Mungo’s, have had to develop on-street palliative care services for the rough sleepers who sadly do contract terminal diseases or are reaching the end of their lives. Very often, part of that service is to try to encourage them to come into some kind of institutional environment, such as a hospital, where their healthcare can be better served. It is a particular difficulty with that group, and there is a high incidence of mental health problems among the street homeless—not homeless people generally, but the street homeless—but that, in my view, would be caught by the general assessment that takes place.
In fact, the hon. Member may be interested to know that there is quite a lot of on-street mental health assessment taking place for people. People who are living on the street develop all sorts of disorders—indeed, there are often people with quite significant mental health problems on the street—and they are dealt with as closely as possible to the front end.
Therefore, it would not be beyond the capability of the state to make assessments about individuals that are appropriate to the context. I am trying to stress the point that we need to see the person as an individual, as well as within their context. With a blanket ban on particular groups, the human right that I was referring to is denied—it denies them the right to be seen as an individual and assessed as an individual, which is what we do in every other service that we provide to them.
Sojan Joseph
I thank the right hon. Member for that intervention. To clarify, not all patients who are diagnosed as terminally ill are necessarily bedridden. They may be capable of carrying out their day-to-day activities as normal, even though they have been diagnosed with a terminal illness and have been given a prognosis of six months. They may still be walking around. Not everybody needs palliative care, in fact.
My question was: if somebody who is a rough sleeper is diagnosed with a terminal illness and they want help with assisted dying, will we make provision to bring them back into an NHS bed to facilitate their dying? It would be great to have that clarification. I support the amendment, as I have seen many highly vulnerable people who would be more likely to choose the path to end their life if they were given the option.
Stephen Kinnock
The amendments relate to the criteria that individuals would need to meet to request assistance to die under the Bill. All the amendments seek to amend the eligibility criteria in some manner. To reiterate, the Government have no view on the policy questions pertaining to the amendments, and my role here is to offer observations on the legal and practical impact of amendments tabled. The legal impact of these amendments will be the main focus of my remarks.
Amendment 353 seeks to make prisoners ineligible for assisted dying services even if they meet the definition of having a terminal illness. Amendments 354 and 355 are consequential amendments that would make it a requirement for the co-ordinating doctor in the first assessment and the court process to ascertain whether a person seeking assistance to end their own life is a prisoner.
Aside from the right to liberty, article 5 of the European convention on human rights requires that prisoners should have the same rights as those who are not prisoners. The rights engaged by the amendment are article 8 on the right to respect for private and family life and article 14 on the protection from discrimination. Making prisoners ineligible for assisted dying would, on the face of it, lead to a difference in treatment between prisoners and non-prisoners that would need to be objectively and reasonably justified. The justification test requires that the treatment in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
Naz Shah
I note that the Minister used the word “treatment” twice, but we are not talking about a treatment; we are talking about assisted death. I think someone mentioned earlier that it is a treatment, but it is not a treatment, is it? I would welcome his clarification on that.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. My understanding is that it is termed as a treatment under the law. The Government do not take a view on the semantics of the word; my understanding is that that is how it is classified under the law.
Sarah Olney
It is really important that we establish whether this will be defined as a treatment or indeed as something quite distinct in law. My understanding is that the word “treatment” should never apply to assisted dying. I would be grateful for the Minister’s clarification.
Stephen Kinnock
I apologise; I think I misunderstood the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West, so my comments were not clear. I meant the treatment of this matter under the law. As I said, the justification test requires that the treatment in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. That means the way in which the matter is treated under the law. That is what I meant; I think we got our wires crossed.
Finally, let me address amendments 356, 357 and 358, whose purpose is to exclude those who are homeless within the meaning of section 175 of the Housing Act 1996 from the definition of a “terminally ill person”. The effect of amendment 356 would be to amend the definition of a “terminally ill person”, as set out in clause 1 of the Bill, to expressly exclude a person who, notwithstanding that they met all the other requirements set out in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (1), was homeless within the meaning of section 175 of the Housing Act 1996.
Amendments 357 and 358 seek to make consequential amendments to clause 7 on the first doctor’s assessment and clause 12 on court approval. These amendments would require the co-ordinating doctor and the court to be satisfied that, in their opinion, the person was not homeless within the meaning of section 175 of the Housing Act 1996 before making their statement or declaration to allow the person to proceed to the next stage of the assisted dying process.
Article 14 states that the rights set out in the ECHR should be secured for everyone without discrimination on any ground. This amendment engages article 8 on the right to respect for private and family life. Making those who are homeless ineligible for assisted dying would lead to a difference in treatment that will need to be objectively and reasonably justified. The justification test requires that the treatment in question is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
I hope these observations may be helpful to Members in considering these amendments and making a determination about who should be eligible for accessing assisted dying services, should the Bill pass.
Danny Kruger
What an interesting debate—I am grateful to all hon. Members who participated.
I am interested in what the Minister was saying about the ECHR. Notwithstanding my general point about the sovereignty of Parliament, when Lord Sumption gave evidence to the Committee two weeks ago, he stressed the wide margin of appreciation given to member states on the ECHR. Does the Minister think that that will apply in this case to ensure that the British Parliament could vote to exclude these categories of people? If his view is that the Bill could be subject to challenges on discrimination grounds, however, particularly under article 14, I think we will have a lot of problems in applying the Bill. I wonder whether, in due course, we will be able to tease out how the ECHR will intersect with the Bill.
As the Minister says, the crucial point is that any discrimination must be justified on the basis of achieving a legitimate and proportionate aim. My suggestion is that there is an absolutely legitimate aim, and that this is a proportionate means of achieving it.
The debate got quite philosophical, which I found very interesting. I observe that my constituency neighbour, esteemed colleague and great Conservative, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire, has a vision of our particular political creed that is entirely individualistic. He stresses the absolute importance of individual autonomy, treating everybody as an individual without reference to the context in which they live. I suggest to him, and to the Committee, that our freedom and autonomy depend on our relationships. Our autonomy proceeds from our socialisation. We do not emerge fully formed into the world with all our values and attributes; we acquire them by virtue of the people around us.
The crucial thing about the prison experience is that it disrupts the relationships that can make an individual genuinely free. Homelessness does likewise, and it sets up all sorts of new relationships and new socialisations that can often be very negative.
Kit Malthouse
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s kind words, but he will know that the foundation of our beliefs stretches from Magna Carta through to Mill and is based on a legal notion that I am to a certain extent my own island—that I have autonomy over myself. From habeas corpus to making decisions about my own medical treatment, I should have rights. That is not to say that my decision-making capacity should not be assessed within the context in which I live.
What I was trying to communicate to my hon. Friend and his supporters in respect of this amendment is that I think it profoundly wrong to paint all prisoners with the same brush and see them as a homogeneous whole, rather than seeing them for the individuals they are, specifically when they are taking a very individual, personal and private decision about their own life and death.
Danny Kruger
I trace our liberties to an evolution of British law, and of English law, that recognises the essential nature of our individuality as being socialised. We belong to one another and we derive our freedom from other people. Our autonomy, Magna Carta and all the liberties of the individual proceed from that. None of us, no man, is an island. That is what I suggest to my right hon. Friend. His point was about treating everybody as solitary individuals, making independent private decisions. That is not the way any of us operate; it is certainly not the way people in the most vulnerable circumstances operate. What actually happens is that we are heavily influenced by the people around us, by our circumstances and by the choices before us.
To descend from the abstract, let us consider an actual case, albeit a hypothetical one. Someone is in prison. They have committed some crime, or they have not committed a crime but have been remanded. Their whole family life has been smashed to pieces over the years, or just recently. They then get the terrible diagnosis of a terminal illness. A doctor says to them, because they are allowed to do so under the Bill, “You know, one of your options is an assisted death.” I think that that would be incredibly influential, to the point of serious concern, for those of us who know how vulnerable people in prison are. The same applies to people living on the streets, the people my right hon. Friend was describing.
Sean Woodcock
I believe that what the hon. Member has just espoused, and what has prompted this amendment, is the sort of thing that would have come out if we had had an impact assessment. If this were a Government Bill, some sort of consultation would have flagged up the potential issues ahead of the next stage. I believe that that is the exercise in which he is engaged. We have been promised a Bill with the strongest possible safeguards. He comes from a position similar to mine, which is that there is no stronger safeguard than preventing people from having assisted dying. I believe—I am happy to be corrected—that what he is trying to do in the absence of that is flag up potential issues that mean that more safeguards are needed than are being offered in this Bill. Is he prepared to comment on that?
Danny Kruger
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Once again, it is a shame that we are feeling our way in the absence of that assessment. Nevertheless, I think we all have experience and we can draw on the evidence. The hon. Member for Bradford West made a very powerful point, and she was absolutely right. I spoke earlier about the evidence on suicide among the male prison population; I have experience of working with women in prison as well. There is a genuine danger of chronic, almost epidemic, self-harm among the female prison population. Likewise—this is a fact that we need to bear in mind throughout the debate—suicide is itself contagious. That is why it is so important to discuss it in a responsible way. The option—I use the term advisedly—of assisted suicide is itself dangerous in the context of a prison population in which these ideas are contagious.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire talks about the need to assess each case on its own merits, individually. I recognise that, and in principle of course that is what we should be doing. Nevertheless, that assumes that the safeguards in the Bill are adequate to the challenge of dealing with people in such particularly vulnerable circumstances. I am concerned that they are not adequate anyway. I believe very strongly that they are not appropriate to people in these circumstances and that therefore it is appropriate to have what he calls a blanket ban.
As I said in an intervention earlier, we have to treat particular classes of people in the same way. We do that all the time, with respect specifically to the prison population. The fact is that we have to draw the line somewhere. We are drawing the line in all sorts of places in this Bill—around the age limit and around diagnosis and prognosis. I think it would be very appropriate, given the extreme vulnerability of these populations, to draw it around them and protect them from the vulnerabilities and dangers that I think all Members recognise might apply in certain circumstances. They will apply in heightened likelihood to these populations.
I do not propose to press these amendments to a vote, but I am grateful to hon. Members for the points that they have made, and I hope that the concerns have been noted. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 179, in clause 1, page 1, line 13, after “provided” insert “in England or Wales”.—(Kim Leadbeater.)
This amendment limits the assistance that may be provided in accordance with the Bill to assistance in England or Wales.
Juliet Campbell
I beg to move amendment 109, in clause 1, page 1, line 17, after first “and” insert “demonstrably”.
This amendment reflects the changes in Amendments 110 to 112 that change the requirement from having to establish that a person who wishes to end their own life under the Act has clear, settled and informed wish, to a clear, settled and demonstrably informed wish.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 110, in clause 7, page 4, line 13, after “and” insert “demonstrably”.
This amendment requires the coordinating doctor to ascertain whether, in their opinion, the person has a “demonstrably” informed wish to end their own life.
Amendment 111, in clause 8, page 4, line 36, after “and” insert “demonstrably”.
This amendment requires the independent doctor to ascertain whether, in their opinion, the person has a “demonstrably” informed wish to end their own life.
Amendment 112, in clause 9, page 6, line 13, at end insert—
“(da) be satisfied that, in their opinion, the person has demonstrated their understanding of the matters in subsections (2)(b) to (2)(d).”
This amendment requires the assessing doctor to be satisfied that, in their opinion, the person has demonstrated their understanding of the matters that have to be discussed and the information provided under subsections (2)(b) to (2)(d).
Juliet Campbell
The amendment would strengthen the Bill by establishing a benchmark for the level of understanding of assisted dying and its process that the person needs to demonstrate to start the process. That will help to ensure that the person requesting assisted dying understands what they are asking for, so that doctors and other professionals can be assured that those who are engaged in the process have come to their own informed choice. Being informed conceptually is meaningless; it adds nothing to the Bill unless we can establish that the person can demonstrate to healthcare professionals and others that they understand assisted dying and the process.
Kit Malthouse
I understand what the hon. Member for Broxtowe is trying to achieve, but I believe that her amendments are unnecessary. “Demonstrably” is a word that is commonly used in British law, effectively to emphasise that something is important, but also to ensure that something is proven. She will have seen that I have tabled amendments to the Bill to require two declarations to be produced: one by the patient, to say that they have had the conversation about all their options, understand their options and understand what their prognosis is likely to be; and one by the co-ordinating doctor, to say that they have had the conversation and that the patient is in full possession of all the facts they need and understands what has been communicated to them.
My view is that those declarations, as well as the assessment that the doctor has to go through to confirm that the person has a settled wish to do this, are enough to show that the person demonstrably wants to access the service for themselves. I am concerned that amendment 109, like other amendments that we will debate later, would insert into the Bill a series of individual words that will unnecessarily complicate its contemplation by doctors. We heard in evidence that for the Bill to work, it needs to be simple and understandable by everybody who is dealing with it. The more we can minimise the number of words that may be open to interpretation by lawyers —and we certainly have plenty of lawyers in the room— the better. From that point of view, I will oppose the amendment. I understand what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve, but I believe that we have achieved it by different means.
Stephen Kinnock
The amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe relate to an individual who seeks to access assisted dying services demonstrating their wish to end their own life and demonstrating their understanding of the process by which that happens. To support the Committee’s deliberations, I will briefly summarise the Government’s analysis of the effect of the amendments.
Amendments 109, 110 and 111 would modify the requirement that the co-ordinating doctor and the independent doctor must undertake an assessment to ascertain whether, in their opinion, the person has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life. That would be amended to require the person to have a clear, settled and demonstrably informed wish. The term “demonstrably” would not provide further practical guidance beyond the words already in the Bill and could create uncertainty as to what constitutes being demonstrably informed.
I turn to amendment 112. Clause 9 currently provides that the co-ordinating and independent doctors must explain and discuss a number of matters with the person being assessed. These matters are set out in clause 9(2)(b), (c) and (d). In the interests of time, I will not go through each of those matters, but they include an explanation and discussion of the person’s diagnosis and prognosis, any treatment available and the likely effect of it, and the further steps that must be taken before assistance can lawfully be provided to the person under the Act.
The amendment would create an additional requirement for the co-ordinating and independent doctors. It would require them both to be satisfied that, in their opinion, the person seeking assistance has demonstrated their understanding of the matters that have been discussed under clause 9(2)(b), (c) and (d). The amendment does not specify in any further detail what the doctors would be required to look for to satisfy themselves that a person has demonstrated their understanding. That would be left to their professional judgment, with training, support and guidance, as with other concepts in the Bill. The amendment would leave it to the co-ordinating and independent doctor’s professional judgment to determine what “demonstrated their understanding” looked like in respect of each individual person.
I hope that those observations are helpful to the Committee.
Danny Kruger
I have just a few points to make. I very much applaud the hon. Member for Broxtowe for her amendment, which would genuinely—demonstrably, I might say—strengthen the Bill. It does not seem in any sense hostile to the principle or purpose of the Bill; it supports it.
To make a gentle criticism, I think that there is a concern about the lack, throughout the Bill, of a proper trail of documentary evidence following the applicant through the process. For example, the two conversations with the doctor would take place behind closed doors, and no record of their discussion would be made. I do not think that conducive to trust. There is no way to assess whether the safeguards are actually in operation.
Kit Malthouse
I am afraid that that is not actually correct. If my hon. Friend is willing to look at my amendments—I appreciate that he might not have got to them yet—he will see that one of them would require the doctor to produce a report on their assessment of the patient. Obviously a two-way declaration would also be required that the conversation pursuant to clause 4(4) has taken place and that in the doctor’s view the person is in possession of all the facts that they need in order to make the judgment that we are asking them to make. That detail and documentation will be inserted into the Bill if my amendment is agreed to.
Danny Kruger
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I particularly applaud his amendment’s aspiration to ensure that the doctors’ conversations are properly recorded.
Kim Leadbeater
Further to the comment from the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire, all of that will obviously be recorded on the patient’s medical records as well. The idea that it is not being recorded is just not correct.
Danny Kruger
The decisions will be recorded, but the conversations that the hon. Lady stipulates should take place under the Bill need further recording, in my view, with further evidence of what was discussed in order to ensure that the safeguards have been properly applied. I also point out that for the chief medical officer to effectively carry out the review under clause 34, they must have evidence available, not just a few schedules that have been signed off.
Likewise, I am glad to say that the opportunity remains for a legal appeal, in so far as we still have a judicial process, but I am concerned that the lack of any documentary evidence makes the application difficult for any external party or the Court of Appeal to review. Currently, there is a great paucity of information that the High Court judge considering the application can request. I think it is important that the High Court judge—or, indeed, the panel, if we move to that approach—should have access to a much fuller range of documentation to ensure that the process has been properly followed.
Tom Gordon
The hon. Member makes a valid point about ensuring that there is documentary evidence. Does he not feel that that will be covered at a later point in the Bill when we debate the amendments on training, and specifically on ensuring a coherent way in which all the doctors and people in the process set about recording?
Danny Kruger
The hon. Gentleman is a great stickler for doing things in the right order. I am grateful to him for calling us to order on that point again. I dare say that he is absolutely right. All these issues are rather interwoven through the Bill.
I will finish on a point about the role of the Court of Appeal. A rejected application—although not an approved application, I am sorry to say—can be appealed under clause 12. For the Court of Appeal’s review to be substantive, it must surely be able to review the evidence as fully as possible on what happened throughout the terminally ill person’s application.
Juliet Campbell
I still think that it is important to add “demonstrably”. The word should be included; I do not see that it would create any additional confusion. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire said that he had tabled some amendments later on in the Bill. However, that is later on. Putting in “demonstrably” here would strengthen his proposal.
Naz Shah
Does my hon. Friend share my frustration that when the Minister says, “This is the Government’s position,” he says so in the absence of an equality assessment or impact assessment? I appreciate that the Government have outlined that the process is different, but in the absence of those assessments, where do we find the weight to support those positions?
Juliet Campbell
I absolutely agree. The word “demonstrably” could produce that weight. It could add to every other part of the Bill that a person must be able to demonstrate to health and social care professionals that they understand what assisted dying is and understand the process that will be gone through. The person needs to be able to demonstrate to other professionals that they understand. A written report by a health or social care professional is not enough; the person themselves will have to demonstrate that they have a full and clear understanding.
Juliet Campbell
I will not push it to a vote, Sir Roger. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Bambos Charalambous.)
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
New clause 22—School attendance policies—
“In Chapter 2 of Part 6 of the Education Act 1996 (school attendance), after section 443 insert—
“443A School attendance policies
(1) The proprietor of a school in England must ensure—
(a) that policies designed to promote regular attendance by registered pupils are pursued at the school, and
(b) that those policies are set out in a written document (an “attendance policy”).
(2) An attendance policy must in particular include details of—
(a) the practical procedures to be followed at the school in relation to attendance,
(b) the measures in place at the school to promote regular attendance by its registered pupils,
(c) the responsibilities of particular members of staff in relation to attendance,
(d) the action to be taken by staff if a registered pupil fails to attend the school regularly, and
(e) if relevant, the school’s strategy for addressing any specific concerns identified in relation to attendance.
(3) The proprietor must ensure—
(a) that the attendance policy and its contents are generally made known within the school and to parents of registered pupils at the school, and
(b) that steps are taken at least once in every school year to bring the attendance policy to the attention of all those parents and pupils and all persons who work at the school (whether or not for payment).
(4) In complying with the duties under this section, the proprietor must have regard to any guidance issued from time to time by the Secretary of State in relation to school attendance.””
New clause 23—Penalty notices: regulations—
“In section 444B of the Education Act 1996 (penalty notices: attendance), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), regulations under subsection (1) may make provision in relation to England—
(a) as to the circumstances in which authorised officers must consider giving a penalty notice;
(b) for or in connection with co-ordination arrangements between local authorities and neighbouring local authorities (where appropriate), the police and authorised officers.””
New clause 24—Academies: regulations as to granting a leave of absence—
“(1) Section 551 of the Education Act 1996 (regulations as to duration of school day etc) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), for “to which this section applies” substitute “mentioned in subsection (2)”.
(3) In subsection (2), omit “to which this section applies”.
(4) After subsection (2) insert—
“(3) Regulations may also make provision with respect to the granting of leave of absence from any schools which are Academies not already falling within subsection (2)(c).””
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Betts. Before we adjourned, I was about to turn to new clause 24. I appreciate the concern of hon. Members in this matter and their desire for academies to follow rules on granting a leave of absence. One of the many ways in which schools encourage regular attendance is by making clear to parents the circumstances under which leave of absence can and cannot be granted. All schools, however, including academies, are already required to have regard to statutory attendance guidance and are expected to follow the rules on granting a leave of absence.
Headteachers understand the responsibilities and know how important it is that children are in school. We have very little, if any, evidence of misuse of power in academies or big increases in the number of leaves of absence. All the indications are that academy heads follow the guidance and apply the exceptional circumstances test to relevant requests for leave, only granting them where it is met. We will continue to monitor this and support them to make school the best place to be for every child, but new clause 24 would not help us to do that. I invite the hon. Member to withdraw new clause 21.
Neil O'Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 25
Report on the impact of charging VAT on private school fees
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within two years of the passing of this Act, publish a report on the impact of charging VAT on private school fees.
(2) A report published under subsection (1) must include the following information—
(a) how many private schools have closed as a result of the decision to charge VAT on private school fees;
(b) how many pupils have moved school because of the decision to charge VAT on private school fees;
(c) an analysis, considering paragraphs (a) and (b), of the impact of the decision to charge VAT on private school fees on maintained and academy schools, including on—
(i) the availability of school places nationally and in areas where private schools have closed;
(ii) the percentage of children which are placed at their first-choice school; and
(iii) the number of schools which have had to increase their Publish Admissions Number.”—(Neil O'Brien.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the impact of charging VAT on private school fees.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Neil O'Brien
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Around my constituency, we have seen the closure of a couple of local independent schools, which have blamed the decision to introduce VAT. This will mean more people looking for places in local state schools that are already oversubscribed and, in turn, fewer people getting their first choice. New clause 25 is not about the principle of the tax, but about having a proper mechanism to monitor the impact on the state system, among other things.
An importance piece published in The Times over the weekend found, based on freedom of information requests, that at least 27 local authorities have no spare school places in certain year groups, which will make it difficult to find places for children forced to move schools. Those are exactly the kinds of issues that we need to monitor very carefully, which is why this new clause calls for a report on the impact of the policy.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 25, which seeks to monitor the impact of VAT on private school fees. There is, however, something missing in the new clause, which I have urged Ministers repeatedly to look at. I hope that even if they will not publicly talk about it, they are looking privately at the impact of this policy on the 100,000 children with special educational needs in private schools who do not have education, health and care plans, and may be displaced into the state sector. That will have an impact on the state sector and the demand for EHCPs, which is already in crisis. When Ministers respond, I hope they might address that point.
Stephen Morgan
New clause 25 would introduce a requirement for the Government to publish a report within two years of passing of the Bill on the impact of removing VAT exemption on private school fees. The report would need to provide details of any private school closures, the number of pupils from private schools who have moved schools, the availability of state school places at local and national level, what percentage of children are offered a place at their parents’ first-choice school, and whether any admissions authorities have increased their published admissions numbers as a result of VAT policy.
Before proceeding any further, I would like to note that the issue of VAT on private school fees has been subject to extensive debate during the course of the Finance Bill and the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill. As the Government have noted on many occasions now, a thorough impact assessment of the removal of VAT exemption has been conducted. A comprehensive tax impact and information note was published alongside the autumn Budget and provides much of the information sought by the hon. Members for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich. This policy, as Members will be aware, took effect from 1 January 2025.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Does the Minister not accept that there is a fundamental difference between a projection of what is expected to happen and the reporting on what has actually happened? It is the latter that helps with future policy development by learning from experience.
Stephen Morgan
I thank the right hon. Member for his interventions, and I ask him to be a bit more patient in the light of what I am going on to say. The Government’s impact assessment shows that we expect the number of private school closures to remain relatively low and that will be influenced by various factors, not just this VAT policy. Around 50 private schools, excluding independent special schools, close each year, and the Government estimate that 100 schools in total may close over the next three years in addition to the normal levels of turnover, after which closures will return to historical norms.
The Government also estimate that, in the long-term steady state, 35,000 pupils are expected to move from private schools to UK state schools. That represents less than 0.5% of all state school pupils and the resultant impact on the state education system, as a whole, is therefore expected to be very small. Differences in local circumstances will mean that the impact of this policy will vary between parts of the UK. The number of private school pupils who might seek state-funded places will vary by geographical location, and that will interact with other local place pressures.
In addition to the impact assessment, regular data is published by the Department for Education on pupil numbers and pupil moves. Data on the numbers of pupils in private schools is collected and published through the annual school census, and data on how many parents receive offers from their preferred schools in the normal admissions round is also collected from local authorities and published annually. We cannot definitively correlate pupil moves with the ending of the VAT exemption, as pupil numbers in schools fluctuate regularly for a number of reasons.
Moreover, admissions decisions must strictly be made in accordance with a school’s published admissions criteria only. We should therefore be cautious of measures that would require parents to state the reason why they are choosing to move their children to a different school, to avoid any impression that this information may be misused. School’s published admission numbers may be raised to respond to a wider local demand; in some cases and in some areas that may include, but will not necessarily limited to, increased numbers of pupils from the private sector. Where schools wish to raise their published admission number, they should do so in co-operation and collaboration with the local authority, and with a view to what is needed in the local area. Indeed, there are other measures in the Bill that stress the importance of co-operation on this issue.
Local authorities will consider pressures following the removal of the VAT exemption on school fees alongside other pressures as part of the normal place-planning cycle—this is business as usual. The Department for Education will be monitoring place demand and capacity using our normal processes and will be working with local authorities to meet any pressures. While I am grateful to Members for their interest in the issue of removing the VAT exemption on private schools, I hope that they are reassured that the Government have already addressed the impact of this policy and continue to monitor it.
Damian Hinds
I have been trying to exercise my best patience as the Minister entreated me to do. I think he is saying that it will never be possible to know, in reality, what the effect of this tax change is. Is that right?
Stephen Morgan
I know the right hon. Member will have been listening very carefully to what I said, and I made it very clear that there is a census published each year, which sets out those figures. We will work very closely with local authorities to understand the impact that the policy has.
The hon. Member for Twickenham made a number of points on children with SEND. The vast majority of pupils who have special educational needs are educated in mainstream schools—whether they are state-maintained or private—where their needs are met. Where parents have chosen to send their child to a private school but their special educational needs could be met in the state sector—such as in England where children do not have an EHCP—VAT will apply to fees. The Government do not support the new clause for the reasons that I have outlined, and I ask the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston to withdraw it.
Neil O'Brien
I think it is clear from the Minister’s response that there are certain things we will not be able to find out in the absence of this new clause. We will not be able to see the numbers moving from the private sector to the state sector. In particular, as the hon. Member for Twickenham raised, we will not be able to see the critical flow of those with undiagnosed or unofficially recognised special needs, as they potentially move into the EHCP process and into state schools. Nonetheless, we will continue to monitor the impact of this policy over time, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 30
Publication of details of preventative care and family support
(1) Every local authority, must within six months of the passing of this Act, publish details of all preventative care and family support available to people in their area.
(2) Information published under subsection (1) must be made available—
(a) on the authority’s website, and
(b) in all public libraries in the authority’s area.”—(Munira Wilson.)
This new clause would require all local authorities to publish information about preventative care and family support and to ensure it is freely available to people living in the area.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss:
New Clause 72
Duty on local authorities to provide family support services
(1) In the Children Act 1989, after section 19 (review of provision for day care, child minding etc) insert—
“19A Duty on local authorities to provide family support services for children and families
(1) A local authority has a duty to provide, so far as is reasonably practical, family support services to all children and parents residing in their area.
(2) Family support services provided by a local authority must—
(a) be provided within the authority area;
(b) seek to improve the health and educational outcomes of children in the relevant area; and
(c) seek to reduce the number of children in their area who suffer ill treatment or neglect.
(3) In this section, “family support services” refer to services which provide children and parents with—
(a) advice, guidance or counselling;
(b) social, cultural or recreational activities; or
(c) accommodation while receiving services provided under subsections (3)(a) and (b).
(4) In fulfilling its duty under subsection (1), a local authority must have regard to—
(a) the availability of and demand for family support services in its area;
(b) the availability of and demand for family support services in its area which are capable of meeting different needs; and
(c) the location of family support services and the equality of access across the authority area.
(5) A local authority must publish information about family support services—
(a) on the authority’s website, and
(b) in all public libraries in the local authority area.
(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision relating to the provision of family support services by local authorities.
(7) In this section—
“local authority” means—
(a) a county council in England;
(b) a district council in England;
(c) a London borough council;
(d) the Common Council of the City of London (in their capacity as a local authority);
(e) the Council of the Isles of Scilly;
(f) a combined authority established under section 103 of the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009;
“children and parents” means—
(a) a child under the age of 18;
(b) a young person aged 18-25 who has a diagnosis of special educational needs;
(c) the parents of a child or young person;
(d) a person who has parental responsibility for a child or young person; or
(e) a person who is pregnant.””
This new clause would introduce a requirement on local authorities to provide family support services for all children and parents in their area.
Munira Wilson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Betts. New clause 30 is a simple clause that would put into statute the duty on every local authority to publish the details of their available preventive care and family support, because we know that those are crucial forms of early intervention for children who may be at risk of going into care or where families are struggling. They can prevent things getting to crisis point for families and children.
We know that a huge amount of good work is going on in local authorities up and down the country. Spending on preventive care is falling, while late intervention spend is rising, so it would be good practice for all local authorities to make that information freely and easily accessible to all families in the way that we have already legislated for, for instance, with the kinship care offer. I hope Ministers will seriously consider this simple new clause.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I rise to speak in particular to new clause 72, which is on a similar topic to new clause 30, although arguably is not quite as simply drafted. The number of children in care is at an all-time high, and outcomes for those children remain poor. Evidence from the children’s charity Action for Children shows that children who have any interaction with social care are twice as likely to fail an English or maths GCSE than their peers. We need to change those outcomes, preferably through early intervention.
We have spent much time in Committee discussing the Bill’s provisions on improving care for children who need to live with a foster family or in a residential home. It is important that the best possible support is available for those children who, for whatever reason, cannot live with their birth families. However, to significantly improve children’s social care, we need to radically reset the system with a much greater focus on helping families earlier on.
I welcome the Ministers’ comments in our previous debates that the Government are committed to helping children growing up in our country to get the best start in life through wider investment in family hubs and parenting support. However, as drafted, the Bill does little to do this. Only one section of the Bill, which covers family group decision making, and which we discussed right at the start, directly addresses the need for more early intervention. Unless we amend the Bill to go further, we will continue to have a system heavily balanced towards working with families when they reach crisis point, rather than one that seeks to prevent problems before they start.
As we have discussed, families in England face mounting pressures from the lingering effects of covid-19, the high cost of living and economic uncertainty. At the same time, there have been significant cuts to services to support families. I find this statistic shocking: between 2010-11 and 2022-23, spending on early help, such as family homes and children’s centres, decreased by 44%, while spending on late intervention, including children in care, increased by 57%. The skew is going the wrong way, and it does not have to be this way.
Since the late 1990s, several initiatives have been aimed at providing support to families in their communities. That includes the Sure Start centres—first established in 1997, with more than 3,500 children’s centres having been developed by 2009—and the latest family hubs, which provide support to parents from pre-birth all the way through to 18. These centres provided welcome, non-stigmatising support for families. The services they offer and have offered are varied, but often include provisions such as stay-and-play sessions, speech and language support or benefit and employment advice for parents.
While welcomed by families themselves, too often such services are seen as a “nice to have” and subject to cuts when funding is short. It is perhaps not surprising that evidence suggests that around 1,000 such centres have shut since 2009, but we know that cutting early support for families is a false economy. It does not benefit children and families, who are too often left to struggle alone, and it does not save money in the long term. In fact, spending on early intervention programmes has repeatedly been shown to be cheaper than spending later. And this is not just about the finances; it is about the wellbeing of children and families.
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
I appreciate the intention of the hon. Member for Twickenham in tabling new clause 30, and I agree that local authorities should be transparent about the services available to support children and families. However, our statutory guidance, “Working Together to Safeguard Children,” already requires local authorities and their statutory safeguarding partners to publish accessible information about the services that they offer children and families, including preventive services and family support.
I welcome the reference that the hon. Member for Twickenham made to preventive services and family support. The Government are committed to rebalancing the children’s social care system towards earlier intervention and reversing the trend of unsustainable spending at the crisis end of the system. Ou reforms to family help and multi-agency child protection, backed by over £500 million of investment in the next financial year, will improve access to early intervention services and ensure that more children and families can access the help and support that they need at the earliest opportunity.
I appreciate the intention of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire in tabling new clause 72, and I agree that local authorities should have a range of services available to support all children and young people and their families, but we have already planned investments of over £600 million for family services, across the spectrum of need—from universal services through to children’s social care interventions—in 2025-26. Through the family hubs and Start for Life programme, 75 of the most deprived local authorities in England have received funding to set up family hubs with integrated Start for Life services at their core. An additional 13 local authorities have been supported in opening family hubs through an earlier transformation fund.
By joining up and enhancing services, family hubs provide a welcoming front door to vital support to improve health, education, and the wellbeing of babies, children, young people and their families. More than 400 family hubs are funded through that programme. In 2025-26, local authorities will receive a further £126 million of combined funding from the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care.
Our reforms to family help and multi-agency child protection, backed by over £500 million of investment in the next financial year, will improve access to early intervention services and ensure that children and families with multiple and/or complex needs can access the help and support they need at the earliest opportunity. I hope that that response is reassuring and that the hon. Member for Twickenham feels able to withdraw the amendment.
Munira Wilson
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 31
Eligibility for free school lunches
“In section 512ZB of the Education Act 1996 (provision of free school lunches and milk), before paragraph (a) insert—
‘(za) C’s household income is less than £20,000 per year;’”—(Munira Wilson.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Munira Wilson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
There has been an explosion of mental health issues among our children and young people. The need and waiting lists for support were already high and growing prior to the covid pandemic, and the impact of lockdowns only made that worse. The demand for services—whether they are school-led, community-led or health service-led—is rising, and those services are struggling. The NHS estimates that one in five students under the age of 16 has a probable mental health disorder, and that figure rises to an astonishing 23% of students between the ages of 17 and 19, so we need urgent action.
I note that the Labour party manifesto committed to having a mental health professional in every secondary school, and in recent months Ministers have intimated that they intend to expand existing mental health support teams established under the previous Government. The roll-out of mental health support teams is far from complete, however. I do not have the latest data as of today, but I know that it was previously projected that by the end of 2024, only about half of secondaries and a quarter of primaries would have access to a mental health support team. With half of all lifetime mental health conditions arising before the age of 14, early intervention is key.
The new clause would place a duty on school governing bodies to ensure that every maintained and academy school in England, whether primary or secondary, has a dedicated mental health practitioner on site, with collaborative provision in place for smaller schools where it would perhaps not be sensible to have a dedicated person. That may particularly be the case in small schools. These dedicated practitioners would be trained to a graduate or postgraduate level through sources commissioned by NHS England.
There is growing evidence linking mental wellbeing to academic success. Many schools are already working incredibly hard and stretching their limited resources to provide support, but too often heads and governors tell me that they desperately need to do more. With ever-tightening budgets, mental health provision in many schools is in line to be cut. The duty that we have set out in the new clause would be accompanied by funding from central Government. The Liberal Democrats propose to fund this by trebling the tax on big tech giants and social media companies, which we know are fuelling the growth in poor mental health among our young people.
Having a dedicated mental health practitioner in all schools, both primary and secondary, would ensure that students received timely and professional support. It is the right thing to do for our children and young people.
Stephen Morgan
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss access to mental health practitioners in schools—something this Government obviously support. We know that having the right mental health and wellbeing provision in schools is key to ensuring that children and young people can achieve and thrive, and that access to early support can address problems before they escalate.
Already, 44% of children and young people have access to an NHS-funded mental health support team in school, and we expect that to increase to around 50% by April. These teams include a new workforce of education mental health practitioners with qualifications earned through an NHS-commissioned course, as the hon. Member for Twickenham has previously referenced. However, that is still not enough, and I want to reassure the hon. Lady that outside of this Bill, the Government are committed to providing access to specialist mental health professionals in every school, and that progress is being made to achieve this.
The Government are clear that it would be impractical for schools to pay for and oversee NHS-trained mental health practitioners, especially when workforce recruitment, training, pay and conditions, important clinical supervision arrangements, continuous professional development and established systems for reporting and evaluating outcomes already exist within the NHS. This new clause would not add to the provision of mental health professionals, but would in practice switch the responsibility for an NHS-trained health service from the NHS to schools. Mandating this responsibility for schools would add a further unnecessary burden on them, as the health sector is better placed to make arrangements for education mental health practitioners in school.
Munira Wilson
The Minister said “every school”. Will he clarify on the record that he means every primary and secondary school?
Munira Wilson
Will he give us a timeline for that? This commitment has been made repeatedly, but we have heard nothing about when the services will be expanded.
Stephen Morgan
I am very happy to take the hon. Lady’s intervention; she will know that the Bill delivers a range of measures that will support children’s wellbeing. The Government are obviously committed to improving mental health support specifically, which is why we introduced the Mental Health Bill last November, which delivers on our manifesto commitment to modernise mental health legislation more broadly. We are committed to providing access to specialist mental health professionals in every school, and we are working through that at pace, alongside the existing work of the mental health support teams.
We will also be putting in place Young Futures hubs, including access to mental health support workers, and are recruiting an additional 8,500 new mental health staff members to treat children and adults. With that in mind, and with my assurance that we will deliver on our important manifesto commitment, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her new clause.
Munira Wilson
I wish to press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Munira Wilson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause seeks to introduce a tutoring guarantee so that every disadvantaged pupil who may have fallen behind gets the extra support they absolutely deserve. Members across the House will recall that on the back of covid, we had the national tutoring programme, which, according to all evidence, despite being beset with all sorts of challenges when it was rolled out, helped to boost attainment, confidence and school attendance. Sadly, the money for the national tutoring programme and the 16 to 19 tutoring fund ran out in July of last year.
Catherine McKinnell
I appreciate the hon. Member’s concern, and I thank her for raising this issue. We believe that schools are best placed to understand the needs of their pupils and should be able to choose from a range of options to best suit those needs, with tutoring being one option, but not the only one.
Although the national tutoring programme ended on 31 August 2024, schools can continue to provide tutoring through the use of their pupil premium and other school funds. The pupil premium is funding to support the educational outcomes of disadvantaged pupils, and schools can direct spending where they think the need and impact is greatest. The Department for Education has already published guidance, based on evidence gathered through the national tutoring programme, on how to plan and deliver tutoring to pupils to support schools that wish to use this option. Pupil premium guidance sets out approaches, including tutoring, that can be used to support disadvantaged pupils, including those in the groups identified in the new clause. With that in mind, I kindly ask the hon. Member for Twickenham to withdraw the clause.
Munira Wilson
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 36
Establishment of a National Body for SEND
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, establish a National Body for SEND.
(2) The functions of the National Body for SEND will include, but not be limited to—
(a) national coordination of SEND provision;
(b) supporting the delivery of SEND support for children with very high needs;
(c) advising on funding needed by local authorities for SEND provision.
(3) Any mechanism used by the National Body for SEND in advising on funding under subsection (2)(c) should be based on current need and may disregard historic spend.”—(Munira Wilson.)
This new clause would establish a National Body for SEND to support the delivery of SEND provision.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Munira Wilson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We all know across this House that the special educational needs system is in absolute crisis across the country. Ministers have recognised the need for reform on multiple occasions. We have been assured that Ministers are working on it, and I have no doubt that they are working incredibly hard. New clause 36 provides them with a first step on that road to reform.
The new clause would establish a new dedicated national body for SEND, which would act as a champion for children with complex needs. It would also ensure that standards are being met across the country and that children are receiving the tailored support they need. We know that spending on high needs has trebled since 2015, but as the schools Ministers herself has pointed out on a number of occasions, educational outcomes for SEND pupils have remained stagnant, with only 8% meeting expected standards at the end of primary school.
The proposed body in the new clause would have three functions: national standards for SEND provision, ensuring consistent and equitable support for children across all the regions; supporting the delivery of SEND support for children with very high needs, providing targeted assistance to those requiring intensive support; and advising on funding for local authorities, offering guidance based on current need—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Order. A Division has been called in the House. We will suspend the sitting for 15 minutes if there is one vote, and 15 minutes extra for every other vote. I hope—going back to our primary school education—we can all work those sums out.
Munira Wilson
I will pick up where I left off, on the third of the three key functions that this national SEND body would have. Those functions are advising on funding for local authorities, offering guidance based on current need and moving away from outdated spending models.
The second function provides families and local authorities with the assurance they need that, when a child with very high needs is identified, funding for those needs is available and can be met through a central pot. When I am asked about that, I liken it to highly specialised NHS commissioning for rare conditions. It would eliminate the postcode lottery for families and the funding risk for local authorities; when a local authority comes across a child who has very, very complex needs and requires support, it can put a big pressure on its high-needs block.
This body would ensure consistency in standards across the country and drive continuous improvement. It is an important piece of the puzzle in reforming a SEND system that was described as “lose, lose, lose” by the previous Conservative Education Secretary, Gillian Keegan.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank the hon. Lady for raising the issue. As she knows, we are absolutely aware of the challenges in the SEND system and how urgently we need to address them, but, as I know she appreciates, these are complex issues and need a considered approach to deliver sustainable change. We do not believe that the SEND system needs another body that would add to the bureaucracy in the system. The focus is on making the system less bureaucratic and getting support to children and young people who need it quickly and efficiently.
The Children and Families Act 2014 requires local authorities to work with a wide range of partners, including schools, colleges, health and, crucially, parents and young people, to develop their local offer of services and provision for special educational needs and disabilities. That recognises the differing circumstances of each local area and places decision making with the local authority. Crucially, decisions about provision for individual children and young people with statutory education, health and care plans are currently made by the local authority, which will know its schools, colleges and settings and the provision that they can offer in a way that a national body could not.
I absolutely recognise the challenges of supporting children with very high needs, particularly those who require highly specialist provision. Local authorities have statutory responsibilities to make joint commissioning arrangements about education, health and care provision for all children and young people who have special educational needs or a disability in the local authority’s area. We do not believe that a new body is required to support local authorities to deliver on those duties. The Government keep the funding formula and other arrangements that the Department uses to allocate funding for children and young people with SEND under review, and it is important that there is a fair education funding system that directs funding where it is needed. The input of stakeholders will be invaluable as we review current arrangements, but there is no need for a new national body to do that. Although I absolutely take on board the intentions and concerns of the hon. Member for Twickenham, I kindly request that the new clause be withdrawn.
Munira Wilson
I shall disappoint the Minister: I would like to press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. Home education is a choice taken by parents for a number of different reasons, as we have previously heard when debating this Bill. However, just because a parent chooses to educate their child at home and not take up a local authority school place, it should not mean that their child cannot access the examination system. At present, access to examinations for home-educated children is extremely limited, as there are only commercial providers in that space, which means that it becomes very expensive for parents. Examination space is often limited, especially for those with SEND. This new clause would ensure that all children can access and sit national examinations in order to prepare for life in further education and the world of work.
In the interests of time, I will keep my remarks brief. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
Stephen Morgan
The new clause, tabled by the hon. Member for Twickenham, seeks to create a duty for local authorities to make provision for children who are eligible to be included on the children not in school registers to sit any relevant national examination should a parent request that, and
“to provide financial assistance to enable the child to sit”
such examinations. Electing to home educate is not an easy decision, and home educating children is a massive undertaking. I applaud those parents who work tremendously hard to do so. However, parents who choose to home educate assume full responsibility for the education of their child, and our guidance is clear on that.
The choice to home educate should be an informed one, with full awareness of potential challenges and the associated costs. That includes considering and planning in advance how to access examinations and qualifications for the child, including making inquiries with local centres as early as possible. To assist with that, the Joint Council for Qualifications publishes a list of centres that are available to private candidates to take their examinations. Parents can also contact exam boards, which may be able to direct them to a centre where their child can sit exams.
The Bill introduces a duty on all English local authorities to provide support in the form of advice and information to all eligible families who request it. For the first time that creates an established baseline of support to ensure that wherever home educating families live, they have access to a reliable level of support from their local authority. Within that duty, I expect local authorities, when requested, to provide advice and information to private candidates about how to access and navigate the examination system.
Local authorities retain discretion to provide further support above that baseline to families in their local area if they choose to do so. Some may choose to contribute towards the cost of examinations for families in their area. That is a decision for each local authority, depending on its budgetary position and local need. I therefore ask the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire to withdraw the new clause.
Ian Sollom
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 38
Consultation on the structures of governance for local authority and academy schools
“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a public consultation on the current structures of governance within both local authority and academy schools.
(2) The consultation conducted under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) the role of school governors;
(b) the statutory duties of school governors;
(c) ways to encourage people to become school governors; and
(d) any other matters that the Secretary of State may see fit.
(3) The Secretary of State must issue the consultation conducted under subsection (1) within one year of the commencement of this Act.
(4) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the consultation closing, publish and lay before Parliament his response to the consultation.” —(Ian Sollom.)
This new clause instigates a review of school governance in light of the severe shortage of school governors and the increasing responsibilities that volunteer governors are taking on.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Ian Sollom
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I move this new clause on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), who is herself a school governor, to highlight the severe shortage of school governors and the increasing responsibilities they face. The recruitment of governors has become increasingly difficult. Indeed, the National Governance Association estimates that in 2022 vacancies hit a six-year high at 20,000. Its latest report last year revealed that 76% of schools found it difficult to recruit governors, while 44% of boards had two or more vacancies, up from 33% three years ago. Moreover, 30% of governors considered resigning because of an inability to balance their governance responsibilities with their jobs.
Evidence shows that the responsibilities of school governors have significantly increased over time, and Ofsted said that since schools’ autonomy increased, starting with the Education and Inspections Act 2006, the role has become more important but also more complex. Historically, school governors provided formal oversight, but they are now also expected to ensure regular performance reviews and financial oversight, and to hold school leadership accountable. The position has become increasingly professionalised, and Ofsted has identified that growth in responsibility as a key factor in many schools struggling to achieve a good or higher rating. That is largely because governors fail to focus on holding school leadership accountable, and have that split responsibility with other aspects of the role. The new clause seeks to probe that issue more, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Catherine McKinnell
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss governance structures in schools and academies. I sincerely thank the incredible volunteer force, which is a vital part of our system. I have such admiration for those in our communities who step up and invest their precious time and energy in our schools and young people. Governors and trustees work tirelessly in the interests of pupils and students in what we recognise is an often challenging environment. We really do owe them a debt of thanks.
Ian Sollom
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 39
Establishment of Child Protection Authority
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, establish a Child Protection Authority for England.
(2) The purpose of such an Authority will be to—
(a) improve practice in child protection;
(b) provide advice and make recommendations to the Government on child protection policy and reforms to improve child protection;
(c) inspect institutions and settings at some times and in such ways as it considers necessary and appropriate to ensure compliance with child protection standards; and
(d) monitor the implementation of the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse and other inquiries relating to the protection of children.
(3) The Authority must act with a view to—
(a) safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children;
(b) ensuring that institutions and settings fulfil their responsibilities in relation to child protection.”—(Munira Wilson.)
This new clause would seek to fulfil the second recommendation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in establishing a Child Protection Authority for England.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Munira Wilson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I rise to speak to new clause 39, in my name and those of a number of my hon. Friends, which seeks to fulfil the second recommendation of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse by establishing a child protection authority in England, which would be an arm’s length body of the Government on a par with organisations such as the National Crime Agency. As the inquiry set out, its role would be to
“improve practice in child protection by institutions, including statutory agencies;…provide advice to government in relation to policy and reform to improve child protection, including through the publication of regular reports to Parliament and making recommendations; and…inspect institutions as it considers necessary.”
I recently met Professor Jay and a member of the panel who was involved in that review, and they felt that there are certain gaps in the inspection regime across the country, so having this overarching national body with a focus on child protection is a really important recommendation and step forward. Indeed, it was the report’s second recommendation. The child protection authority would monitor the implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations.
I am very grateful that the Government have already committed to implementing the recommendations, but I gently say to Ministers that this Bill, which we have spent several weeks going through in detail, already focuses on a number of safeguards and child protection measures. One of the many reasons that the previous Government gave for not implementing some of the recommendations was a lack of legislative time, which I struggle to understand given the number of times the House rose early in the previous Parliament. Given that the IICSA recommendation requires legislation and we are considering a very relevant Bill, I am not entirely sure that the Government are committed to implementing it as they are not legislating for a child protection authority.
When we discussed new clause 15 this morning, the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen said that many of the crimes explored in the report are undoubtedly ongoing. Therefore, what could be more important than putting these provisions in place? I very much hope Ministers will seriously consider implementing this recommendation quickly and using the legislative opportunity. Even if they will not accept my new clause, there is time as the Bill progresses through Parliament to put into legislation one of Professor Jay’s key recommendations.
Catherine McKinnell
As the Prime Minister has made clear, we are focused on delivering the change and justice that victims deserve. As I set out earlier in response to new clause 15, on 6 January, the Home Secretary outlined in Parliament the commitments to introduce a mandatory duty for those engaging with children to report sexual abuse and exploitation, making grooming an aggravating factor to toughen up sentencing, and introducing a new performance framework for policing.
On 16 January, the Home Secretary made a further statement to the House that before Easter, the Government will lay out a clear timetable for taking forward the 20 recommendations from the final Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse report. Four were for the Home Office, including on disclosure and barring, and I know that work is already under way on those. As the Home Secretary stated, a cross-Government ministerial group is considering and working through the remaining recommendations, and that group will be supported by a new victims and survivors panel. Again, as I mentioned, the Government will also be implementing all the remaining recommendations in IICSA’s separate stand-alone report on grooming gangs from February 2022, and as part of that we will update key Department for Education guidance.
This landmark Bill will put in place a package of support to drive high and rising standards throughout our education and care systems, so that every child can achieve and thrive. It will protect children at risk of abuse and help to stop vulnerable children falling through cracks in service. I therefore urge hon. Members to support the Bill and the measures, and to withdraw the new clause.
Munira Wilson
I am still at a loss to understand why, if the Government support the recommendations, they are not using this legislative opportunity. I will therefore press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Munira Wilson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 42 would impose a requirement on the Secretary of State to introduce a national wellbeing measurement programme for children and young people throughout England. I set out the need and the case for mental health support provision during our debate on new clause 33, and I pay tribute to #BeeWell and Pro Bono Economics, which have done a lot of work on the national wellbeing measurement. As we heard from witnesses in oral evidence a few weeks ago, despite having the word “wellbeing” in the Bill’s title, the legislation lacks measures that will improve the wellbeing of this country’s children and young people.
England’s young people have the lowest level of wellbeing in Europe and are in the bottom 5% worldwide, according to the OECD’s programme for international student assessment survey. During our oral evidence sessions, Anne Longfield, Dr Carol Homden from Coram and Mark Russell from the Children’s Society all made the case for the systematic national measurement of children and young people’s wellbeing.
Many of us are well aware that data on children’s wellbeing and mental health is fragmented across the NHS, schools and local authorities. Indeed, in the last Parliament, I sought to introduce a private Member’s Bill to address that gap, with regular annual reporting to Parliament on mental health and wellbeing data. Sadly, it was rejected by the Conservative Government at the time and talked out.
On the other hand, and given the Minister’s already stated commitment to improving the mental health of our children and young people, I hope that the Labour Government will take the opportunity to introduce a national wellbeing measurement to focus efforts and provide a measurable standard from which we can mark progress. That would give all children and young people a voice on the issues that matter to their mental health and wellbeing, allow regular tracking of national progress, support detailed service planning within local communities, enable targeted support for groups of young people struggling the most, help school leaders to understand how they are performing and support the development of new evidence on what works for improving children’s wellbeing.
Stephen Morgan
New clause 42 is intended to require the establishment of a national children and young people’s wellbeing measurement programme. The Government are committed to improving the wellbeing of children and young people. Alongside improving health outcomes, we will break down barriers to opportunities, supporting all children to achieve and thrive. We know that elements of thriving, such as positive school belonging and childhood physical and mental wellbeing, are associated with academic attendance and the development of key life skills. The Bill, and our plan for change, will help us to achieve that.
We acknowledge the value of understanding wellbeing. A wide range of data on children and young people’s wellbeing is already collected nationally to inform policy development. That includes DFE and Government-funded surveys such as the Office for National Statistics data on children’s wellbeing; the DFE parent and pupil voice panel surveys and recent national behaviour survey reports; the Department of Health-funded survey of the prevalence of mental health disorders, which is currently paused; and the health behaviours of school-aged children study, which is currently seeking funding. Surveys also include the Children’s Society “Good Childhood Report” and international data from PISA.
Damian Hinds
There have now been four waves of updates from the children and young people’s mental ill health prevalence survey conducted by the NHS. That invaluable resource has provided annual data and enabled us to look at ourselves against other countries, although the data are not perfectly comparable. I gather that there is no current commitment to wave five. I know the Department of Health and Social Care said that it would keep an open mind, but will the Minister join me in strongly encouraging his colleagues at the Department to maintain that data series, because it is incredibly important?
Stephen Morgan
I will certainly take away that point. I know that the right hon. Member cares passionately about the wellbeing of children and young people, and I am happy to explore that further.
We know that many good schools and local areas already measure pupil wellbeing to inform local action. The Department encourages that, with identifying need and monitoring impact being one principle of an effective whole-school approach to mental health and wellbeing. Although we do not currently have plans to introduce a standardised national wellbeing measurement programme, we continue to engage with schools to increase the understanding of wellbeing measurement approaches and impact.
It is not clear that the benefits of a national programme would outweigh the burdens on schools, or the reduction in their ability to select tools to suit their cohorts. We would also need to consider the potential effect of a national measure on school accountability. Should the case for a national measure be made, there is likely to be scope to introduce the kind of voluntary participation programme envisaged in the new clause without recourse to primary legislation. On that basis, I invite the hon. Member for Twickenham to withdraw the new clause.
Munira Wilson
I wish to press the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Neil O’Brien
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
When I was on the Science and Technology Committee in 2018, I got us to do a report on screen time, social media and children’s mental health. Even then the evidence was alarming; now it is absolutely terrifying. Children are now given smartphones at a very early age. A quarter of the UK’s three and four-year-olds own a smartphone, and by the end of primary school, four out of five kids have one. Over the past decade, there has been an explosion in mental health problems among young people all over the world. Over the exact same period, smartphones and social media became dominant in children’s lives. The growth in anxiety and mental health problems that we are seeing is focused almost entirely in young people, not older people.
There are many channels through which smartphones and social media cause problems for children. First, they displace time in the real world with friends. US data shows that prior to 2012, children spent more than two hours a day with friends. By 2019, that had halved. The proportion of kids feeling lonely and isolated at school has exploded all over the developed world.
The invention of infinite-scroll social media has always reminded me of the famous social science experiment with the bottomless soup bowl. In this experiment, people were invited to eat from a soup bowl that was, unbeknownst to them, invisibly refilled from below. The constant refilling made people eat nearly twice as much as they would with a normal bowl—in some cases absurd amounts of soup.
This is not just about a time sink; there is also the lack of sleep. Kids are tired in school. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder has increased massively, and concentration is impaired. This is a feature, not a bug. Apps are designed to be addictive and drip-feed the user dopamine. The same problems are happening not just in the English-speaking world, but in the Nordic nations and all across western Europe. Alternative explanations do not fit the data.
Well-funded efforts by the tech industry to lobby, muddy the water, run interference and sow confusion are unconvincing. These problems are not just a coincidence. There is more and more evidence for a causal link to the disaster hitting our kids. Sapien Labs asked questions about adults’ mental health and combined them into a mental health quotient. They asked the same people when they got a smartphone. Some 28,000 people answered and the results were stark: the earlier a person gets a phone, the worse their adult mental health. That was particularly the case for girls.
On new clause 33, we heard from the hon. Member for Twickenham about the mental health challenge. Data from the OECD’s PISA found that, on average, two thirds of 15-year-olds across OECD countries reporting being distracted using digital devices, including phones, in most or every maths class. In addition, around 60% of pupils got distracted by other pupils using digital devices. That PISA data showed a “tangible” association between the use of digital devices in schools and bad learning outcomes. Students who reported being distracted by peers using devices in some or most maths classes scored significantly lower in maths tests, equivalent to three quarters of a year’s-worth of education. The effects are large.
Other studies have found that the use of smartphones in classrooms leads to students engaging in non-school-related activities—unsurprisingly—which adversely affects recall and comprehension. One study found that it can take students up to 20 minutes to refocus on what they were supposed to be learning after engaging in a non-academic activity.
Many parents know the problems with smartphones, but we face a collective action problem. We worry that our kids will miss out if they are the only ones without them, and we need to solve this problem. Across the country, there has been an explosion of parent-powered campaign groups aiming to fight back, including Smartphone Free Childhood, Safe Screens, and Delay Smartphones, to name but a few. They are doing inspiring work. Mumsnet has started a “Rage Against the Screen” campaign.
The Children’s Commissioner said:
“I honestly think that we will look back in 20 years’ time and be absolutely horrified by what we allowed our children to be exposed to.”
She is right. The shift to a screen-based childhood is having bad effects on young people, from mental health to school readiness to children simply turning up exhausted because they have been on their phone all night. These effects are set to widen gaps in achievement unless something decisive is done.
There are many things that the Government should do, but the first is to implement a proper ban on phones in school. The last Government issued guidance, but that is not enough. Although 90% of schools would say that they have some sort of ban, a survey by Policy Exchange last year found that only one in 10 schools had a full start-to-finish ban, which is the policy that we know works best. Lots of schools are still trying policies where kids have phones on them but are not supposed to have them out. The effect is that kids are distracted, teachers have to tell them to put them away, and all the issues to do with bullying and social media are in play during break times and more.
Ellie Chowns
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case for banning smartphones in schools, but does he agree that banning smartphones in schools will not, in and of itself, tackle the problems that he has articulated? A recently published study, the first proper nationwide study of its type, shows that banning smartphones in school does not generate any statistical differences in various outcomes, because there is no difference in the amount of time that children are spending on their devices. Although there are strong arguments for banning them in school—and I recognise that there is a strong call for that from parents, teachers and, indeed, many students—a much more holistic approach is needed to tackle the harms that he has outlined.
Neil O’Brien
The hon. Lady makes a thoughtful point. There is a fantastic meta-analysis published by the London School of Economics and the 5Rights Foundation of all the different studies that have been done on this around Europe. The hon. Lady referred to a specific study, which I hope to speak to the authors about. It is a good study, and perfectly sensible, but the issue is that it cannot find anything statistically significant because it looked at only 30 schools, with a sample size of about 1,200 pupils. It does not look at any natural experiments either, so it does not look at schools that are changing their policies.
Where we have good RCT-like evidence, like in the great study in Spain, where they looked at a province that changed its policy wholesale, we can see from those natural experiments the really powerful effects of in-school policies. I agree with the hon. Lady that this is not the only thing that we should do. The study she mentioned was not wrong; it just could never show us the things that people are interested in. Indeed, there is plenty of other evidence out there in these meta-analyses, and from Jonathan Haidt’s website, of really powerful in-school effects.
A study in the US shows that a class time-only rule does not give teachers as much benefit as they might expect. Research from the National Education Association found that 73% of teachers in schools that allow phone use between classes find that phones are disruptive during classes. The same is true here. The Department for Education’s national behaviour survey, published in April 2024, found that 35% of secondary school teachers reported mobile phones being used during lessons without permission. The problem is more pronounced for older children, unsurprisingly. Some 46% of pupils in years 10 to 11 reported mobile phones being used when they should not have been during “most or all” lessons. That is nearly half of pupils in most or all lessons reporting disruption, so the problem is absolutely there in the DFE’s data.
The idea that guidance has done the trick and that there is no longer a problem to solve is contradicted by the Department’s evidence. Work by the company Teacher Tapp, also known as School Surveys, similarly finds very high levels of problems and no signs of progress. Instead of guidance, all schools should be mandated and funded to have lockers and pouches, and to get kids to put smartphones away for the whole day, including breaks. Schools should be the beachhead and the first place that we re-create a smartphone-free childhood—seven hours in which we de-normalise being on the phone all the time for young people.
Why do we need a full ban, and not just guidance? I already gave some of the data showing that the guidance has not worked, but there are two other reasons. First, we need to support schools and have their back. From speaking to teachers and school leaders, I know that the pressures from parents to allow phones can be really severe on schools. Some parents, unfortunately, can be unreasonably determined that they must be able to contact their child directly at any minute, even though they are perfectly safe in schools. In the sorts of places where three and four-year-olds have smartphones, that is, I am afraid, normalised now, so a national ban would make things simpler and take the heat off schools.
Secondly, a full and total ban is needed as part of a wider resetting of social norms, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said, about children and smartphones. Smartphones and social media are doing damage to education even when they are not being used in schools. Our new clause 48 aims to be proportionate, and subsection (2)(b) would allow for exceptions as appropriate, having learned the lessons of what has been done in other countries.
To come to the hon. Lady’s wider point, when I was a Health Minister, I wanted us to get going an equivalent of the famous five bits of fruit and veg a day for this field—other Members might remember “Don’t Die of Ignorance” or “Clunk Click Every Trip”. We need some big things to reset the culture and wake up a lot of people, who are not necessarily going to read Jonathan Haidt’s book, to dangers that they may be unaware of. The heavy exposure of our kids to addictive-by-design products of the tech industry is the smoking of our generation. As with smoking, the tech industry comes up with fake solutions that do not actually make things safe. In the 1950s, it was filters on cigarettes, and now it is the supposed parental filters on social media. Just like with smoking, there is unfortunately a powerful social gradient to unmonitored internet access, with the worst effects on the poorest.
I do not know what Ministers will do about our new clause this time round, and I do not know what they will do as the Bill goes through the other place, but I hope that they will end up implementing this idea at some point. I will take my hat off to them when they do.
Munira Wilson
I come at this new clause first and foremost as a parent before I look at it as an MP. Looking at it with both hats on, though, I have long supported the previous Government’s guidance to schools to try to ban mobile phones during the school day. For a long time, I have needed convincing that a legislative ban was required, but I have finally concluded that we probably need to move towards one, partly for the reasons that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston outlined. Some heads and school staff come under a lot of pressure from parents to allow the use of phones during the school day, but if this were a statutory requirement, the Government would have to provide the support needed to implement it.
Just this week, I talked to the headteacher of a secondary school in my constituency. He is very keen to implement a ban on phones during the school day, and he is trying, but kids are getting their phones out at various times and not staying off them. It is a fairly new school, but for some reason it was built without lockers, so there are no lockers. He has looked into purchasing lockers or Yondr pouches—the phone pouches that I believe the Irish Government have bought wholesale for every school in Ireland—and he said that that would cost him about £20,000, which he did not have in his budget. Putting the ban into statute would give headteachers and teaching staff the clout they need with parents who particularly want their children to have their phones during the school day, and the Government would need to resource the ban so that schools could implement it.
I draw Members’ attention to subsection (2) of the new clause, which deals with exemptions, because that is a very important point. Proper exemptions are important for young carers or children with health conditions that need monitoring via apps. School leaders and teachers know their children best, and they know which children need exemptions. I would be interested to know what the consequences would look like—would they fall on the school? I do not think the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston touched on that, but I would be interested in discussing another time how he thinks this ban could be enforced. It is just one of a suite of measures that we as policymakers need to take now, given the harm that phones and access to social media are undoubtedly doing to our children and young people.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I have some sympathy with the point that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston has made about the addictive quality of screen time. I also draw attention to the fact that the addictive nature of screen time is obviously a result of technology, but it is also due to a lack of competition from other uses of a child’s time.
As such, it still staggers me that the first debate in eight years on playgrounds took place only because I secured it. The Conservative Government did not call a debate on playgrounds in their 14 years in government, and the only strategy ever on national play was launched by Ed Balls and Andy Burnham in 2008, with £230 million made available. Several years later, the coalition Government drew a red line through that strategy. We have also seen a hollowing out of children’s centres and Sure Start centres—really, of the whole fabric of what a child’s early developmental years could be. The places where parents could get support—not just to be parents alongside each other, but to raise their children and help them to develop—have all been hacked away. We need to look at children’s wellbeing in that context.
I have reservations about the hon. Member’s proposal, partly because I think we need a clearer distinction between a mobile telephone and a smartphone. As somebody who was born in the 1980s and grew up in the 1990s, I see mobile telephones as typically restricted to SMS—I think that is what the kids call it these days—voice calls and maybe an alarm. A smartphone is something far more advanced, which has destructive social media, addictive apps, games and the like. Greater clarity about the distinction between mobile phones and smartphones might be helpful as we navigate this debate.
It was interesting to hear the Conservative spokesperson call for collective action. I am always a fan of that, and I encourage him to continue down that path. I am happy to have a cup of coffee with him as we discuss it.
Neil O'Brien
I anticipated that the hon. Member would say something of the sort. His argument is perfectly reasonable, and I tried to answer that exact point in my speech. We think that aspects of the Bill are too micro-managing, but we want central Government to take the heat for schools on this issue. That is both to make it easier for schools and, as the hon. Member for Twickenham said, because there should be a proper plan to roll this out at scale, as is happening in other countries in Europe.
Tom Hayes
I understood the point that the hon. Member made in his speech, and I understand his clarification. I still struggle to see how the new clause fits in with what I regard as the Conservative party’s ideology around schooling and children’s wellbeing. It feels anomalous to ask headteachers and teachers to work within a ban, rather than trusting them to use the flexibility that the previous Government gave them.
One highlight of the Committee’s debate over the last few weeks has been the recognition that our teachers and headteachers know their students best. It is important that we give them all the trust and support that they deserve. I sympathise with what the hon. Member says about addictive apps, but for me it is not about banning, per se; it is about creating a viable and better alternative that gives children and teenagers much better things to do with their time.
Damian Hinds
I rise to speak in favour of the new clause. Unusually, I will start by saying what the new clause will not do, and the limits of the change it proposes.
The truth is that the vast majority of online harm does not happen at school. Banning phones or social media in school will not necessarily reduce the total amount of time that children spend online or address schools’ worries about kids being online, such as the concern about the increasing number of children who turn up to school having not slept sufficiently to be ready for the day. Nor does the new clause address the wider problems—not day to day, but more chronic—with attention span and eyesight. We have recently heard a lot about the greater prevalence of myopia.
Rules in this area are still important, however, and behaviour in school is crucial for teacher recruitment and, particularly, retention. Three big things have changed in schools in the last few years. The first is an attitudinal shift that came about around the time of covid, and that it will take us some years to understand. The other two are vapes and phones. It cannot be overstated how much those three things affect what happens in a school, the feel of the school and what teachers and headteachers report back.
The first thing that schoolchildren need for learning is to be able to concentrate. There is good reason to believe that even when a child is not using a phone, the fact that it is in their pocket—that it could buzz, vibrate or whatever at any point—can distract them. I think it is an important principle that the entire school day, including break time and lunch time, should be reserved for what school is about: learning, developing and being with friends. The question, as always, is whether we leave that to individual schools or have a national rule, and the hon. Member for Bournemouth East was right to speak about the tension between the two. I confess that that is a question I have personally had to grapple with on more than one occasion, and there is not a single, simple answer.
In the Bill, there are many national rules for things that arguably do not need a national rule, and that could be left to individual schools so that they can do what is best for their school community—from the precise number of school uniform items to the exact length of breakfast. The hon. Member is right that the Labour instinct is to say, “Let’s have a national rule on everything; we like consistency.” There is nothing wrong with consistency. He is also right that our instinct is to say, “Leave those rules to the schools wherever possible.” There are, however, times when an overriding national rule is beneficial and makes sense.
In 2019, when I was at the Department for Education, this question came up for me. At the time, we decided not to put a national rule in place. Politicians are always expected to have a firm and clear view on everything, and Ministers are expected to be absolutely certain about every decision they make, but it does not always work like that. Things can often be argued both ways. I was never 100% sure at the time that I was doing the right thing, but I thought I was. In 2024, we introduced non-statutory guidance on how the use of mobile phones should be prohibited throughout the school day, which, crucially, included breaks. We were also clear that there was the option to make the guidance statutory if necessary.
The world has continued to change since then. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Minister described, when it comes to mobile phone use and our worries about children, that change has not made things slightly less bad than they were before. Worries have only deepened and intensified.
Tom Hayes
That is not the point on which I am intervening. I was going to say that by using the language of mobile phone and smartphone interchangeably, we are confusing the debate. If our debate is confused, I am not sure how we can arrive at a certain policy.
I called for agreement with the Government around national rules. I want to clarify that I did not mean on everything, but only on the things in the Bill that I think need national rules. I agree with the right hon. Member that that is what provides consistency.
Damian Hinds
The hon. Member is right about the difficulty with defining the term smartphone. People talk about a brick phone, a feature phone, a basic phone, a Nokia, a smartphone and an iPhone, but the truth is that there is no definition; smartphone is just a term. It originally came about when people did not want to use the brand name iPhone, because Samsung phones and other types of phone were available. It just means a smarter phone; it has more stuff on it. Some of the things that people worry about are not necessarily only available on smartphones. I looked recently at iMessage, and it is starting to look more like WhatsApp. Anything that can be used for a group chat has some of the issues that we find in schools that cover the teenage and sub-teenage years.
There are other things that people can get on a smartphone but not on a Nokia that are perfectly benign. Some parents are quite keen for their kids to be able to look at the weather. Some are keen to be able to use the tracking device to follow their child, or for their child to be able to use the mapping device to find their way home, so I agree with the hon. Member.
Damian Hinds
This is in danger of turning into a much longer speech than I anticipated.
Neil O'Brien
It is good to have this point of clarification. The clause uses the rather quaint phrase “mobile telephones” to capture everything, because the distinction between these devices is blurred. Among those who are interested in the smartphone issue, there is a separate debate about the use of dumbphones for things like walking to and from school, but there is no reason why even a dumbphone cannot cause massive distraction if it is out in class. A child could be texting somebody, for example, and, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the distinction between these things is blurred these days. That is why we have this catch-all term. It is clear, and it is possible to legislate on that basis, notwithstanding our other discussions outside the scope of this debate.
Damian Hinds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the shadow Minister for refocusing what I was saying, and he is absolutely right. Some of our worries in relation to children apply regardless of the piece of technology. Anything that demands our attention and is ever-present brings such risks.
Tom Hayes
I want to labour this point, as it were, because I understand entirely the point that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston made. It is important to do so, because there are parents and children who wish to retain the option of being in contact with each other for safeguarding or wellbeing reasons. Such parents typically draw the distinction between a mobile phone, which allows for SMS and voice calls; and a smartphone, which typically has addictive social media or games, or particular apps that might cause wider safeguarding concerns. That is why I am trying to draw the right hon. Gentleman into focusing on mobile phones—brick phones, Nokia phones or the ones that Snake can be played on—as opposed to more sophisticated phones.
Damian Hinds
I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. I had my most recent constituency session with parents on the matter last Friday, and with some things, there is a bit of a grey area. Lots of parents say, “I don’t really mind so much about this”, but others do mind. With tracking technology, for example, some parents say that they really do not like being able to know where their child is. There is some variance, but the one imperative that is common to almost every parent is, “I want my child to be able to call me if they are in trouble, and I want to be able to call them on the way to and from school.” Parents want to hear from children if a club has been cancelled and they will be coming home at a different time, or if they are worried, or whatever it is. It is possible to do that on essentially any phone on the market, from the highest iPhone—I do not know what number they are up to these days—down to the most basic sub-Nokia brick phone.
There are other questions about functionality, and about what social media is. The Australians are having a bit of a debate about that at the moment, because to ban social media, they have to know what they are trying to ban. However, to address directly the point that the hon. Member for Bournemouth East made, much of this discussion relates to all manner of electronica that a child might have in their pocket or bag.
Ellie Chowns
Are we not getting a bit distracted? The new clause is about banning things from the start of the first lesson to the end of the last, not on the way to or from school when children might want to call their parents.
Damian Hinds
The hon. Lady is quite right. I was only going to speak about this for three minutes or so, but the hon. Gentleman tempted me into other areas. On the promise that he was making one last intervention, I indulged him, and I am grateful to him.
In an earlier intervention on the Minister for School Standards, I mentioned the NHS mental health of children and young people survey, which shows us what has happened over time to children’s mental health. There is an inflection point and it comes, contrary to what most people believe, before the covid pandemic. That is the first critical data point to understand.
The second critical data point is that when we look beyond that study at other countries’ studies, we see that none of them are perfectly comparable, but studies in countries such as Germany, France and the United States follow basically the same pattern. There is an increase in the prevalence of mental ill health conditions in all the published data that I have seen for other countries. Whatever people say about domestic politics, whichever party was in Government here and whatever they did, that cannot explain what happens in France or the United States. The fact is that there is a global trend, or at least a trend in the western world, of an increasing prevalence of mental ill health conditions among children.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Member assist me in identifying where the new clause makes it clear that it is only in relation to children, as opposed to anyone in our schools?
Ellie Chowns
“Are you going to ban teachers from carrying phones?”, I think is what she means.
Damian Hinds
We can have the classic, “Oh, the wording is technically flawed” argument—which to be fair to the Government, they have not deployed in this Bill Committee yet. We hope the amendment will be subsumed into the Bill, but the Government would never say, “Oh, we’ll just take that amendment and put it in.” Whoever is in Government never says that; they say, “Right, we accept this point. Now we’ll work on the detailed wording”.
Neil O’Brien
To answer the question that the hon. Member for Derby North asked directly, subsection (2)(b) says the policy
“is to be implemented as the relevant school leader considers appropriate.”
I think this is—
The Chair
Order. There is only one speaker at a time and there can be one intervention—I also say to the right hon. Member that there is only one Chair, so let us get it right.
Catherine Atkinson
Does the right hon. Member agree that when we are looking at proposed new clauses in Committee, it is absolutely fundamental that what is written is capable of making meaningful legislation?
Damian Hinds
Yes, of course; we are legislating, and that is the case. It is also the case that, in my experience in Committee, the Government side never just accept an amendment put forward by the Opposition or another opposition party—or indeed by their own Back Benchers. If that has ever happened in modern history, it has yet to come across my bows. What we do is we debate what we are trying to do. If the new clause—which was drafted with expert help from the House of Commons—was accepted by the Government, as I very much hope it will be, they would without doubt say, “Oh, well, you need to change this, that and the other, and we’d do it slightly differently.” They would then bring forward their own Government new clause, and we would then vote on that on Report. We can have an elongated discussion about this, but I would rather just get to the end of what I was going to say about banning mobile phones in schools, and then—I believe I am right in saying—the hon. Lady may also speak. That is probably the easiest way to do it.
The increasing mental ill health of children and young people should be a matter of very serious concern for all of us. We should remember that it is something that is mirrored in other countries as well. Now, it is entirely scientifically invalid to infer from a correlation of two things—the increasing prevalence of social media and electronica, and the increasing prevalence of mental ill health—that one caused the other. Even if we cannot find any other potential cause that would have affected all those countries in the same way over the same timeframe, it is still scientifically invalid to directly infer causality. Logic has its limits, and I know a few people who seriously contest the idea that the spread and use of, and the very high amounts of time devoted to, mobile phones and social media has been a significant causal factor in that.
There are lots of different ways that one might address that and there are lots of things going on. The Online Safety Act 2023 was a landmark piece of legislation, and how it now gets implemented by Ofcom is very important. There is also the private Member’s Bill from the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister)—I think he became a Parliamentary Private Secretary overnight, so we hope there is still a good future for that private Member’s Bill. That is one part of what is going on. I also mentioned Australia, where there is a ban of some type to come in.
The school phones ban also plays a part. To be clear, it is not a ban on children carrying a mobile phone of any sort, brand or functionality to and from home and school. Nor does it preclude children who need to use a phone because of special educational needs, medical conditions, monitoring requirements or some other reasons from carrying one. Those things can be determined locally by the school. It is not a panacea—far from it—but it will make a difference in schools.
It is often said that mobile phones are already banned in the vast majority of schools, so a ban is not needed and will not have any effect. That is true to an extent. There are virtually no schools without policy. Clearly no one is allowed to whip out a phone and make a call in the middle of a maths lesson—in fact, we never actually see teenagers use a phone to make a call—and there are going to be some rules to some extent. In the Internet Matters survey, 43% of schools reported having an “out of sight” policy. It is true that lots of schools allow phone use in breaks and at lunch—I know that because I visited a lot of schools where kids had been using their phones in breaks and at lunch.
There is sometimes a bit of a hierarchy in how people assess these bans. One gets a slightly different assessment of the situation from Ministers, headteachers, classroom teachers and kids. According to the Youth Endowment Fund survey, which is huge—I think it surveys 7,500 13 to 17-year-olds—53% of children said they used mobile phones in break times, and one in six said they used their phone in lessons.
Having a national policy does not solve everything—kids still break rules sometimes—but it does make it easier for everyone. As I say, it does not preclude carrying a phone to and from school, and it does not preclude children with whatever additional needs from carrying them, but it supports leaders and teachers in what they are doing. It also makes it clear to parents that they cannot contact children during the school day—they can, but they do so through the school office, just as would have been the case in the old days. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston said, a national policy would set a firm norm.
More widely, the Government will have to return again and again to all the issues around online safety, social media use and the use of electronics, and they must study the mental health aspects in more detail. However, I suggest that, pending proof—the smoking example speaks to this—it is necessary to take a precautionary approach. When we put things in the hands of children, we tend not to say, “Let’s wait to see if it’s dangerous”; we test them first to make sure they are safe. I hope also that the Minister can speak with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care about the provision of more NHS guidance on safe and reasonable levels of mobile phone use for children’s early brain development.
I have gone on a long time, and much longer than I anticipated. I will stop there.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments.
We have spent a great deal of time in Committee hearing from Opposition Members about autonomy: headteachers’ autonomy, school autonomy, and school leaders knowing exactly what is best for their pupils and communities. Subsection (2)(b) of the new clause states that the policy
“is to be implemented as the relevant school leader considers appropriate”,
but that means that the school leader could choose not to ban mobile phones for anybody in their school; there are exemptions, and they could decide that that is what they need. But that was not what I was going to talk about.
The use of mobile phones in schools should be decided at school level. It should reflect school values, processes and procedures, and not be decided in a directive or legislation from Government. Deciding it at school level would allow for the reasonable use of phones and technology, and it would allow for a balanced approach to technology. It could involve the school community in a discussion about what the phones and technology are being used for—a simple ban would not do that—and could include conversations about digital wellness and promoting healthier relationships, both offline and online, and a healthy approach to using technology at school, in the workplace and in the wider world. If we banned kids from using phones in school, we probably should ban people in their offices and in meetings from using them, because they do not pay attention either. Given how often we look up and see people not even bothering, how on earth can children learn while using mobile phones and technology in a measured and supportive way?
I want to draw the Committee’s attention to the Birmingham study from February, which was mentioned previously. It found that banning smartphones in schools did not directly improve student academic performance or mental health. However, that research indicated that excessive phone use correlates with negative outcomes, yet there were no significant differences between the kids who had bans in their school and those who did not. It is about the wider picture, which has been talked about. I also draw the Committee’s attention to a survey conducted in November 2024 of over 1,000 teachers. One in five believed that a school-wide ban would not improve the relationships and attainment levels of children, and 41% agreed that they used smartphones as a teaching tool within their classrooms.
Neil O’Brien
The hon. Lady talks about the use of pupils’ own smartphones as a teaching tool in class. Does she have any worries about the equity of that? What happens to the kids who do not have smartphones in those situations?
Amanda Martin
That is a good point. Although we have to resource our schools properly to ensure appropriate iPads and computers that can be used, we would not want the situation the hon. Member described to continue either. We must ensure that schools are resourced.
We have talked about disruption in classrooms, and 20% of teachers said that the unauthorised use of mobile phones was one of the main causes. However, chatter and not sitting still accounted for 80% and 75% respectively, and disrespect to other pupils was much higher than the use of mobile phones. When asked whether a whole-school ban would improve learning, 18% felt that it would, but actually 57% felt that a class size reduction would improve behaviour much more. We need to give our schools the autonomy to have that conversation with their communities and to involve their students. We have student councils and we have parent groups, and we must involve them in the conversations on mobile phone use in schools so that we can teach digital wellness now and for the future.
Catherine Atkinson
Call me a lawyer—that increasingly seems to be a term of abuse in this place—but I want to be clear that voting for this new clause would be voting to enable the banning of adults, including staff, parents and visitors, from using and carrying mobile phones in schools. I thought that scrutinising line by line was literally our job in this Committee.
Stephen Morgan
New clause 48 would prohibit the use and carrying of certain devices during the school day. I thank the shadow Minister and my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth East, for Portsmouth North and for Derby North for their contributions, as well as the hon. Member for Twickenham and the right hon. Member for East Hampshire. I appreciate the thoughtfulness with which Members have contributed to the debate on the new clause.
We recognise the negative impact that mobile phones can have on children’s learning. Every pupil deserves to learn in a safe, calm classroom, and we will always support our hard-working and dedicated teachers to make that happen. That is why the Government’s “Mobile phones in schools” guidance is already clear that schools should prohibit the use of mobile phones throughout the school day, including during lessons, the time between lessons, break times and lunch time. It is for school leaders to develop and implement a policy, while ensuring that they adhere to the public sector equality duty and the Equality Act 2010.
New clause 48 lacks the flexibility required to accommodate some individual needs, such as a mobile phone as an adaptation for a disabled child. We know that schools are already prohibiting the use of mobile phones, including through outright bans. Even before guidance was published, around 97% of all schools in England had policies restricting mobile phone use in some way. There are a range of ways in which a mobile phone-free school can be achieved. We trust headteachers to develop a mobile phone policy that works for their own schools and for the school community.
Neil O’Brien
We have had an important and interesting debate, and we have heard a mix of arguments—some better than others, I think. The argument about drafting does not hold water. Subsection (2)(a) talks about students, subsection (4) talks about pupils, and subsection (2)(b) would allow a policy to be implemented in a sensible way. If Members do not agree with the new clause, they can just say so, rather than find lawyerly arguments against it.
However, there were some good points made. More than one thing can be a problem at a time, and this new clause is not the silver bullet. There are lots of problems with smartphone use outside of schools, as well as other things on top of that that we need to do. That is why I talked about this as a beachhead—as the first thing we should do. It is interesting that all over the world things are changing. In the US, the overwhelming majority of states either already have a ban or are on their way legislatively to getting one. The US is ground zero for a lot of these problems, and it is interesting that it is moving to take decisive action. I think we will, too.
For Ministers, there will always be a load of people who want to come to them and say that, “It’s all very complicated—I have been working with the industry,” “It’s correlation not causation,” or, “We should just let be.” There are things in the Bill where the Opposition have been critical of the Government for being more directive than we think is appropriate for the subject. On this issue, however, we think the subject is so important. In this House, we now all talk constantly about the mental health crisis among young people—it is such a big thing. It seems to be pretty incontrovertible that one of the main causes of that is the rise of the smartphone-based childhood. This provision could be an important first step towards tackling that massive national crisis.
I hope that at some point Ministers will think again about the provision when they have more time to reflect. The guidance on its own is not working; we can see from the data that it is not changing things enough. That is why I will press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 70—Appointment of Anti-Bullying Leads—
“In section 89 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (Determination by head teacher of behaviour policy), after subsection (2A) insert—
“(2B) For the purposes of preventing bullying under subsection (1)(b), the head teacher of a relevant school in England must appoint a member of staff to be the school’s Anti-Bullying Lead.
(2C) The Anti-Bullying Lead will have responsibility for developing the school’s anti-bullying strategy, which must—
(a) outline the steps which will be taken by the school to prevent all forms of bullying among pupils, particularly in relation to those pupils with protected characteristics;
(b) state how incidences of bullying are to be recorded and acted upon by the school; and
(c) detail the training relating to bullying awareness and prevention which will be made available to school staff.””
This new clause would require headteachers to appoint Anti-Bullying Leads, to lead on the development of anti-bullying strategies.
Neil O’Brien
We have a run of new clauses here—49, 50 and 51—and I will speak about them at the appropriate moment. I will not move new clause 50 in the interests of time. During lockdown a lot of parents, including me, gained an even greater respect for the teaching profession, yet we do not treat teachers like other professionals. We do not expect doctors or lawyers to put up with the kind of abuse that is sadly still far too common for schoolteachers. The Bill does many things, some of them good, but as an editorial in the TES pointed out, it is strangely silent on discipline and the right of teachers and pupils to have a safe place to work. To fix that, we have tabled these new clauses, which can be taken together.
The first concerns properly managing and measuring the situation. What gets measured gets managed, but at the moment we have far too little data on the state of discipline in our schools and in alternative provision. That is why new clause 49 provides for an annual report, and it locks in the current national behaviour survey, which is so important and creates wider and regular reporting of Government action on this subject. Endless polls show that it is one of the top issues facing teachers. It is one of the most important things to them, and we know that it drives good people out of this most valuable profession.
New clause 50, which I will not move today, would create an annual report on alternative provision for exactly the same reason, as well as for reasons concerning achievement and behaviour in AP. I will speak about new clause 51 at the appropriate moment, but it is about encouraging Ministers to go further on the discipline agenda, which I know they want to do. It is so vital to academic achievement in our schools, but it is also vital to a decent childhood, to not having to live in fear and to an orderly society.
Ellie Chowns
New clause 70 concerns anti-bullying work in schools. Bullying is a serious and a widespread problem. Each year, one in five children report being bullied. It has devastating effects on children’s mental health, their sense of belonging and their ability to thrive. It is a leading cause of school refusal, failure to attend school and disruptive behaviour.
Children who are afraid to attend school miss opportunities to learn and grow. Bullying creates long-term harm. Victims of bullying often suffer lasting consequences into adulthood, including poor mental health, unemployment and a lack of qualifications. People who are bullied may also struggle with relationships and lack life chances. Bullying has unequal effects; it affects different groups unequally. Some groups are significantly more at risk, including children with special educational needs and disabilities, those living in poverty and young carers. Bullying also costs the economy an estimated £11 billion annually due to its impact on education, health and productivity, so it is a serious problem.
The new clause would require the appointment of anti-bullying leads in schools. Evidence shows that a whole-school approach is the most effective way to tackle bullying, but that requires co-ordination by a senior staff member. Appointing an anti-bullying lead potentially alongside and within existing roles such in safeguarding or pastoral support ensures a focused and effective strategy. It is important to record bullying. Systematically recording incidents helps schools to identify patterns, implement interventions and measure progress. This duty, which is already in place in Northern Ireland, can be streamlined with digital tools. Transparent reporting fosters trust, supports accountability and creates safer and more inclusive schools without burdening staff.
It is also important to look at teacher training. Currently, there is no requirement for trainee teachers to receive anti-bullying training, and nearly half—42%—of teachers report feeling ill equipped to address bullying. The new clause will require schools to outline what anti-bullying training is provided to staff. Short, targeted training equips teachers to prevent and respond to bullying effectively, creating safer schools and improving wellbeing and learning outcomes for all pupils.
This matters because of the effects that I talked about on children and young people. We hear heartbreaking stories all the time. The Anti-Bullying Alliance collects testimonies from children and young people. One young person said,
“All the way through year 10 and 11, I ate my lunch in the toilet.”
Another child said that it “scars you for life.” Bullying has devastating effects, but it is not inevitable. With the right systems and the right leadership in place, we can make a difference and make schools safe for everyone. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to this new clause.
Stephen Morgan
New clause 49 sets out a requirement to publish an annual report on the behaviour of pupils in mainstream state-funded schools, and I will explain why the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston should withdraw it. The Department for Education already publishes the data from the NBS—the National Behaviour Survey—in an annual report. That is publicly available on the gov.uk website.
Neil O’Brien
This is a very positive moment. Will the Minister commit to continuing that survey, which is, as he says, so important?
Stephen Morgan
I will certainly take that point away.
The NBS reports provide an accurate, timely and authoritative picture of behaviour across England. The surveys allow us to build up a national picture over time, and act as a signpost to what schools need. By triangulating the views of professionals, children and parents, Government officials can gain better understanding of behaviour and of what is needed to support teachers and school leaders in practice. My Department will continue to use data from the NBS to inform future strategy and policy improvements on behaviour in schools.
Mr Betts, you will be pleased to hear that this is the last new clause that I expect to respond to. I conclude by thanking you and all the Chairs for expertly chairing the Committee; all Clerks and civil servants who have supported the smooth running of our proceedings; and all Committee members who have contributed so diligently to this landmark legislation. As a Government, we are determined to break down barriers to opportunity for every child in every part of the country. This Bill is one step further in our plan for change for children and families.
New clause 49 creates a redundancy and we do not believe it is necessary to legislate on this issue. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston to withdraw the clause.
Neil O’Brien
I echo those words, Mr Betts, and I thank the Minister for them.
I was pleased to hear the Minister’s positive comments about the National Behaviour Survey, though we have a paucity of data about this most vital issue, and it would be better to go much further. I also agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, who spoke so powerfully about the impact of bullying. One can never be too much on that absolutely vital issue. We will not press the new clause today, but we look to the Government to go beyond what already exists, and at least to maintain what exists now. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 51
Duty for schools to report acts of violence against staff to the police
“(1) Where an act listed in subsection (2) takes place which involves the use or threat of force against a member of a school’s staff, the school must report the incident to the police.
(2) An act must be reported to the police where—
(a) it is directed towards a member of school staff or their property; and
(b) it takes place—
(i) on school property; or
(ii) because of the victim’s status as a member of a school’s staff.
(3) The provisions of this section do not require or imply a duty on the police to take specific actions in response to such reports.” —(Neil O’Brien.)
This new clause would create a duty for all schools to report acts or threats of violence against their staff to the police. It would not create a requirement for the police to charge the perpetrator.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Neil O’Brien
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause is a continuation of the debate we were just having. It is time to ensure that all acts and threats of violence against teachers are reported to the police. It is very clear from the drafting of the clause that we are not looking to criminalise children, but we should not expect teachers to suck up abuse that we would never expect other professionals to. If we log what is going on, we have a chance of avoiding things that can escalate over time.
At the moment in Scotland, members of NASUWT are taking industrial action because of the failure of authorities to create discipline. The unions say that teachers
“report being told at debriefing meetings that their lessons are ‘not fun or engaging enough’”
That is absolutely extraordinary. NASUWT notes:
“A culture where there are no consequences for poor behaviour is not setting up pupils well for adult life and fails the employers’ duty of care towards its staff”.
It also says:
“The wholesale adoption of the restorative approach to pupil discipline has definitely been a problem”.
Mike Corbett of NASUWT said:
“You can’t offer a quiet chat and no serious consequences for this level of disruptive behaviour.”
We find ourselves, on this matter, in total agreement with the teaching unions and their wise words on this subject. In England, a Channel 4 exposé sadly showed the incredible extent of the problem and why we need to do far more to address it.
We want those who would lift their hands to a teacher and engage in an act of violence, intimidation or threat to know that it will absolutely be reported to the police. It is sometimes good to make a credible pre-commitment to things, and people need to know it is never acceptable to do those things. They need to know that there will be automatic consequences and that they should not expect that people will just turn the other cheek. People who are trying to help them—dedicating their lives to helping them—should not be used as punch bags. That is only one of the things we need to do, but this new clause is about resetting expectations around behaviour. If the Government will not support the new clause as drafted, we hope that they will support some version of it.
Catherine McKinnell
I agree with the sentiments behind the new clause. Any form of violence in school is completely and utterly unacceptable and should not be tolerated. By law, schools must have a behaviour policy. In the most serious cases, suspensions and permanent exclusion may be necessary to ensure that teachers and pupils are protected from disruption.
Schools or trusts as employers already have a statutory duty, outlined in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, to protect the health, safety and wellbeing of school staff at work. Where violence is involved on school premises, schools should take immediate and appropriate action. Should the incident constitute a potential criminal offence, it is for the school as an employer to consider involving the police, having followed the advice contained in the “When to call the police” guidance for schools and colleges by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, written in partnership with the Department for Education and the Home Office.
There are already appropriate provisions and guidance for schools to prevent and respond to violence on their premises. That includes guidance on when to involve the police, so the new clause is likely to impose an additional administrative burden on school leaders. Clearly, important points have been made, but, on the basis I have outlined, I invite the hon. Member to withdraw the clause.
Neil O’Brien
I absolutely agree with the Minister’s sentiment—of course she wants only the right thing for pupils and teachers. However, I will push the new clause to a vote, because we want to think about how we can go further on all these things to create the safe workplace that both teachers and pupils deserve.
In another part of the forest, there is an argument about non-crime hate incidents and logging them. The arguments made by the Government about logging them is that one thing leads to another. As I said before, we do not wish to criminalise children, but logging where actual acts of violence are taking place is an important resource for the police and other social services. We think that something along those lines would be useful, and I am keen to push this to a vote, but I know the Minister will think about everything extra that she can do to try to create a safe workplace.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Neil O’Brien
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Government are obviously reviewing the national curriculum at the moment. During our earlier debates in Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire pointed out that control of the national curriculum is an incredible power, yet, to date, it has operated really on precedent, custom, tradition and everyone being reasonable. This new clause aims to formalise that process a bit more.
At the moment, of course, the Government are taking advice from an independent review—very sensibly—but, legally, they do not actually have to take account of that; they could make whatever decision they wanted. In another Bill—the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill—the Government are centralising control over a whole bunch of stuff about qualifications and standards.
This new clause just sets up, for the first time, a proper process to formalise how the national curriculum is revised. It is an incredibly strong power and yet it is one that has operated—in one sense, nobly—on the assumption of everyone just behaving reasonably and people being “good chaps”, as it were, in the old parlance. This measure would put an actual formal legal process around such hugely important changes.
Catherine McKinnell
The current system for reviewing the curriculum works well, as the ongoing independent curriculum and assessment review shows, and has stood the test of time for successive Governments. The legislation gives Ministers the flexibility to review and develop the curriculum in the most appropriate way for the circumstances of the time, while requiring them to consult, and to provide Parliament with appropriate levels of scrutiny.
Requiring the creation of new organisations and processes is rarely the best way to improve outcomes. The proposed system would be inflexible and bureaucratic rather than helpful. New clause 55 would mean that, following any review of whether to change the national curriculum, such as through our curriculum and assessment review, the Secretary of State would have to set up another independent review to advise how to change the programmes of study.
Also, by requiring a positive, rather than negative, resolution of changes, and of any changes beyond the review’s recommendations, this measure could add unnecessary delays and uncertainty for teachers about what was going to be changed in the curriculum and when. On that basis, I invite the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
Neil O’Brien
While our concerns remain, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 58
Right to review school curriculum material
“Where requested by the parent or carer of a child on the school’s pupil roll, a school must allow such persons to view all materials used in the teaching of the school curriculum, including those provided by external, third-party, charitable or commercial providers.”—(Neil O’Brien.)
This new clause would ensure that parents can view materials used in the teaching of the school curriculum.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Neil O’Brien
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Over recent years, we have been in an absolutely extraordinary situation. Very controversial materials from various third party private providers have been used in RSE—relationships and sex education—lessons, yet parents have been denied access to the materials that are being used to teach their children, even though it is them paying, as taxpayers, and it is their children who are being exposed to these materials. That is obviously unacceptable.
Various private providers of this material, including for-profit companies, have tried to hide behind copyright law, or have tried to make parents sign agreements, such as that they can see the materials, but only on the strict conditions that they do not quote from them or talk about them, effectively crippling and ending public debate about them. Parents need to see, and to be able to act upon what they see, including discussing it in public and making formal complaints. That requires having a copy of the material and being able to refer to it openly.
An important case brought by the campaign group “No Secret Lessons” may establish such rights, but, despite a hearing five months ago, we are still—strangely—awaiting a verdict in its case. I pay tribute to its work in trying to bring back some common sense here.
New clause 58 seeks to put into statute the right to have access to the materials that are being used to educate our children about controversial subjects. That, itself, should not be a controversial idea. The intent is that this right, in primary legislation, would cut through the issues around copyright and prevent the industry from trying to stop public discussion that actually needs to happen.
The context is that the Government’s response to the consultation on gender-questioning children and RSE is long overdue, and we look forward to hearing the outcome of those processes soon. I hope that the Minister may be able to say some more about when we can expect to see those things.
However, whatever the outcome of those reviews, I hope that we can agree on an important principle: that parents should be allowed to know what their children are being taught, and that there should be no secret lessons.
Tom Hayes
I wish to speak briefly about the new clause, mainly to test the waters with the hon. Gentleman who tabled it. Does he, like me, have concerns that, if parents and carers are able to access teaching materials, they may meet with the teachers who drew up the materials and raise significant concerns, which may not always be well founded?
For instance, a teacher I spoke with recently raised concerns about a parent who had demanded to see their teaching materials on the basis that they cited Marcus Rashford as an example of somebody campaigning for social justice, which the parent was deeply concerned about. The teacher raised with me their concern that the conversation with the parent had had a chilling or stifling effect on their willingness to cite Marcus Rashford as a social justice hero in the future.
Would it not be a better way forward for teachers to be held accountable for their materials by the headteacher and the school’s governing body? That would protect parents or guardians from the minority of parents or carers who raise concerns based on unfounded reasons that have a wider impact on the teaching that is delivered.
Neil O'Brien
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way so that I can directly answer the question he posed to me. The problem is not schools, which are bound by freedom of information, but a bunch of private for-profit providers that are inappropriately hiding behind copyright law to deny people the right to even see what is being taught. Different people can have different opinions on what is being taught—that is reasonable in a democracy, and it is important that we have sensibly founded conversations and all those things—but does the hon. Member agree that, given that a parent is paying for their kid’s education, they should have the right to see what they are being taught?
Tom Hayes
I welcome that clarification. I continue to have concerns, because whether or not somebody is paying for their child’s education—I would obviously wish that they were not paying—I still think it is important to have quality education and critical thinking and to potentially use inspirational figures and history to make points. That goes across all types of educational provider, so my concern remains. Thinking back to the conversation I had recently with a teacher, the last thing I want is for them to go into a classroom feeling wary or in any way diminished in their ability to freely and critically educate and provide children with access to all kinds of information, and not just narrow viewpoints.
Catherine McKinnell
It is right that parents and carers should be able to access and understand what their child is taught at school, so that they can continue to support their child’s learning at home and answer questions. However, that should be achieved in a way that does not increase school and teacher workload.
The new clause could require schools to maintain and collate a substantial number of materials across various platforms, covering all subjects and school years, down to every single worksheet, presentation, planning document or text. That is not necessary. There are already many ways in which parents can engage with their child’s curriculum that would not add to teacher workload. The national curriculum, which will be taught in academies and maintained schools, is published on gov.uk. Maintained schools and academies are required to publish details of how a parent can access further information about the school’s curriculum.
Schools must also have a written policy for relationships and sex education, which must be developed in consultation with parents. The statutory guidance is clear that this should include providing examples of the resources they intend to use, to reassure parents and enable them to continue conversations at home. We will make sure that that is reinforced when we update the guidance. Finally, parents can be reassured that Ofsted reviews curriculum materials to ensure that they support pupils to achieve good outcomes.
The new clause is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There is no evidence of a widespread problem that would justify the extra burden and bureaucracy it would create for schools. If parents have concerns, there are ways of dealing with them. On that basis, I urge the hon. Member to withdraw his new clause.
Neil O'Brien
I listened to the hon. Member for Bournemouth East and, broadly speaking, agree with everything he said. I am absolutely in favour of a balanced diet and the free exchange of different ideas, and nothing we are proposing in any way speaks against that. What we propose is in fact a way to ensure that that happens, by allowing parents to see what their children are being taught.
I find myself out of sympathy with the Minister’s argument that this is somehow a massive bureaucratic requirement. With state schools, there is FOI, so parents are able to access these materials. The problem has come with private providers using copyright law to escape the same transparency that we expect of schools normally, which is not right.
I do not accept that the new clause would require people to have 20 years-worth of materials. It simply states that
“a school must allow such persons to view all materials used in the teaching of the school curriculum”.
That is in the present tense, so this is not some huge bureaucratic burden. The school has the materials, and the only question is whether the parents can see them, take them away and talk about them to other people.
At the moment, free debate on such things is being stifled, and a hugely important principle is being denied to people. We have a right to see what our kids are being taught in schools. For that reason, we will press the new clause to a vote.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 60—Kinship care allowance—
“(1) A person is entitled to a kinship care allowance for any week in which that person is engaged as a kinship carer in England.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a ‘kinship carer’ has the meaning given in section 22I of the Children Act 1989, as inserted by section 5 of this Act.
(3) A person is not entitled to an allowance under this section unless that person satisfies conditions prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(4) A person may claim an allowance under this section in respect of more than one child.
(5) Where two or more persons would be entitled for the same week to such an allowance in respect of the same child, only one allowance may be claimed on the behalf of—
(a) the person jointly elected by those two for that purpose, or
(b) in default of such an election, the person determined by, and at the discretion of, the Secretary of State.
(6) Regulations may prescribe the circumstances in which a person is or is not to be treated for the purposes of this section as engaged, or regularly and substantially engaged, in caring for a child under an eligible kinship care arrangement.
(7) An allowance under this section is payable at the weekly rate specified by the Secretary of State in regulations.
(8) Regulations under subsection (7) may specify—
(a) different weekly rates for different ages of children being cared for, or
(b) different weekly rates for different regions of England.
(9) Regulations under subsection (7) must specify a weekly rate that is no lower than the minimum weekly allowance for foster carers published by the Secretary of State pursuant to section 23 of the Care Standards Act 2000.”
New clause 61—Extension of pupil premium to children subject to a kinship care arrangement—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, for the financial year beginning 1 April 2026 and for each year thereafter, provide that an amount is payable from the pupil premium grant to schools and local authorities in respect of each registered pupil in England who is who is a child living in kinship care.
(2) The amount payable under subsection (1) must be equal to the amount that is payable for a pupil who is a looked after child.
(3) In this section—
‘a child living in kinship care’ is to be interpreted in the same manner as given in section 22I of the Children Act 1989, as inserted by section 5 of this Act.
‘looked after child’ has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989;
‘pupil premium grant’ means the grant of that name paid to a school or a local authority by the Secretary of State under section 14 of the Education Act 2002 (power of Secretary of State and Senedd Cymru to give financial assistance for purposes related to education or children etc).”
New clause 62—Admissions arrangements relating to looked after children and children in kinship care—
“(1) For section 88B of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (admission arrangements relating to children looked after by local authority) substitute—
‘88B Admissions arrangements relating to looked after children and children in kinship care
(1) Regulations may require the admission authorities for maintained schools in England to include in their admission arrangements provision relating to the admission of children who are—
(a) looked after by a local authority in England, or
(b) living in kinship care as may be prescribed.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may in particular include provision for securing that, subject to sections 86(3), 86B(2) and (4) and 87, such children are to be offered admission in preference to other children.
(3) In this section, “children who are living in kinship care” is to be interpreted in the same manner as given in section 22I of the Children Act 1989, as inserted by section 5 of this Act.’”
Munira Wilson
The end is in sight for all of us—we are on to the last column of the selection list. I will speak to new clauses 59 to 62, which are in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire. The new clauses all refer to support for kinship carers and children growing up in kinship care.
In clauses 5 and 6 in part 1 of the Bill, we discussed and agreed a number of encouraging provisions on defining kinship carers, setting out the support they are eligible for and providing additional educational support for the subset of children growing up in kinship care. However, what we have already agreed in Committee falls far short of the ambition that I heard the Secretary of State herself set out at a reception for kinship carers just a couple of months back.
At that reception, the right hon. Lady—unusually for a Secretary of State—called on campaigners and policymakers to keep pushing her. I think that that was in order to give her the clout in Government to go further. The four new clauses seek to do just that, and I hope Ministers will receive them in that spirit.
New clause 59 would ensure that kinship carers are entitled to paid employment leave. New clause 60 would put into statute an entitlement to an allowance on a par with that for foster carers. New clause 61 would extend pupil premium plus to all children in kinship care, based on the definition the Committee has agreed. Finally, new clause 62 would prioritise those same children for school admissions.
Kinship carers are unsung heroes, often stepping up at no notice to look after a child they are related to or know, because the parents can no longer do so. In oral evidence, Jacky Tiotto of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service told us that
“the kinship carer’s life will not continue in the way it had before, in terms of their ability to work, maybe, or where they live.
We know that local authorities are under huge resource pressure, so there is going to have to be something a bit stronger to encourage people to become carers, whether that is related to housing or the cost of looking after those children. People will want to do the right thing, but if you already have three kids of your own that becomes tricky.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 34, Q78.]
Time and again, we hear from kinship carers that they want to do the right thing—out of love for those family members—but financial and other barriers often stand in their way. One survey revealed that 45% of kinship carers give up work, and a similar number have to reduce their hours permanently, putting financial strain on the family. Those carers are disproportionately women and are over-represented in healthcare, education and social care, which simply exacerbates our workforce crisis in public services. Extending paid employment leave would enable more people to step up and provide a stable, loving home.
On allowances, there are not just long-term savings to be made in terms of the well-evidenced better health and education outcomes for children; there are also immediate cost savings to be had for the taxpayer. Compared to the cost of the alternative—local authority care—the saving is approximately £35,000 a year. Every child we manage to divert from local authority care into kinship care can deliver that saving for the taxpayer immediately. Surely Ministers can tempt their colleagues in the Treasury with that immediate spend-to-save argument?
In Kinship’s 2022 “Cost of Loving” survey of more than 1,000 kinship carers, one third said they may not be able to continue caring for their child as a result of financial pressures. I spoke to one kinship carer in my borough who had avoided putting the heating on and skipped all sorts of things, including food for herself, so that she could put enough food on the table for her grandson. Her story is far too common. A national, non-means-tested allowance would end the system of patchy means-tested allowances that reflect the postcode lottery of support that councils can afford to provide.
Ministers have already recognised in the Bill the need for additional educational support for children in kinship care. Why are we not treating all children equally, so that it is not just those who were previously looked after who are entitled to additional pupil premium funding or priority admissions? The trauma and needs of children in kinship care are often similar to those of children who were previously looked after. We should extend the same provisions to all children in kinship care.
I know that Ministers understand the sacrifices that kinship carers make and the trauma that children in kinship care have been through. The Schools Minister herself headed up a parliamentary taskforce on kinship in the last Parliament, and she was very active in the all-party parliamentary group on kinship care. I know that she is very familiar with these issues, and I hope she is sympathetic to the call in these new clauses. I hope to hear something positive and that Ministers—even if, as we know, they never accept Opposition new clauses in a Bill Committee—will seek to address these inequalities and support these unsung heroes, kinship carers, and the children they look after.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank the hon. Members for Twickenham and for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire for these new clauses. I want to start by emphasising how much I value kinship carers, who come forward to provide loving homes for children who cannot live with their parents. We absolutely recognise the challenge that many kinship carers face in continuing to work while dealing with the pressures of raising a child unexpectedly.
The support offered by the Government to kinship carers is a floor, not a ceiling, and we encourage employers to go further, where they can. One example of that is the Department for Education, which employs more than 7,500 public sector workers and has recently joined a small number of private sector employers, including Card Factory, Tesco and John Lewis, in offering a paid leave entitlement to all eligible staff who become kinship carers.
Employed kinship carers may already benefit from a number of workplace employment rights that are designed to support employees in balancing work alongside caring responsibilities. Those rights include a day one right to time off for dependants, which provides a reasonable amount of unpaid time off to deal with an unexpected or sudden emergency involving a child or dependant, and to put care arrangements in place. There is also unpaid parental leave for employees who have or expect to have parental responsibility, which we are making a day one right through the Employment Rights Bill. An employee may not automatically have parental responsibility as a result of being a kinship carer, but may do if they have acquired parental responsibility through, for example, a special guardianship order. If they are looking after a child who is disabled or who lives with a long-term health condition, they would also be entitled to carer’s leave, which would allow them to take up to a week’s leave in a 12-month period.
All employees also have a right to request flexible working from day one of employment. The Government will make flexibility the default, except where it is not feasible, through measures in the Employment Rights Bill. We have also committed to a review of the parental leave system to ensure that it best supports all working families. Work is already under way on planning for its delivery.
On new clause 60, again, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss financial support for kinship carers. In October 2024, the Government announced £40 million of new funding for a kinship financial allowance pilot, which will test the impact of financial support for kinship carers. This is the single biggest investment made by Government in kinship care to date. It could transform the lives of vulnerable children who can no longer live at home by allowing them to grow up with their families and communities, reducing the disruption in their early years so that they can focus on schooling and building friendships. The pilot will provide a weekly financial allowance to kinship carers to support them with the additional costs incurred when taking on parental responsibility for a child.
Our ambition is that all kinship carers get the support they need to care for their children and to help them thrive, but it is important that we build the evidence first to find out how best to deliver that financial support. Decisions about future roll-out will be informed by the findings of the evaluation. The Government will confirm the eligible cohort for the pilot as well as the participating local authorities soon, and we expect the pilot to go live in autumn 2025.
New clauses 61 and 62 would extend pupil premium eligibility to children living in kinship care, and provide those children admissions in preference to other children, in the same way as children who are or were looked after by a local authority in England are currently given preference. We are providing over £2.9 billion of pupil premium funding to improve the educational outcomes of disadvantaged pupils in England, including looked-after and previously looked-after children. Pupil premium is not a personal budget for individual pupils, and schools do not have to spend the funding so that it solely benefits pupils who meet the criteria. Schools can direct funding where the need is greatest, including to pupils with other identified needs, such as children in kinship care. They can also use pupil premium on whole-class approaches that will benefit all pupils, such as high-quality teaching. There are no plans to change the pupil premium eligibility at present. However, we will continue to keep it under review to ensure that the support is targeted at those who need it most.
All state-funded, non-selective schools are required to provide the highest priority in their admissions over-subscription criteria to looked-after and previously looked-after children. Those children are among the most vulnerable in our society, and wherever possible, they should be admitted to the school that is best able to meet their needs. Some children in kinship care may share some of those characteristics. Indeed, many children in kinship care may already be eligible for the highest priority for school admission—for example, where a child is looked after by their local authority and then fostered by a kinship carer, or where they were previously looked after. We think that this approach is the best way of ensuring that the most vulnerable pupils of this cohort, who would benefit most from priority admissions, are able to access the school place that is right for them.
It is also worth noting that the school admissions code provides another protection to children in formal kinship care, irrespective of whether they have spent time in local authority care. The admissions code ensures that such children are eligible to be secured a school place through the fair access protocol, which is the local mechanism for ensuring that those struggling to secure a school place via the usual admissions processes are found one.
Given those existing protections, we do not consider it necessary at this time to extend the existing priority for looked-after and previously looked-after children in England to include all children in kinship care. We are also extending local authorities’ statutory duties to include promoting the educational achievement of all children living in kinship care within the meaning of new section 22I(1) of the Children Act 1989, which will be inserted by the Bill. We will also extend the duty of virtual school heads to provide information and advice to include all children living with a special guardian or under a child arrangement order where the child is living with a kinship carer within the meaning of new section 22I(6) of the 1989 Act. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Twickenham not to press the new clauses.
Munira Wilson
I thank the Minister for her response. It is obviously disappointing that Ministers will not go further, particularly on allowances. The pilots that were set out in a tiny number of local authorities with a very small subset of kinship carers were not ambitious enough. On that basis, I would like to press new clause 60 on allowances to a vote, but I am happy to leave the others. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 60
Kinship care allowance
(1) A person is entitled to a kinship care allowance for any week in which that person is engaged as a kinship carer in England.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a “kinship carer” has the meaning given in section 22I of the Children Act 1989, as inserted by section 5 of this Act.
(3) A person is not entitled to an allowance under this section unless that person satisfies conditions prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(4) A person may claim an allowance under this section in respect of more than one child.
(5) Where two or more persons would be entitled for the same week to such an allowance in respect of the same child, only one allowance may be claimed on the behalf of—
(a) the person jointly elected by those two for that purpose, or
(b) in default of such an election, the person determined by, and at the discretion of, the Secretary of State.
(6) Regulations may prescribe the circumstances in which a person is or is not to be treated for the purposes of this section as engaged, or regularly and substantially engaged, in caring for a child under an eligible kinship care arrangement.
(7) An allowance under this section is payable at the weekly rate specified by the Secretary of State in regulations.
(8) Regulations under subsection (7) may specify—
(a) different weekly rates for different ages of children being cared for, or
(b) different weekly rates for different regions of England.
(9) Regulations under subsection (7) must specify a weekly rate that is no lower than the minimum weekly allowance for foster carers published by the Secretary of State pursuant to section 23 of the Care Standards Act 2000.—(Munira Wilson.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Neil O'Brien
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
As Ministers look at new clause 63, they may think it seems strangely familiar, and I must confess that it is a piece of stolen intellectual property. As you will recognise, Mr Betts, it is a rip-off of new Labour’s Education Act 2002. Funnily enough, it is a part of that Act that was passed as legislation but never commenced. It is a good thing in itself, as it enables Ministers to set up areas of innovation in our schools, and it is a part of a wider good thing: the spirit of innovation and reform in our schools of the early Blair years, which we want Ministers to return to.
In the health service, there has been a 40-year discussion about why innovation is so hard and why innovations do not spread in the NHS. In schools, although the situation is not perfect, it is definitely better because of parental choice and the reforms under Lord Baker, Lord Adonis, the coalition and beyond. I commend to all members of the Committee Lord Adonis’s superb book “Education, Education, Education: Reforming England’s Schools”, which brilliantly captures the spirit of that era and what that Government were trying to achieve.
Although we think this would be a useful power, our purpose of drawing attention to it is as much about the spirit of what we want to see in our schools. There have been some changes of tone from Ministers during the course of this Bill Committee, and we hope we can persuade them to go further in the same direction. That is why we have discussed this new clause, but we will not be pressing it to a vote.
Catherine McKinnell
Things really can only get better—[Laughter.]
I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the existing provision in part 1 of the Education Act 2002, and his open admission that the new clause draws its inspiration from it. That Act, in the early days of academies, introduced powers to facilitate innovation that were designed to encourage schools to consider barriers to raising standards for their pupils in their particular circumstances, and to explore innovative options that might not previously have been considered. It provided a means of promoting school freedoms and flexibilities, and was an effective strategic tool that enabled schools, local authorities and the Department for Children, Schools and Families, as it was, to test new ideas. It encouraged schools and local authorities to re-examine their existing practices and make use of freedoms and flexibilities that they already had. It was not designed to allow long-term flexibility, as this new clause is; rather any exemption is time limited.
The Act provoked consideration of real and perceived barriers to raising standards, and many schools discovered that not all innovative ideas require an exemption from legislation, because the necessary freedoms and flexibilities already exist. Annual reporting shows that only 32 orders were made between 2002 and 2010 using the power. We understand that the last order under the power was made in 2012. Since then, schools and trusts have innovated and tested ideas without the 2002 powers being necessary or used. Evidence-based practice and innovation is now the norm in many of our schools and trusts. There is a range of programmes, such as curricular hubs, behaviour hubs and teaching schools, geared to driving schools towards spreading evidence-based practice, and away from doing other things.
The Department works closely with the Education Endowment Foundation, which is independent from Government and trusted by the sector, to understand which interventions and approaches are most effective in terms of school improvement and raising attainment, and to provide guidance and support to schools on that. As part of that, it carries out trials of new approaches that look to have a high potential to improve outcomes. Where a new and innovative practice works, we want schools to be able to implement it. For example, based on robust EEF evidence of impact, programmes such as embedding formative assessments and mathematics mastery are being provided to the sector at greater scale, supported by Department for Education funding that subsidises the cost of participation.
The Bill guarantees a core provision for all children. Through it, we are providing a floor, not a ceiling, and the measures do not prevent schools and trusts from innovating and adapting above that framework. Our vision for driving high and rising standards centres on expert teaching and leadership in a system with wide freedoms, high support and high challenge, backed up by the removal of barriers, so that every child can achieve and thrive. We believe that more of the flexibility currently offered to academies should be offered to all schools, and we are working with teachers, leaders and the sector to design our wider reforms. If attempts to innovate are prevented by legislation, we want to hear about it, because we want all children to benefit from the best the system has to offer. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston to withdraw his new clause.
Neil O'Brien
It is nice to hear the Minister praising the resources that are there for school-led improvement, so we hope that Ministers will look again at the recent decision to cut or curtail things such as mathematics, physics, Latin, computing and the like. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 64
Pay and conditions of school support staff in England
“(1) A School Support Staff Negotiating Body shall be created to make recommendations to the Secretary of State about the pay and conditions of school support staff in England.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order set out the recommended pay and conditions for school support staff in England based on the recommendations of the School Support Staff Negotiating Body.
(3) The Secretary of State may by order make provision requiring the remuneration of support staff at an Academy school to be at least equal to the amount specified in, or determined in accordance with, the order.
(4) Subsection (5) applies where—
(a) an order under this section applies to a member of school support staff at an Academy, and
(b) the contract of employment or for services between the member of school support staff at the Academy and the relevant proprietor provides for the member of school support staff to be paid remuneration that is less than the amount specified in, or determined in accordance with, the order.
(5) Where this subsection applies—
(a) the member of school support staff’s remuneration is to be determined and paid in accordance with any provision of the order that applies to them; and
(b) any provision of the contract mentioned in subsection (4)(b) or of the Academy arrangements entered into with the Secretary of State by the relevant proprietor has no effect to the extent that it makes provision that is prohibited by, or is otherwise inconsistent with, the order.
(c) In determining the conditions of employment or service of a member of school support staff at an Academy, the relevant proprietor must have regard to any provision of an order under this section that relates to conditions of employment or service.”—(Neil O’Brien.)
This new clause would mean that Academies could treat orders made by the Secretary of State in relation to pay and conditions for school support staff as a floor, not a ceiling, on pay, and would allow Academies to have regard to the conditions of employment for school support staff set out by the Secretary of State while not requiring Academies to follow them.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Neil O'Brien
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Minister just talked about the principle of having a floor, not a ceiling. Through our debates, we have now established that for teachers, but of course teachers are not a majority of the school workforce. The majority of the workforce are those who are sometimes called school support staff. These people are no less worthy than teachers of our praise and admiration. They fulfil all manner of roles, from the most essential to the most demanding.
Through this new clause, we ask that the same principles that are to be applied to teachers’ pay—we hope that those will translate into reality—should apply to the majority of school staff: school support staff. Although trust leaders anticipated the school support staff negotiating body, some were surprised about the proposal for it to cut across academy funding arrangements, and not all had anticipated that it would apply to them. A number have said to me that they will be very concerned if their freedoms to pay more to retain the best school support staff were, in effect, taken away from them, because that would have a devastating effect on their schools.
Legislation on this issue is being considered in another place, but I hope that we can establish that Ministers will maintain that vital freedom to pay more, particularly in high-demand areas, to retain good people in our schools. A person does not have to be a teacher to play a crucial part in the education of our children, and what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We hope that the same principles that Ministers say will apply to teachers can also be established for the rest of the school workforce.
Catherine McKinnell
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s celebration of school support staff. He is absolutely right: they are the beating heart of schools up and down the country. For that very reason, provisions to reinstate the school support staff negotiating body are currently going through Parliament as part of the Employment Rights Bill. That Bill’s clause 30 and schedule 3, which pertain to the SSSNB, were debated in Committee in the House of Commons on 17 December 2024, and the Bill is about to move to Report stage in the House. Any amendments relating to the school support staff negotiating body should therefore be considered as part of the Employment Rights Bill, and the issues that the hon. Gentleman outlined will be considered as part of the work of the school support staff negotiating body. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his new clause.
Neil O'Brien
I am glad to hear the Minister endorse the principle of a floor, not a ceiling, for school support staff. We will withdraw the new clause but press it elsewhere, so that we can establish that principle, on which I hope we can all agree. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 67
Registration of children eligible for free school meals
“After section 512ZA of the Education Act 1996 (power to charge for meals etc.) insert—
‘512ZAA Registration of children eligible for free school meals
(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that all children in England who are eligible to receive free school meals are registered to receive free school meals.
(2) The Secretary of State may make provision for children to be registered for free school meals upon their parents or guardians demonstrating the child’s eligibility through an application for relevant benefits.’”—(Munira Wilson.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 69—Collection and publication of data relating to summer-born children—
“(1) A local authority must collect and publish data on—
(a) the number and proportion of summer-born children who started school in the local authority’s area outside of their normal age group;
(b) the number and proportion of summer-born children—
(i) with EHC plans, and
(ii) without EHC plans,
who started school in the local authority’s area outside of their normal age group and who have been required to join their normal age group; and
(c) the number and proportion of summer-born children with EHC plans who started school in the local authority’s area outside of their normal age group and who have been required to join their normal age group in a—
(i) special school;
(ii) mainstream school.
(2) The Secretary of State must annually—
(a) conduct a statistical analysis of, and
(b) publish a report on the data collected by local authorities under subsection (1).”
Munira Wilson
I am moving the new clause on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), who has raised the issue that summer-born children with SEND are often placed in the following year group at school, often at the request of their parents, but when they transfer into or out of special or mainstream school, they are then placed back into their chronological year and, as a result, end up missing a whole year of education. Guidance exists for summer-born children who do not have EHCPs but not, strangely, for those who do. New clauses 68 and 69 would simply require guidance to be published for local authorities and school admissions authorities on the admission of summer-born children with education, health and care plans and would require local authorities to collect and publish data relating to summer-born children.
Catherine McKinnell
The Government agree with the hon. Member for Twickenham that local authorities have important and complex decisions to make when parents ask for a summer-born child with an EHC plan to be placed outside the usual year for their age. The Department’s existing guidance for the admission of summer-born children without education, health and care plans sets out a recommended approach for those key decisions. Many of the considerations in that guidance will be similar for children with an education, health and care plan. Getting those decisions right can make a huge difference to the child’s outcomes and their experience of school, so such decisions need to be made thoughtfully and fairly, with due consideration given to what the parents want for their child. That is why, in July last year, in response to a parliamentary question from the hon. Member for St Albans, I committed to consider whether we should publish guidance on how these decisions are best made. We have been doing just that, and will confirm our decision in the coming months. In the meantime, it would not be appropriate to pre-empt the content of any such guidance by confirming the details now. However, I can say that we have been giving careful consideration to many of the matters outlined in the new clause and deciding how best to proceed.
On new clause 69, the Department conducts a voluntary biennial survey of local authorities about the admission of summer-born children. That asks local authorities to include data, where they hold it, about all schools in their area. The Department publishes a report on the findings of the survey, those findings show that only a small proportion—1.5%—of parents of summer-born children ask for them to be admitted to reception at age five. The vast majority of such requests—nine out of 10—are approved. The first summer-born children admitted out of their normal age group are now transitioning to secondary school. Our next survey will ask local authorities for data about the number of children who remain out of their normal age group at that point. The survey does not currently ask local authorities to specify how many requests relate to children with an education, health and care plan but we regularly review the survey, and that is something that we may consider in the future. Given that the existing arrangements to collect data about the admission of summer-born children are working well, it would seem disproportionate to impose a new statutory duty to make the data collection mandatory. I therefore respectfully ask the hon. Member to withdraw the new clause.
Munira Wilson
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
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
Cost of Energy
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the cost of energy.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Western. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting me this debate. The cost of energy is a problem that impacts all areas of our lives, from the homes we live in to the businesses we work for.
For far too many, high energy bills are an immediate daily concern. A recent poll published by Opinium highlighted that, on average, 88% of all adults thought it was important that the Government focus on reducing the cost of energy over the next two years, while 90% remained concerned about the increase in energy prices. The cost of energy has become a key strain for most households. For households in Bath and across the country, bills continue to rise at unprecedented rates, and many struggle to keep up.
Those rises will heap considerable pressure on millions of people who are still feeling the pressures of inflation over the past few years. That is simply unacceptable, and it is a crisis that we cannot ignore. The effects of high energy costs extend far beyond the immediate financial burden; the cost of electricity in the UK is also holding back our efforts to decarbonise the economy and to address the climate crisis, and we must not shy away from that debate.
At present, UK households pay roughly the same for both gas and electricity bills—around £850—despite using more than four times more gas than electricity, making electricity in the UK four times more expensive than gas. That price imbalance is not only creating financial hardship for consumers, but actively deterring them from making the switch to cleaner, more efficient heating systems. The UK currently relies on 25 million fossil fuel boilers to heat its homes, accounting for 16% of the nation’s entire CO2 emissions. Decarbonising our heating sector is a significant opportunity for the UK to cut down on carbon emissions.
Take heat pumps, for example, one of the most advanced and environmentally friendly ways to heat our homes. Heat pumps are four times more energy efficient than gas boilers and could reduce CO2 emissions by 75%, yet just 1% of UK households have a heat pump. Why? Because the UK’s electricity prices consistently undermine the financial incentive to install them. With the current cost of electricity, running a heat pump can be more expensive than running a gas boiler for larger households and as expensive for medium-sized homes, even though heat pumps are far more efficient.
In Sweden, more than 50% of single-family homes have heat pumps installed, while 95% of all new homes are now heated by heat pumps. The success of Sweden’s heat pump adaptation hinges on the country’s price ratio between gas and electricity, effectively incentivising electric heating systems compared with fossil fuel ones.
A range of other heating technologies can work alongside heat pumps. Alternative technologies such as heat batteries are another example where the price of electricity is significantly hindering the UK’s ability to move away from gas. Heat batteries have become a proven solution for about 20% of UK homes for which heat pumps are not suitable. Modern heat batteries can operate at equivalent temperatures to fossil fuel systems; they can make use of the existing pipes and radiators in the home, at a similar running cost to a heat pump, and embed valuable flexibility in the electricity system. Despite having such innovations at our fingertips, the Government continue to drive consumers into the arms of gas boiler manufacturers, because more often than not it is still cheaper to buy a gas boiler.
The disparity in energy prices between gas and electricity is not just a domestic issue; it is part of a broader trend in which the UK is falling behind other nations in the transition to low-carbon heating. In the first half of 2024, gas prices in the UK were 22% below, while electricity prices were 27% above, the EU average. In fact, the UK had the highest ratio of electricity to gas unit prices in the entire EU at that time. That pricing imbalance places the UK at a competitive disadvantage in terms of decarbonisation.
As the rest of Europe steams ahead with its effort to electrify heating, the UK is lagging behind due to our higher costs of electricity, something that not only affects individual households and businesses, but significantly undermines the UK’s position as a world leader of climate action. To achieve our statutory net zero goals, we need to make sure that the transition to clean energy is as affordable as possible for everyone. The current energy pricing structure is holding us back, and that must change.
The first and most urgent step is to reform the policy costs currently placed on electricity bills. The regressive and incoherent stack of levies on electricity bills has inflated the cost of electricity for consumers to the point that it is uncompetitive with gas. The Government’s current energy policies are therefore working against their own objectives, making clean technology more expensive than its fossil fuel counterparts.
As things stand, policy costs and levies currently account for 11% of a typical household’s total energy bill, but they are not allocated evenly. Policy costs account for 16% of a typical electricity bill, but only 5% of a typical gas bill. There is widespread industry and political support for reforming those policy costs and levies, but the argument over how to do so has been going on for far too long. The simplest options for reform would be to remove all levies from electricity and put them into general taxation. That would lower energy bills for every household in Britain, but at a very high cost to the Exchequer, which is currently not realistic.
Another option is to rebalance the levies by moving them from electricity to gas. This option would be good news for the 4.5 million households that do not use gas heating, but for the 22.5 million gas-using households, of which 2 million to 3 million are in fuel poverty, bills would rise by between £15 and £100 a year.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Some 17.6% of those who live in Keighley are in fuel poverty. Right now, Labour-run Bradford council wants to raise council tax by 10% and, with the removal of the winter fuel allowance, 64,000 pensioners across the wider Bradford district will be impacted. Does the hon. Member agree that, for the most vulnerable in our society, there needs to be more support not just with the cost of energy, but with making sure that they can keep warm during this winter period?
Wera Hobhouse
The hon. Member predicts my next point: it is important to emphasise the Government’s responsibility to look after the most vulnerable in our society and protect them during any efforts to rebalance gas and electricity prices. However, I cannot comment on the council tax bill to which he refers; that is, of course, a local matter.
It is imperative that any policy changes prioritise the needs of those vulnerable households, ensuring that they are not left behind as we look to electrify the UK’s heating system. A more focused way to adjust policy funding could be to collect revenue from levy-funded programmes through a single levy control system. Such a system would have two straightforward rates—one for electricity and one for gas—set by Ministers at an appropriate level. These rates would be based on the cost per kilowatt-hour, so more energy-efficient technologies would have lower taxable amounts, making them comparatively more affordable.
Unlike other rebalancing methods, this approach would allow the Government to directly manage the impact on households. As electricity is always more efficient than fossil fuels, its price would go down, encouraging more people to switch. Policy reform is an essential step towards addressing the unacceptable price disparity that currently exists in the UK between gas and electricity. I hope the Minister has listened very carefully to the proposal that I have just put forward.
The impact of Brexit on our energy system has been somewhat brushed under the carpet. The turbulence of covid and the shockwaves from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have dominated the conversation and masked the quieter, but significant, effects of our departure from the EU’s energy framework. One of the most pressing issues is passive divergence: not following new EU regulations simply because we are no longer a part of the system.
That is not always a deliberate choice, but it is already creating challenges, particularly in electricity trading. The UK was once part of an integrated, efficient energy market with the EU, where electricity flowed freely, reducing costs and improving security. Now, without alignment, we risk inefficiencies, higher prices and reduced energy security. We need strategic decision making. Not all divergence is bad, but it must be a conscious, informed choice, based on clear evidence, not ideology.
When it comes to energy, the benefits of co-operation with the EU are overwhelming. Shared markets bring stability, common rules ensure fair trade and joint planning strengthens resilience against global energy shocks. The EU and the UK share the same fundamental energy challenges in securing affordable, clean and reliable power for the future. Our interests remain aligned and so should our approach. We must ensure that divergence, where it happens, is a decision and not an accident.
In addition, we need to focus on policies for community energy. We Liberal Democrats have long championed the idea of community energy. Community energy currently accounts for less than 0.5% of total UK electricity generation capacity. However, according to the Parliamentary Environmental Audit Committee, with the right Government support, the sector could grow 12 to 20 times by 2030, powering 2.2 million homes and saving 2.5 million tonnes of CO2 emissions every year.
I welcome the Government’s inclusion of the local power plan in the Great British Energy Bill, which marks a welcome step forward for the community energy sector. The plan intends to deliver an ambitious target of 8 gW of renewable energy projects by 2030, in partnership with local authorities and communities across the country. To achieve that target, significant scale-up of local and community-owned energy will be required and we will need a support programme in place for community energy organisations in England, drawing on successful models from Scotland and Wales.
Bath and West Community Energy, a community benefit society, has reduced carbon emissions by an average of 3,300 tonnes per year with its around 31 renewable energy projects. Let us make sure every community across the country has something like Bath and West Community Energy in its patch. As we have repeated many times, community energy reduces bills, creates local jobs and accelerates the transition to a low-carbon future.
Home insulation is another key area to reduce energy costs, particularly in my Bath constituency, where much of the housing stock is old and in dire need of insulation. Insulation remains one of the most effective ways to reduce energy demand, lower bills and cut emissions, but the Government have significantly delayed the implementation of their warm homes grants. The scheme was not implemented this winter and will only operate from next winter. The Government must tackle the efficiencies of these schemes head-on, ensuring that residents receive retrofit measures that provide value for money and stand the test of time. The Select Committee on Energy Security and Net Zero will look into those issues tomorrow, and I hope people will listen very carefully.
To accelerate and de-risk delivery of the warm homes plan, the UK Government should create a national expert advice service for England so that households have the confidence to receive tailored advice to upgrade their homes. Doing so would deliver consistent outcomes across the country and end the postcode lottery in advice services.
I hope the Government consider the points outlined today. We need long-term solutions that will make clean energy affordable for all, meet our net zero targets and lift the pressures on families of rising energy costs.
Matt Western (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse)—a fellow member of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee—for introducing this important debate. We have been doing a lot of work over recent weeks in the Committee on energy pricing and the cost to consumers, so it is very timely.
It is clear that the Government have an ambitious plan to achieve clean power by 2030. For families in my constituency and across the country, that mission is really about lowering energy bills. Quadrupling offshore wind, tripling solar, doubling onshore wind and getting projects such as Hinkley over the line and operational are all critical things that will ensure resilience in our energy markets. Importantly, they will also protect UK consumers from volatile foreign markets, taking back control from Putin and petrostates, and placing the power of energy in the hands of British people. Those targets represent the biggest expansion of renewable energy in our history, and could save families hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds a year on their energy bills.
I recognise the great points made by the hon. Member for Bath in her opening speech, particularly on innovation in the sector. I also welcome her thoughts on heat pumps because I, too, believe that more than just heat pumps can solve this crisis, and it was positive to hear her talk about heat batteries. I want to add to the debate by speaking more about the energy cost crisis the Government are tackling, how it started and what we need to do to solve it.
The Select Committee heard evidence that paints a stark picture. Average energy bills are now 43% higher than in 2019, with over 6.1 million people living in fuel poverty. The situation in my constituency reflects the national crisis, with families and businesses struggling under the astronomical weight of energy costs.
However, the crisis did not happen overnight; it is the direct result of years of Conservative failure to properly insulate our homes, diversify our energy sources, reform the energy market and, ultimately, protect consumers. The previous Government’s resistance to onshore wind, their devastating cuts to energy efficiency programmes and their reckless over-reliance on volatile international gas markets has left British taxpayers paying the price.
When the last Labour Government left power, energy efficiency installations were at their peak, with 2.3 million homes upgraded, but the next Government dropped support and the numbers plummeted. As was mentioned, we now have some of the least efficient housing in the whole of Europe. The consequences of those decisions are felt every day by my constituents, who find themselves living in poorly insulated homes. There are 17,000 homes in Northampton South with an energy performance certificate rating of C or below. Those homes waste energy, but also my constituents’ money.
The fundamental issue is clear: we must break our dependence on gas if we want energy bills to come down. As Ofgem’s chief executive officer told the Committee a few weeks ago, unless we transform energy infrastructure we will remain at the mercy of volatile international gas markets. The evidence shows that, in a clean power system, even a major shock of the kind we have seen in recent years would see bills rise by an average of 9%, versus 44% following the gas crisis in 2022. That is why this Government’s mission for clean power is so vital. It is not just about the climate; it is about bringing bills down. Under questioning from our Committee, Ofgem’s representatives agreed that the target, while ambitious, is very achievable. However, they also warned that, without urgent action on planning reform and supply chains, we risk missing that crucial deadline.
We must also acknowledge the historic failures of market regulation. Consumer debt has now reached an astronomical £3.82 billion, which is nearly double what it was two years ago. When we pressed Ofgem representatives on what would trigger serious Government intervention, they could not give a clear answer, but it is clear that something more has to be done. The chief executive admitted that they should have developed much more detailed rules on prepayment meters and market regulation much earlier, rather than relying on broad principles that left vulnerable customers exposed. Even now, Ofgem acknowledges significant gaps in its powers to protect consumers, particularly around data sharing between Government Departments to identify vulnerable households that need support.
The Committee dug into one particular example: the regulator’s handling of supplier failures, which is deeply problematic. We were told that when energy companies went bust, the shareholders were able to walk away with hundreds of millions of pounds of energy hedges, while taxpayers were left picking up the bill. Ofgem admitted to us that it lacks the power to recover those funds on behalf of the taxpayer, so hundreds of millions of pounds have been lost to those who have gambled on our energy market. That is a striking example of how the market has been stacked against ordinary people. The regulator’s director of markets did acknowledge to the Committee that some suppliers are still not compliant with new financial resilience requirements, but he could not assure us as to what actions Ofgem would take if those suppliers fail to meet the deadline by March.
Moving to clean power is essential, and we must take immediate action to protect vulnerable households. That is why I support the move to a social tariff; a discounted energy scheme for low-income households would make sure that we build a fairer, greener and more sustainable energy system for everyone. At its core, a social tariff is a targeted discount on energy for people on low incomes, which would act as a vital safety net and ensure that nobody must choose between heating and eating. A social tariff could provide a guaranteed below-market rate for eligible households, with automatic enrolment for those who qualify. There would be no complex switching around or shopping around, just straightforward help for those who need it.
The evidence shows that 6.1 million households now live in fuel poverty, with many of those who are struggling paying a poverty premium. They are using prepayment meters or are on standard variable tariffs, which is simply wrong. A properly designed and implemented social tariff would be mandated across all suppliers, so that no one misses out; it would automatically enrol eligible households, using existing data to remove barriers to entry; and it would deliver real savings for those most in need.
As one of the richest economies in the world, we should make sure that everyone can afford to keep their homes warm. The technology and the mechanism exist, but now we need the political action to make it happen. Achieving clean power by 2030, combined with proper consumer protection and targeted support, will bring bills down for good. The previous Government’s failures have cost families dearly, and I urge Members on both sides of the House to use their voice to call for greater protection for energy users and greater power for regulators, and to call out the profiteering of energy companies at times of crisis.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. The cost of energy is a crisis hitting every household in the country; it is not just a crisis of affordability but a crisis of national security, a crisis of climate and a crisis of social justice, but the Government have failed to act with urgency.
Russia’s assault on Ukraine has made clear the dangers of energy dependence, and we can no longer afford to be dependent on fossil fuels. Investing in home-grown renewable energy is about not just cutting bills but safeguarding our energy security to protect ourselves from geopolitical shocks. Climate change is an existential threat, with global temperatures driving wildfires, floods and droughts. With those come food and water insecurity and displacement, which in turn fuels conflict.
We need a Government willing to make tough choices to invest in clean energy and to ensure that the UK is not left behind in the global transition. Many areas require urgent reform. We need incentives that cover the real costs of installing heat pumps, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) outlined. We must also create a rooftop solar revolution by expanding incentives for households to invest in solar panels. That includes a guaranteed fair price for electricity sold back to the grid, which would tackle the twin cost of living and climate crises.
We must get the basics right and invest in insulation: cold, inefficient homes mean higher energy bills, fuel poverty and a staggering £1.4 billion NHS bill for treating cold-related illnesses. The UK has the oldest housing stock in Europe, with one fifth of homes built more than a century ago. A national strategy for retrofitting pre-1920 homes is long overdue, and the Liberal Democrats would launch an energy insulation programme, starting with free retrofits for low-income households.
We must also protect the vulnerable—now. The Government’s decision to axe the winter fuel payment was the wrong choice at the wrong time, stripping support from pensioners just as another cold winter bites. The Liberal Democrats would restore that help by introducing a social tariff for vulnerable households, raising the funds for it by imposing a proper windfall tax on oil and gas giants profiteering from this crisis.
The cost of energy is pushing people into hardship today, and without action it will do for years to come. Just in Epsom and Ewell, 6,518 people are living in fuel poverty. I welcome the work of the many community centres that provide warm hubs, but frankly they should not be needed. We must support households by restoring winter fuel payments, introducing a social tariff and driving a rooftop solar revolution. We must cut bills by investing in clean energy, making homes more efficient and ensuring that those who have done the right thing and gone green are not penalised. This is about security, sustainability and fairness. The Government must act; the cost of inaction is simply too high.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. This country has been in need of a coherent national energy policy for a long time, as the lack of one has left us in a difficult place. Figures from June 2024 show that UK energy prices are 27% higher than those of our EU counterparts. That has made energy-intensive industries unviable and is a major problem for all of us. Many millions of households in England live in fuel poverty, and total energy debt across the country is estimated to be £3.8 billion—indeed, in my constituency, it is one of the biggest causes of people slipping into debt.
The part of the solution that I want to focus on today is community energy. It is welcome that the Government are getting behind renewable energy projects, but they are paying little attention to gaining public consent. The great advantage of community energy is that it is generated locally, requires no unpopular transmission systems and benefits the very people who have to put up with the local infrastructure and the potential loss of green space. The best way to get local consent for a new solar or wind farm is to let local people benefit from the energy directly.
Unfortunately, neither the previous Government nor this one have done enough to encourage the community energy industry. It remains too costly and bureaucratic for community energy companies to become energy providers. There is no sliding scale of fees to reflect the size or capacity of an energy project, which effectively rules out smaller enterprises. Furthermore, community energy companies have to sell the energy they produce at a fraction of its genuine retail value to registered suppliers. Absurdly, local communities are frequently unable to buy energy directly from the solar farm or windmill they can see from their windows. Communities are obliged to sell their energy back to the grid at a low price and buy it back at the marginal rate of gas, with transmission costs that had no need to be included. That is despite the fact that some community energy projects achieve a 75% reduction in per kilowatt-hour pricing.
Those obstacles are part of the reason why Community Energy Horsham in my constituency is struggling to get its solar energy project across the line. It has had council backing for a community-funded project to put solar panels on the Bridge leisure centre for some time, and I am sure it will happen at some point, but it has taken a few years already and the whole process is much more difficult than it needs to be.
We need a community electricity export guarantee to create a statutory right for sites with capacity below 5 MW that generate low-carbon electricity to export their electricity on their terms to an existing electricity supplier. We need a community electricity supplier services scheme to create a requirement on existing larger energy suppliers to work with community schemes so that they can sell the power they generate back to local customers.
Encouraging community energy is the democratic way to determine local land use. When local communities directly reap the rewards from community energy projects, it not only puts power—in every sense of the word—in the community’s hands, but demonstrates the benefits of a greener energy transition, which is important for our net zero targets and the planet.
I urge the Government to put public consent at the heart of their energy strategy—indeed, I could say the same about their planning strategy, but that is a whole other debate. The best way to do that is to empower community energy schemes. Never mind Great British Energy, I want to see Great Horsham Energy and, indeed, Great Everywhere Energy.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for leading the debate. She has been assiduous, enthusiastic and committed on this issue, and we all owe her a debt for setting the scene so very well.
It is a real pleasure to see the Minister in his place. Mr Western, I will tell you what: as Ministers go, this is a hard-working one. He has done the lot—urgent questions yesterday, a statement yesterday, this debate today—all in a matter of hours. We look forward to his contribution to today’s debate. It is also a pleasure to see the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) in her place as shadow Minister. In the last couple of years we have seen massive fluctuations in terms of energy prices, with thousands of households carrying the burden of that for many months. Energy prices have fallen since summer 2023, but there is little prospect of cuts soon. For that reason, it is good to be here to discuss the issue.
I will, of course, give a Northern Ireland perspective, and I have one big ask of the Minister. He probably knows what it is, and knew before we started, but I would be very keen to hear about his discussions with his equivalent in the Northern Ireland Assembly to see how we can work better here together to help our constituents back home. Global prices for gas, electricity and oil have been on the increase from summer 2021 after the pandemic. Furthermore, we witnessed a massive hike in prices after the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. There are things that the former Government and this Government have had no control over, but there are also things that we can do.
For Northern Ireland customers it has been slightly different, because we are not controlled by the energy price cap in England. However, although Government support was provided, it was withdrawn in July 2023, leading to a very large hike that families are still struggling with. The Minister knows, having responded to my urgent question yesterday, the point that I am going to make about oil: 68% of households in Northern Ireland have oil as their main and primary heating and cooking sources. Since October 2023, the cheapest prices for Northern Ireland’s largest supplier have been higher than prices under the cap in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The cost of energy can be monumental for local businesses, not just for the large chain businesses. The local, family-run small business is the one that will probably suffer the most. After the pandemic, I was approached by countless local businesses in my constituency that were simply unsure how they would survive. After so many years, many were facing the climax of their business. A local coffee shop I frequently used in the town where my office is had to close down as it was no longer sustainable. Energy suppliers back home, such as Power NI, can provide tailored plans for businesses, but the price is no different and businesses can often be forgotten.
It would be remiss of me to participate in this debate without mentioning the impact of the Government’s decision to withdraw the winter fuel payment from pensioners. Many such pensioners in my constituency who have contacted me relied on that payment to get them through the winter. There are concerns not only that this may plunge thousands of pensioners into fuel poverty, but about the massive potential health risks. Older individuals’ struggling to afford adequate heating could increase the risk of respiratory illnesses, strokes and hypothermia. It is not an exaggeration to say that many of the elderly people that I know do not have and cannot afford to heat, so they do not turn it on, but they do put on extra clothes. It is distressing to visit elderly people and see them wrapped up like a polar bear—
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for giving way; he is making an excellent contribution. The radio frequency network that, as the Minister is aware, controls what many people in remote areas pay for heating will be switched off in June. At present, the replacement infrastructure is not there, so many people could inadvertently end up paying through the nose. I find that very worrying, so will the hon. Member, and perhaps later the Minister, tell us whether they agree that the data communication company needs to speed up its roll-out of cellular coverage as quickly as possible? We are only four months away from June, and it is a deeply worrying situation for pensioners in my constituency and many other remote areas.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. The Minister has been listening, and I know that he does listen. The hon. Member has outlined a specific issue that is incredibly worrying. The older we get, the faster time goes; I am not sure whether that is right, but it seems to go faster. June will be here tomorrow—it will be that quick—so the crisis must be addressed today. I thank him for raising that and look forward to the Minister’s response.
I will always ensure that the Minister and his Department are aware of the impact that this issue could have—and has had this winter—on health. We look to him for direction and, most importantly, reconsideration for the coming years. Schemes were available under this Government that were available under the previous Government and were set up to support families and households who were struggling, but they have now closed. Similarly, back home, the Assembly has previously taken steps to support people.
It is no secret that people are still struggling. On occasions when the price of energy is out of our hands, there are measures we can take to ease the burden. Despite the general fall in prices since early 2023, typical bills under the January to March 2025 price cap will still be 43% higher than in the winter of 2021 to 2022. The perspective of prices and costs today is really bleak, so I look to the Minister for direction and plans for the rest of the coming year to support our constituents.
Steps can be taken to reduce pressure: perhaps there could be a closer look at the impact of renewable solar energy or better dedication to financially supporting our constituents. Regardless, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say, and to hearing about the planned integration between himself and his counterparts back home in the Northern Ireland Assembly, because we need to see the benefits of being a part of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We are very proud to be part of it, but we also look to Government here centrally to help us in the Northern Ireland Assembly and to help our constituents. I honestly believe that the Minister has a heart for that, and I very much look forward to his response and to seeing how he can help us.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing this important debate. I declare that prior to being elected, I spent the better part of a decade in renewable energy finance. While I would not claim to be an expert, I hope to bring some useful insights to this debate.
The cost of energy remains one of the largest issues faced by households across the country, and nowhere is that more apparent than in rural communities like West Dorset. Fuel poverty is a dire issue. In 2023, 13% of households were in fuel poverty, and nearly 40% of households were spending more than 10% of their annual income on energy. The situation is even worse for vulnerable families: nationally, nearly 900,000 single-parent households are living in cold homes.
It is a much-cited statistic that the UK has the highest energy prices in the developed world, but that is misleading, and in no small part based on an accounting issue. In 2000, just 3% of the UK’s energy came from renewables; today that figure is 42%. Despite that progress, we are still paying energy bills tied to the price of fossil fuels because of the marginal pricing system, which means that all electricity is charged at the rate of the most expensive source, which is currently gas—a commodity that, like oil, is at the whim of international events and geopolitical fluctuations.
Between 2010 and 2021, the global average cost of electricity generated from a renewable energy source over its lifetime declined by 88% for solar, 68% for onshore wind and 60% for offshore wind. Yet, even as renewable energy has become drastically cheaper to generate, the wholesale cost of energy to consumers remains high. It is simply unacceptable that companies are making vast profits while households, particularly in rural areas, are struggling to afford the basic necessity of heating their home.
The Government could solve this problem by delinking fossil fuels and renewable energy pricing, as other countries do. Our wholesale energy price would then be the weighted average between the two, which would bring us on a par with the energy prices of other nations. Far more importantly, it would also reduce the cost to consumers. The Government must take decisive action to break the link between gas prices and electricity prices. The previous Government promised to review electricity market arrangements, and this current Government should do so. Creating a separate market for renewables and fossil-fuel generated electricity would make energy fairer and more affordable to consumers.
I will make one other appeal for action by this Government. It is a trope often repeated that we need to put more solar panels on roofs and car parks, rather than farmland. I do not disagree, but the trope fails to recognise that doing so is commercially unviable. If utility-scale solar—this is an oversimplification—costs 50p per unit to build, commercial rooftop is double that, and carports double that again. The value paid by energy companies for exported renewable energy is often as little as 5p or 5½ p per unit, so utility scale is the only solar that works as a pure export model. That unit of electricity is then sold under a green energy tariff to consumers at a vastly inflated price. The only people who benefit are the energy companies.
Again, the Government have a relatively straightforward fix at their disposal: mandating a minimum export value. Yes, energy wholesalers will make less money, but I can live with that. More importantly, it would unlock investment in rooftop and carport solar, end the competition between food production and net zero, and ultimately reduce costs for consumers. Those are easy wins for a Government who claim to be committed to fighting climate change. Instead of following the advice of industry, the Government have chosen to axe winter fuel payments, stripping vital support for many of the poorest pensioners at a time when energy bills remain high—a decision that should be reversed.
The UK must take back control of its energy future. We cannot continue with a system where consumers are at the mercy of volatile international gas prices while energy companies rake in massive profits. We must end the outdated pricing model that ties renewables to the cost of fossil fuels, and we must unlock investment in rooftop and carport solar. We must ensure that the benefits of renewables reach the people who need them most and ensure that no family, child or pensioner is left struggling to heat their home when we have the tools to fix this at hand.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on securing this morning’s debate. I will not speak for too long, because we have had several debates on this issue; instead, I will focus on the key points that I think need hammering home.
For several years colleagues in the highlands and islands, and now my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O'Hara) and I, have worked on the highland energy rebate campaign., which would mean a geographic rebate for people in the highlands and islands affected by higher fuel prices. I am not precious about the mechanism for that. There is a bit of kickback about a geographic mechanism, but it is a very useful debating tool because it hammers home the fact that there is a geographic discrepancy and discrimination for people living in the highlands and islands, and the north of Scotland more generally.
We need a solution from the Government, and we need it urgently. For decades, people in the highlands and islands have been paying more for their energy than those in almost any other part of the UK. They pay more for distribution, and no other part of the UK pays more for transmission. All that people see are wires and pylons. The energy infrastructure, much of it in the highlands and islands, is used to send energy hundreds of miles away, but that is not distributed across bills in the same way as the distribution charges are. For example, in the flat that I live in when I am down here in this place, I pay roughly 40p on standing charges, and at home I pay 60p-plus on standing charges. That is a third extra every single day on that standing charge, and that is the same for people across the whole of the highlands and islands, which puts it in perspective for folk.
For decades, successive Governments have failed to tackle poor regulation. Ofgem has shown little interest in dealing with energy prices in the north of Scotland. Twenty years ago, we were less focused on decarbonisation issues than we are now. We were trying to get people on grid because there were so many people off-grid in the highlands and islands. The authorities would not look at getting gas into more remote areas; that was very low on the priority list. I am not advocating that we should do that now; new technologies have come in since then and we need to focus on decarbonising our energy systems. But it evidences that this has been going on for a long time, and that solutions have not been found.
Governments have always focused on urban areas with big populations to the detriment of rural customers. That is not acceptable, because the highlands and islands of Scotland are the coldest parts of the UK and have the highest levels of fuel poverty per head of population. That major issue needs to be addressed.
I want to highlight a couple of strategic issues about generators. We have wind farms consented to produce many gigawatts, but they are not able to progress because the Ministry of Defence has not come up with a radar solution that will allow them to operate. That is a matter of urgency. It is about capacity within the MOD and the amount of effort that it has been able to put into coming up with a solution; it is not because there is no solution, but because not enough people are working on it.
As a consequence, we have big projects that would generate employment through their construction and would contribute to our net zero goals, but they cannot get over that hurdle, despite being consented and having passed all the other barriers. If they cannot get over that hurdle, those consents will fall and the projects will be lost. That needs to be urgently addressed, and I urge the Minister to do what he can to work with colleagues in the MOD to get some focus on that.
I welcome the work on social tariffs, on which the SNP has a manifesto commitment, and I know from colleagues in the Scottish Government that a lot of close working is going on with the Department, which I welcome. Hopefully we will see a positive resolution to that in the not-too-distant future.
Finally, it would be remiss of me not to mention the winter fuel payment. The £300 winter fuel payment has been lost to tens of thousands of people across the highlands and islands. That combines with the points I have already made—along with the cost of energy going up since the Government came in last July and the promise to reduce energy bills by £300 for the most vulnerable pensioners—so we are now looking for £780. I am not entirely sure how that £780 reduction in bills will be achieved, but that is essentially the position that the Government find themselves in—they need to find that for thousands of people in order to maintain that manifesto pledge, and it will be interesting to know how that is going to happen.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) on securing this important debate. Much of what I was going to say has been mentioned, but I want to reiterate a few things.
How can it be that households on renewable electricity pay four times as much as those who get fossil fuel gas? That is inappropriate, not least because the cost of electricity generation from onshore wind was one third of the cost of generating electricity from fossil fuels, yet electricity bills remain nearly four times the price of mains gas. To put that into perspective, my parliamentary flat in London, which runs on mains gas, costs 5.8p per kilowatt-hour to heat, while my home in the highlands costs 23.7p. That premium is paid not just in the highlands, but across the countryside and in rural Britain, and in high-rise properties throughout cities across Great Britain. It is an enormous and painful gap. We all believe that net zero is the way ahead—we all support that—but we do not think that the current pricing is just.
In England, the level of fuel poverty is 13%, and as the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) said, it is much higher in the highlands at 47%. We have a dramatic problem with fuel poverty in the north of Scotland. In 2021, an estimated 16% of households that used gas for heating were classified as being in fuel poverty, and 41% of those who required electricity. There is a clear link between fuel poverty and lack of access to mains gas. That damages business as well: a hotel in rural Britain is paying £80,000 if it is using gas, but it would cost only £25,000 at most in a city for the same amount of heat. If the hotel was in the United States, the same amount of heat would cost only £10,000.
We have touched on the coupling of renewable energy and gas, and I do not think anybody would disagree that they need to be decoupled. I am sure that the Minister will talk about that. We have also touched on the environmental surcharges that are put on the electricity price, so 20% or more of an electricity bill, but just a fraction of a gas bill, is an environmental tariff. Ironically, it is people using renewable energy who are shouldering those environmental charges, not those using fossil fuels—mains gas.
I am glad that we have had this debate. I hope that the Minister will give an idea of how the enormous injustice of environmental charges, the standing charges and all the excess charges on renewables can be removed to balance things out with people who are relying on gas.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western; you were a wonderful shadow Minister, and it is fantastic to see you here today. I praise the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing this debate. Hon. Members will rarely hear me heap praise on another political party, but at the risk of sounding as if I am working cross-party, I commend her for her excellent points.
I do not think any of us can argue with some of the points highlighting the exorbitant cost of electricity bills here in the UK, and I find the regressive levies on electricity bills quite shocking. I thought the hon. Member’s innovative and positive policy solutions for reducing the cost of electricity bills were a welcome breath of fresh air; I hope that we can have further debates to bring forward those important points. I am more on the side of scrapping the levy, but I think we could come to a compromise about how to move forward.
Many Liberal Democrat Members brought up the importance of community-owned energy schemes, and I advocate for Marlow community energy. It is important that hon. Members on both sides of the House are advocating for community energy schemes; that theme ran through most hon. Members’ contributions and is an important aspect of energy to take forward.
It was wonderful to hear contributions from the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) about the great Horsham energy scheme and from the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) with his expertise in energy. It is always welcome when people bring their professional expertise to the House.
We have also heard about the challenges in the highlands; I am sure that the Minister will be able to give further explanation about the plans and challenges for the highlands. Although they are producing renewable energy, and will probably produce even more, it will be interesting to see what capacity they will have.
Of course, I would be remiss if I did not comment on the wonderful hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and everything that he contributes to this House—his wonderful contributions and his praise for Members across parties, not only in this debate, but in every single Adjournment debate. We are lucky to have such a wonderful and hard-working Member.
The cost of energy affects every aspect of our economy; few things are more important for our economic success than the cost of energy. It affects the global competitiveness of our industries and therefore the number of jobs and our constituents’ energy bills. The new Labour Government promised to cut energy bills by £300 by 2030—we are still looking forward to that—to create 650,000 jobs from the £8 billion that they are taking off taxpayers for Great British Energy, and to launch the era of clean, cheap, home-grown power. After more than six months in Government, however, it is clear that they will make energy more expensive, with bills going up, not down, and that they risk shutting down swathes of British industry, with jobs lost to more polluting countries. In short, their energy plans will result in lower growth, fewer jobs, higher energy bills and more carbon in the atmosphere.
We are constantly told by Ministers that renewables like wind and sun are the cheapest sources of energy, but that does not take account of the huge hidden costs of increased reliance on renewables. Again, I thank the hon. Member for Bath for bringing the important aspect of renewables to the forefront of the debate. Industry has already warned that trying to quickly produce a record amount of renewable capacity to meet the Government’s 2030 target will push up the price and cost to consumers. The cost also depends on the generating capacity that we need to have in the background to kick in to keep the lights on when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
From what I am hearing, the hon. Member is making an anti-renewables, anti-action on climate change speech. She mentioned that electricity prices are some of the highest in Europe, but her party had been in government for 14 years when the Government inherited those high prices. Could you confirm on the record that you think it is the Conservative party’s position that all levies on bills to support renewables should be scrapped?
Matt Western (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members to refer to each other as “the hon. Member” as opposed to “you”.
Joy Morrissey
I welcome the hon. Member’s contribution. It is wonderful to hear his commitment to the climate change emergency. We need to move forward as a country to make sure that our energy costs remain low. We did not commit to a £300 reduction in energy prices, nor did we commit to scrapping the winter fuel payment for pensioners. We went into the election without making those promises. I am simply holding the Government to account right now.
Luke Murphy
We are not talking about what was committed to in the manifestos. My question was about what the hon. Member said a few minutes ago, that she is committed to removing all the levies on bills related to renewables. Could she repeat that pledge?
Joy Morrissey
The hon. Member makes a wonderful point. Personally, I feel very strongly about this, and the glory of being in opposition is that I can hold the Government to account. I can have also a Backbench Business debate or an Adjournment debate of my choosing about my own passion projects. Not to digress, but if the hon. Member looks at the Water (Special Measures) Bill, he will see my passion project flourishing. I do not want to detract from this wonderful debate, but what I am saying is that we can find a cross-party solution to many of these issues. We want to be positive about the UK and its future.
Wera Hobhouse
I, too, would like some clarification from the Opposition. Is the hon. Member saying that renewable energy is a solution to lower energy bills and gets us to net zero, but that we do not really want it because it is too expensive? I was not quite clear whether her argument was for or against renewable energy. Could she clarify that?
Joy Morrissey
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. The Conservatives have an excellent track record of putting in renewables. We were the first to bring in the coal-free plan to tackle energy, so that is an important way of moving forward. I would like to continue moving forward with cheaper energy bills to make sure that we protect our energy security while ensuring that costs are low for both the consumer and industry.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I apologise for arriving at the debate rather late, Mr Western. Needless to say, as a former Energy Minister, I take an interest in these matters. Anyone who shares that interest will understand that we need a mix of energy between renewables and non-renewables. Renewable energy has to be tested on the basis of whether it is cost-effective. Some renewables are and some are not; it is as simple as that.
Joy Morrissey
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Some renewables are cost-effective and some are not; and some are a lot less energy-dense than gas or nuclear.
Edward Morello
I am struggling with the argument of renewable energy not being cost-effective. For the cost of the amount of generation that Hinkley C would deliver, we could deliver twice as much renewable energy generation. The strike price for offshore wind is far below any other source of electricity. So I am at a loss—across every single form of renewable energy, the generation price is below that of fossil fuels.
The hon. Lady talks about the previous Government being at the forefront of renewable energy generation, when they signed off new drilling licences for North sea oil. I feel I am living in cloud cuckoo land. There is no connection between what she is saying and the reality of market forces. Ask any wholesale energy price provider what their strike price is for renewables, and they will say that it is lower than for fossil fuels.
Joy Morrissey
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I ask that I be allowed to make progress in my speech, during which I will address many of the excellent points he raised. Let me go back to my earlier point about density and some renewables being more affordable than others. For example, acres of agricultural land need to be covered with solar panels to produce a fraction of the power that could be generated by gas power plants or small nuclear reactors.
The time has come to have a much more sensible and serious conversation about the true cost of renewable-based systems, not just repeating again and again that renewables are the cheapest form of energy. That is why the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), asked the Department to produce a full-system cost of renewable-based systems. If we are intent on decarbonising the entire grid by 2030, as the Government want, we must have a detailed assessment of what it will cost, and what it will do to our constituents’ energy bills and our already high industrial energy prices. Since taking office, however, the current Secretary of State has scrapped that work. He is rushing headlong into renewable-based systems, without any idea of what it will cost the country and the economy.
There is also the issue of trust—trust for consumers and for those in industry. Throughout the general election campaign, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Secretary of State and around 50 Labour MPs promised across the country to cut energy bills by £300. As soon as they got into Government, they refused to commit to that promise. Even worse, they decided to take the same amount from millions of pensioners in poverty. It is difficult to think of a bigger betrayal committed by an incoming Government.
Six months on, Labour voted against an amendment to make the Government accountable for that promise through Great British Energy—their energy company that is not going to generate a single watt of energy. The new chair of that company says that it is not even within its remit to cut bills by £300. Labour cannot spend weeks and months repeating such an explicit, clear and simple promise only to row back on it the second it gets into Government. Perhaps the Minister would like to tell constituents in Beaconsfield and across the country when they can expect to see £300 off their energy bills, and how much their bills will increase to in the meantime.
It is not just households that are worried about the cost of energy, but industry too. The same energy-intensive industries that wrote to the Government to raise concerns about their plans to hike the carbon price to the highest rate in the world also share the despair at the UK having among the highest industrial electricity prices in the world. In fact, the Department’s data shows that we now have the highest industrial energy prices in the world, well above the International Energy Agency and EU average.
More than anything, our heavy and manufacturing industries need cheap energy. They need stable and reliable energy, which does not rely on the whims of the weather. As with the shutting down of the UK oil and gas industry, seeing British industry move overseas will not change demand. It just means that domestic production—with all the tax revenue, British jobs and the investment that it brings—will be replaced by higher-carbon imports from abroad. Ministers say that decarbonisation cannot mean de-industrialisation, but if our industries, which are the hardest to decarbonise, cannot cope with the high cost of energy and therefore move abroad, that will be a disaster for our economy, devastating for our workers and their families, and will do nothing to reduce global emissions.
Ministers say that they want us to be global leaders. They want us to convince other countries to decarbonise, which is a noble goal. Climate change is a global issue, and there is no sense in our going it alone to cut our emissions when we produce fewer than 1% of global emissions. That is exactly why the Government need to change tack and stop our industrial energy prices rising any further. Countries around the world, which care deeply about holding on to their industrial and manufacturing base, are looking to the UK and other western nations to see what happens next. If they look at us and see industries being gutted by a misguided energy policy and see our people suffering from higher and higher energy bills, they will not want to follow us down the path to decarbonisation. We will be a warning, not an example, to the rest of the world.
Our ceramics, automotive, cement, steel, minerals, glass, aluminium and chemical industries need, above all else, cheap energy. I urge the Minister to talk to those businesses that are struggling with high energy costs and ask them what a carbon price of £147 per tonne of CO2 would do to their businesses. The Minister might not like the answer, but the Government need to face the consequences of their policies.
The Government should be asking what arrangements will give us the cheapest, most reliable energy and how we get there. Instead, they are determined to decarbonise the grid by 2030 at any cost to meet a political target, even if that sends people’s bills through the roof, offshores our emissions to polluting countries and leaves us at the mercy of Chinese imports. When facing the electorate at the next election, they will not be able to say that they were not warned.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Michael Shanks)
Good morning; it is a pleasure to speak in this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Western. May I thank the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) for securing this debate and, actually, for all our engagements over the past seven months? She always helpfully challenges the Government from a place of real passion and commitment, and I appreciate her words of wisdom, even if I do not always entirely agree with them. In fact, we have had countless debates on energy policy with a number of people in this room—it is beginning to become a bit of a weekly club here in Westminster Hall—and I appreciate all the points that have been raised.
May I say to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that I just cannot get enough of his contributions? Having not spent enough time in the Commons yesterday, we are back again today, but I am appreciative none the less. I will come to his points about Northern Ireland later.
I will start where the hon. Member for Bath started: on the public’s view about the cost of energy. She made an important point about how central energy costs are not just to the cost of living crisis that our constituents are still living through, but to their belief in the Government’s ability to change things, so it is important that we tackle these issues. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) rightly said, this Government were elected on a manifesto that contained pledges on energy. I am privileged to have the job of Energy Minister, because for the first time in a very long time we have a Government with a key mission to fix the energy system in this country. The truth is that it needs to be fixed because of what we inherited from the previous Government.
The energy crisis in 2022 was just the peak that highlighted how vulnerable we are to the rollercoaster of the fossil fuel markets. The cost of energy continues to have a devastating impact on our constituents and communities right across the country. Although consumers are protected to a certain degree by the energy price cap, our energy costs are determined by volatile markets outwith our control. As long as we remain exposed to that, the risk to our constituents is that we will face yet another price spike in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) made the point well that after 14 years of Conservative Government, we have to not just turn around one bit of the energy system, but deal with the whole series of occasions on which the previous Government failed to make decisions that would grapple with the scale of the problem. That is why I announced yesterday in the main Chamber our transitional support for Drax and biomass. The truth is that we got a good deal for consumers and for sustainability, but we had to make that decision. We had no other options because the previous Government left us with no long-term plan for energy security.
That is why we believe so firmly in our clean power by 2030 mission, which, by creating home-grown renewable energy, will help us to reduce our dependence on volatile fuel markets and will protect bill payers for good. Great British Energy will play a vital role in that mission by accelerating our deployment of clean energy so that Britain can become a clean energy superpower. Crucially, it will also invest in the supply chains that bring manufacturing jobs for renewable energy to our country.
Sir John Hayes
I understand the Minister’s desire to create more economic resilience by ensuring energy independence. By the way, I should refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in respect of this contribution and the previous one. The key thing is transmission and distribution costs, which make up 15% of every energy bill. No Government have looked at that seriously. If we distribute energy production to small solar plants spread right across the kingdom, we will maximise the costs and damage the resilience that the Minister seeks. Will he focus on the concentration of energy production and bring it as close to consumption as possible?
Michael Shanks
I will come to the right hon. Gentleman’s point about transmission costs later, because it is important, particularly when it comes to how we grapple with constraint costs. The truth is that we will have to build more network infrastructure. I hope he will support the construction of that, although I suspect he will not. We also want to review energy market reforms to look at how we deal with some of these issues. I will come back to the important point, which a number of hon. Members raised, of how we build an energy system for the future. The question of balance is key. We do not want a renewables-only system, although renewables will be incredibly important. We announced last week our commitment to rolling out much more nuclear to provide the baseload and the security of supply. We have the ability to place small modular reactors across the country near centres of demand, such as the data centres that we will see in the future.
Edward Morello
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), representing the former Government, tried to mischaracterise the need to upgrade the grid as a cost of renewables, but does the Minister agree that we need to upgrade the grid regardless of what technology we use? We lose 10% of the energy we generate through transmission. It is an old grid and, regardless of the technology we use, we need to upgrade it.
Michael Shanks
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Upgrading the grid is important for transmitting the clean power that we want to generate in the future, but it is already 50 or 60 years old, and it is creaking under the pressures it has operated under for a very long time.
There is real need to upgrade the grid right across the country. The truth is that the previous Government recognised that that was important. They launched the idea of the great grid upgrade before we did, but they are now running away from a lot of that. That is hugely disappointing, but it will not get in the way of our moving forward to make sure that we build the grid of the future. Yes, we need to meet the demand for now, but we know that by 2050 electricity demand is likely to double in this country. If we do not build the infrastructure now, it will be the weakest part of our economic strategy in the future. It is essential we build it now, but we want to bring communities with us.
Wera Hobhouse
Is it not also true that although we need to upgrade an old grid, the challenge of the future is a decentralised energy system, and that that is so often misunderstood? We had big power stations; now we have decentralised and smaller energy providers. That is a big challenge that we all have to recognise rather than criticising a particular Government—as tempting as it is to just criticise the Government of the day.
Michael Shanks
Never will it be said that I enjoy criticising the former Government.
I would flip what the hon. Member for Bath says on its head: that change also presents a real opportunity to look at the electricity system in a different way—I will come back to that point, particularly on community energy. It is right to say that the days of big cities with power stations right next to them are long gone, so we need to think of a different way to build our transmission system into the future.
On Clean Power 2030, advice from the National Energy System Operator said that the clean power system can be cheaper than today’s system for consumers. Contrary to what some Members have said, we know that renewables are by far the cheapest to run. There is a cost to building them, but there is also a huge cost to building new gas or nuclear power stations that is often not factored into the debate. Renewables come at a cost but are then incredibly cheap to operate on our system.
The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) spoke very passionately about climate change. That is really important. The mission we are on is about building an energy system for the future that gives us energy security, but it is also about tackling the climate crisis, which we can no longer think of as a future threat. As we look around the world, we can see from just this year alone that it is a present reality. It is increasingly difficult to read the statistics and not think that we should be taking more decisive action.
I gently say to the hon. Lady, as she prods this Government for not going fast enough, that in seven months we have launched the Clean Power 2030 mission, lifted the onshore wind ban in England—which was an absurd policy—and approved more solar than the previous Government did. We have had the biggest renewables auction in history, with 131 projects, we have created the pathway to clean power by 2030 and have already delivered record investment in the supply chains that will deliver some of the infrastructure upgrades we need, including £1 billion by ScottishPower. We launched the solar taskforce and the onshore wind industry taskforce. We are also looking at the Offshore Wind Industry Council and how it can deliver more. I am not sure we could move much faster, but if the hon. Lady has some suggestions, I am happy to take them on board.
Finally, on the point about the rooftop solar revolution, we agree that it needs to be not an either/or, but both. We will need ground-mounted solar, which plays a really important part, but we have rooftops right across the country—in car parks, warehouses and industrial units—that we should be covering in solar panels wherever we possibly can. We will do much more on that. We reconvened the solar taskforce, which the previous Government ran, to try and increase the ambition, and it will report in due course.
Jamie Stone
To return to my earlier intervention about the switch-off of the radio signal, on infrastructure, does the Minister agree that the data communication company must be exhorted and encouraged in every possible way to get on with the roll-out? Otherwise, people who are very vulnerable will pay more for their electricity.
Michael Shanks
I had a segue planned in my speech that was going to get me to the hon. Gentleman’s point, but he pre-empted me, and he is quite right to do so. He is right. This is a real challenge. The switch-off is the right thing for us to do in the long term—I think that everyone agrees that as a system that is outdated—but we do need to be absolutely certain that no one is left behind.
The Minister responsible for energy consumers, my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh), has already had a number of meetings with Ofgem and with industry to make sure we speed up the roll-out. The service ends in June, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) said, and the taskforce that has been put in place to roll it out is now moving at pace. I think it is fair to say that it should have been moving faster up to this point, but they are very aware of the issues and we will keep that under review; it is of course essential that people are not left behind when the signal is switched off.
Moving on to short-term support, we recognise that by 2030 the clean power system will be crucial to bringing down bills in the long term, and to protecting consumers from the price spikes that we have faced in recent years. However, short-term support is important for households that are struggling with their bills while we are in that transition. That is why the Government continue to deliver the warm home discount, which gives a £150 rebate off energy bills for all eligible low-income households, and it is expected to support 3 million households across the country this winter.
The Minster for energy consumers has worked with energy suppliers to agree a £500 million industry support commitment to help specific customers who are struggling this winter. We also extended the household support fund until March 2026 with an extra £742 million, with additional funding for the devolved Governments as fuel poverty is devolved through the Barnett formula.
A number of hon. Members raised the question of a social tariff. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South made a passionate case for it, and we are looking at what bill support could look like in the future, including the possibility of a social tariff. I acknowledge that there is a broad consensus on the idea of a social tariff. The challenge is that it means different things to different people. One of the challenges that we are grappling with is how we define a social tariff, and how we can reach, in a very targeted way, the people who need it the most.
Part of that is the issue of data sharing, which a number of hon. Members have raised—that is, how we bring together the information that the Government have about the individual people who could most benefit from such a scheme. The Minster for energy consumers is leading that work, alongside industry bodies such as Energy UK and stakeholders. They are looking at how we can improve affordability and accessibility, and they are working with the Department for Work and Pensions on how we might be able to share some of the data that it has.
The question about levies has been raised by a number of hon. Members, and I think the Conservative party is now pledging to abolish levies entirely. It is an incredibly complex subject, but it is something that we want to grapple with, and we need to be very mindful.
I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Bath at the beginning of the debate. While the wholesale price will come down as we put more renewables on to the system, and as we squeeze off gas as the marginal price, if bills do not come down because levies remain high, people will not see the benefit. It is really important to bring communities with us. The truth is, it is a complex issue. I am not going to stand here and say that we can just abolish levies, or that we can just transfer them entirely on to taxation. Neither option is possible in completion, but we are considering how we look at the future of levies, and we are open to suggestions from all parties on how we do that.
On the point about rebalancing—how we move electricity costs, in particular, on to gas—that is also a challenge. We want the number of people who use gas to decline in the coming years, as we decarbonise. The challenge will be making sure that we do not put charges on to a dwindling number of customers. Potentially and inadvertently, some of the poorest people in the country might be those who are the last to convert from gas to alternatives. I do not, for a second, dismiss the points that have been raised; they are incredibly important. However, I want to be very clear that we are working relentlessly in this Parliament on how we reduce the wholesale costs, and we want to make sure that it follows through on to consumers’ bills.
Related to that, of course, is the point about standing charges on bills, which, as many hon. Members hear from constituents, seem to be such an unfairness because they are not based on consumption or on particular customers’ circumstances. We are committed to looking at the future of standing charges. In December, Ofgem provided an update on reform. It included quite a radical proposal for introducing a new zero standing charge option under the energy price cap, which would give consumers greater choice in how they pay for their energy bills. It is for Ofgem now to consult on that proposal, which it will do this year. The driving force behind that will be making sure that any reforms are fair to all customers.
To underline that this is not straightforward and we cannot just simply abolish levies, I note that there would be unintended consequences if we were to transfer some of the costs on to other people. We could inadvertently find ourselves raising bills for some people without that being the policy intent. We are committed to reforming standing charges, but we want to do it in a way that is fair.
Mr MacDonald
Would the Minister spare a minute to talk about community benefits?
Michael Shanks
I was not expecting the hon. Gentleman to stop at that point. I saw him in his place earlier and knew that I would talk about community benefits. I will turn now to the points about community energy and community benefits; both are important.
On community benefits, in all of this, we want to bring communities with us on this journey. That is important. We have made a very clear case that this Government intend to build the energy infrastructure we need, the transmission infrastructure we need, the homes that people need and the industry that people need to grow our economy, which is important. For far too long, this country has not built the infrastructure it needs. In doing so, we want to streamline the planning process so that applications are dealt with far more efficiently and far faster, but we want to bring communities with us. That is absolutely vital.
We will be saying much more very soon about community benefits on several fronts. The first will be how we expand some of the community benefits for particular technologies. That process is already well established in Scotland, for example with onshore wind. The absurd policy of the onshore wind ban in England means that it has not developed as much, but we can look to Wales and to Scotland for advice on that. We also want to expand that to other technologies, particularly solar, which does not have the same community benefits at the moment, and to network infrastructure. I have always said that, if we build network infrastructure and a community is hosting that infrastructure that is essential for the country, it is doing a favour for the rest of the country and should feel some benefit from it. We will announce a package of community benefits shortly.
On the wider point about community infrastructure, we do not only want communities to benefit—we want them to actually own the infrastructure that gives social and economic benefits as well.
Michael Shanks
I will not, because I am going to come to the point made by the hon. Member. He has made the point about a highland pricing formula in the past—he is very reasonable about the issue—and it is something we will look at. The reform to the energy market will be part of that work as well. I am afraid I do not have time to come to much detail on mitigations on radar, apart from saying that we recognise the problem and we are working on it.
As always, this has been an incredibly useful debate. The passion from hon. Members is important, because this is one of the most important challenges facing our communities. We are committed to ensuring that energy is affordable for households across the country. Our clean power mission will help us deliver on that, but we have much more to do and we recognise that fact. We will work with Members from all parties, with industry and consumer groups, with charities and with individual constituents who raise these issues to make sure that we support everyone with this transition, to bring down bills in the long term and to support families with their energy costs.
Wera Hobhouse
I thank the Backbench Business Committee again for granting this debate, which has been very lively and engaged, and good-natured, despite some disagreements—but where would we be, if we all agreed? We would not need to debate.
I am grateful to everybody for their contributions and for the points that have been raised, and to the Minister for engaging very constructively on those points and concerns.
The bottom line is that energy costs and energy prices are too high for all our constituents and businesses. It benefits us all if we bring them down, not just to get to net zero and to bring costs down for consumers, but for the general prosperity of this country. Where will we be if we cannot make the costs at which we produce things and warm our homes and so on lower than they currently are? This is the beginning of a debate and there is much more to do. I thank the Minister and all Members for their constructive contributions; I am sure we will be here again soon.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the cost of energy.
Regulation of the Bailiff Sector
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the regulation of the bailiff sector.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I extend my gratitude to my hon. Friend the Minister for attending this important debate.
I will begin with a story. A vulnerable disabled person answered a knock at the door. He placed the chain on before opening it slightly, only for a bailiff to force their way through. The bailiff treated him, in his words,
“like a waste of life, a loser, scum”.
Worse still, the bailiff went on to wrongfully seize equipment supplied by the local authority to help with his disability.
That is not an isolated case. Today, I will share similar stories that expose the impact of a partially regulated sector, and make the case for urgent reform. My aim is simple: I would like the Government to legislate to introduce an independent regulator for the enforcement sector.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing a debate on this critical issue. There has been a rise in television programming showing people at their lowest being evicted or having their possessions repossessed. Often, we see the despair of ordinary people, and the bailiffs sometimes show a lack of compassion that should not be the standard. Does he agree that kindness and a basic level of respect have to be the foundation? To back that up—he is right—we need the legislation.
Mr Charters
I thank the hon. Member for his eloquent words about what is often the most challenging moment in people’s lives. That knock on the door is a cacophony of everything that they are facing, and we have to bear that in mind.
The Enforcement Conduct Board voluntarily regulates approximately 95% of the bailiff sector. However, the 5% who refuse to sign up are responsible, in my view, for the vast majority of the worst abuses. Even within the voluntarily regulated sector, problems persist. With hundreds of thousands of visits, millions of cases and billions collected annually, bailiff enforcement is a massive operation, but according to Citizens Advice, one in three people who have had contact with a bailiff have experienced behaviour that breaks Ministry of Justice rules. Even among regulated bailiffs, 1% of visits were deemed aggressive by the ECB in recent research.
We need a fair, proportionate and efficient collection system, which is why I am calling on my hon. Friend the Minister to set out a timetable to consult on legislation to introduce statutory regulation of the sector. I call on her to put the ECB on a statutory footing—something that charities and the ECB alike support. The fact that the sector is partially unregulated drives rogue bailiffs. I hope I can convince colleagues from across the House of the need for this change. There were some reforms under the May Government, but this is our chance, as a Labour Government, to stop rogue bailiffs for good.
I turn to the link between debt and mental health. Debt does not exist in a vacuum; many people facing bailiff action are also dealing with illness, relationship breakdown or mental health struggles. One person shared their experience of over five years of pressure from bailiffs over council tax debt that they never understood and could not afford. That ultimately led to suicide attempts.
I struggled with whether to mention suicide today, but we cannot ignore these cases. Take the case of Jerome Rogers, a young man whose debt spiralled after bailiffs clamped the motorcycle he needed to work. Shortly afterwards, he took his own life. The coroner identified the debt collection agency’s actions as a contributing factor to his death.
A woman recounted how a bailiff laughed and mocked her when she mentioned her mental health struggles. And Molly, whose name I have changed, was falsely threatened with prison if she did not grant entry to a bailiff—not a permissible threat, by the way. The stress triggered flashbacks of domestic abuse that she had suffered. I know my hon. Friend the Minister does terrific work on that.
Another victim, Poppy—also not her real name—suffered such severe anxiety over bailiff debt collection practices that she had a late-term abortion due to the stress of the situation. These are real stories, and there are so many more. For too long, rogue bailiffs have not met standards when it comes to vulnerability. That is why I dedicate my campaign for bailiff reform to the victims.
The effects of aggressive bailiff practices extend to children. One parent described how bailiffs had knocked so many times that they were left with nothing to take except their young daughter’s cot. It is simply unacceptable for children to live in fear due to a lack of regulation in the bailiff sector.
As a former regulator at the Financial Conduct Authority, I understand the importance of setting clear standards. The last significant changes to bailiff regulations were introduced over a decade ago. It is time for an overhaul.
The Enforcement Conduct Board was established in 2021. It provides guidance but lacks statutory authority. Many firms voluntarily comply, but the absence of legal enforcement means that rogue bailiffs continue to operate with relative impunity. We must introduce statutory regulation to protect vulnerable customers, reduce the burden on the judicial system, improve transparency and provide a level playing field for the genuinely good bailiffs out there. Better standards would level the playing field and support good professional bailiffs to do their work.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this incredibly important debate. He makes a powerful point about statutory underpinning and giving legal powers to the ECB. We simply cannot have rogue bailiffs marking their own homework and the ECB being reliant on funding from bailiff organisations to clamp down on their actions. Am I right that part of the reason for seeking new powers is to ensure that, instead of just revoking memberships, we can take legal action against rogue bailiffs?
Mr Charters
Absolutely. With that statutory underpinning, the ECB would have much greater avenues for enforcement. It has already done quite innovative work on the use of body-worn cameras and so on. Statutory underpinning would support its work even further.
This is not about punishing bailiffs who do their job correctly; it is about removing rogue operators and raising standards across the board. It is important to acknowledge the good work of the Enforcement Conduct Board, but I stress again that it is a voluntary regime, which can create problems as the ECB looks to toughen up standards. On this matter, there are points I would rather discuss privately with Ministers; there are always risks in the long-term survivability of any voluntary regime.
Let me touch on a few specific recommendations. I think we should introduce a vulnerable customers charter. Bailiff action is a distressing event for anyone, but for people with mental health problems it can be catastrophic. Aggressive debt collection leads many to take out high-interest loans, worsening their situation. A vulnerable customers charter would set out minimum standards of care. A bailiff registration service and a centralised register would help the public to verify all bailiffs’ credentials, reducing fraud and ensuring accountability.
On delegating licensing powers to a regulator, currently, bailiffs must renew their licences in court every two years. A regulator such as the ECB could take that on and streamline the process, reducing pressure on our overstretched judicial system. Rather than resorting to aggressive collection, councils should work with debt advice charities to support people before they reach crisis point. I have heard of cases of aggressive bailiff action for debts as low as £10. We should look at introducing a bailiff services compensation scheme, inspired by similar schemes, to provide clear pathways for redress in cases of clear and historical misconduct by rogue bailiffs.
I will close with one final story. Michael, a StepChange client, said of his experience:
“The bailiffs are unregulated. It’s like the Wild West. It’s absolutely unruly.”
I absolutely agree. We cannot allow this to continue. We have the opportunity to bring order to the sector and ensure fairness for debtors and bailiffs alike. Putting bailiff regulation on a statutory footing could save the taxpayer millions of pounds a year by easing the burden on the judiciary. It would immediately raise standards and protect our constituents in the most vulnerable moments of their lives, saving money and lives. I simply urge my hon. Friend the Minister to confirm today that the Government will consult on bailiff reform.
I thank the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute, the ECB, the Money Advice Trust and countless others for their thoughts ahead of the debate. I say a special thank you to StepChange: Vikki Brownridge, Richard Lane, Sophie Morris and hundreds of other StepChange staff do inspirational work to provide vital debt advice at some of the most difficult moments.
My hon. Friend the Minister has been a champion for victims of domestic abuse. Today we have learned of yet another grave injustice, which has remained in the shadows for far too long: the scandal of rogue bailiffs, who prey on some of the most vulnerable in our society. I hope that she and the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Sarah Sackman), who I also deeply admire and respect, will stand with me in ensuring that justice is done in this area.
I came to this debate with one simple aim: for the Government to legislate to introduce an independent regulator for the enforcement sector. I hope that after hearing the points I have made today, the Minister will set out that they are considering doing exactly that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Davies-Jones)
Diolch, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) for securing this debate on a very important subject. The Government share his concern to ensure that the public are protected against inappropriate enforcement action, and the harrowing stories we have heard today demonstrate why that is so critical.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way he powerfully and respectfully told the individual stories of first-hand experiences that had been entrusted to him, so that we heard them directly. They are so important to us as parliamentarians and legislators, and what we have heard about the scale of the issue should rightly shock us all. I also thank the organisations he mentioned, including StepChange, for the immeasurable and vital work they do to highlight the impact of debt enforcement on the most vulnerable in our society.
As my hon. Friend said, figures from the enforcement sector indicate that it is sent about 4 million court orders each year for enforcement using the taking control of goods procedure. Those debts and fines are owed to a wide range of parties, from private individuals and small businesses making individual court claims to local authorities, central Government and companies issuing large numbers of claims. The enforcement sector therefore plays an important role in supporting economic growth, funding public services and underpinning the rule of law.
However, the enforcement sector also has a significant impact on people’s lives, as we have heard. As the Minister with responsibility for victims and for reducing violence against women and girls, I can only imagine how intimidating it would be for a vulnerable woman who might be home alone or with her children, to hear that knock, or a pounding on the door, from a bailiff. That woman, and everyone else in society, has the right to expect that laws and safeguards are in place to ensure their safety.
While the vast majority of enforcement agents comply with the law, sadly some do not, as we have heard in this debate, and we share the concern to ensure that appropriate safeguards are in place. For many years, successive Governments have sought to balance the need to ensure that vulnerable people are treated fairly with the need to ensure that creditors are able to enforce debts and fines, and this Government want to ensure that the right balance is found between those two competing objectives.
Back in 2007, the then Labour Government recognised that measures were needed to protect vulnerable people from aggressive enforcement action, and they created an ambitious new framework with the regulation of bailiffs in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. Those reforms, known as the taking control of goods reforms, were finally implemented in 2014. The 2014 reforms aimed to set out clearly and transparently the procedures that must be followed by enforcement agents when enforcing debts using the taking control of goods procedure.
Those reforms set out several safeguards to protect the public, and vulnerable people in particular. They aimed to disincentivise aggressive or unnecessary enforcement action, including introducing a compliance stage to give people an opportunity to pay without that visit being necessary, and to provide protection against inappropriate and threatening enforcement agent action. The reforms introduced a new court-based certification scheme for individual agents and, importantly, mandatory training to ensure that enforcement agents have the skills needed to carry out their job effectively. The Ministry of Justice review found that the reforms had brought some positive changes, including full transparency and consistency, but also that some enforcement agents were still perceived to be acting aggressively and, more importantly, that they were not complying with the new rules.
As a result of complaints being made about enforcement agents, the Justice Committee held an inquiry in 2019. In its final report, the Committee expressed surprise that enforcement agents appeared to be
“under-regulated compared with other sectors.”
It recommended having a regulator with the ability to stop unfit enforcement agents and companies practising. The Committee also found the complaints system for bailiffs to be
“fragmented and hard to navigate, especially for vulnerable people”,
and recommended that an independent complaints body be set up, to which all complaints and enforcement agents could be escalated.
In response to those findings, the enforcement sector worked with the debt advice sector and the Centre for Social Justice to create the Enforcement Conduct Board. Its mission is to ensure that all those facing enforcement action in England and Wales are treated fairly. As we have heard, the ECB is a voluntary independent oversight body. The enforcement sector has on the whole accepted its oversight, and the ECB demonstrated that it has a valuable role to play.
The ECB has established an accreditation scheme for firms, which 96% of the industry has signed up to voluntarily; it has published professional standards for agents and the companies that employ them and it is about to begin considering complaints made against enforcement companies. It is establishing an independent dataset about enforcement, for example, and recently commissioned a study of body-worn camera footage, which found that enforcement agents broke the rules in 6% of cases—but, as we have heard, that 6% is too many.
The ECB believes that legislation is needed to fulfil fully its mission as an independent body. My hon. Friend set out some of the arguments in favour of the Government legislating to set up a statutory independent regulator. The Government recognise that legislation could ensure a level playing field, guaranteeing that everyone facing enforcement action would be dealing with an enforcement agent and firm subject to the same standard, overseen by that independent body. It would also mean that everyone facing enforcement action would be able to complain to an independent body using that same procedure.
My hon. Friend has suggested a number of responsibilities and powers that a regulator could be given. We also welcome the debate on how Government can build on the excellent work that the ECB has already done with the sector on that voluntary basis to protect boards facing enforcement action.
I reassure the House that we are considering all the issues that have been raised today. We are also considering how best to engage with stakeholders to inform decisions about whether further legislation is necessary and, if so, what such legislation should in fact do. It is important that we consider all those issues carefully. On the one hand we know that when regulation is done well, it can protect the public and support economic growth and innovation; on the other hand, poorly designed regulation can fail to keep the public safe, stifle economic growth and prevent regulated bodies from adapting to emerging technologies and new challenges.
The Government are also considering our response to a consultation held by the previous Government on the reforms to the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, which aimed to increase the proportion of cases that settle at the earliest and cheapest stages by, for example, giving people more time to access debt advice. We are also considering the findings of a report by the previous Government that recommended uplifting the fees that enforcement agents can recover under the 2013 regulations by 5%. We are still reviewing both those issues and will set out the way forward shortly.
The Government want to ensure that the enforcement sector operates fairly and effectively and, more importantly, is regulated properly. The experiences we have heard about today illustrate why it is so important that we absolutely get this right. As we move forward, we will continue to engage with Parliament and all relevant stakeholders to ensure that our approach is balanced and just, and that it takes into account the needs of the most vulnerable in our society. I extend that invitation to my hon. Friend and other hon. Members across the House to ensure that we hear a wide range of views and get everyone’s input, which is important if we are to get this right—and we are determined to get this right.
Question put and agreed to.
Carbon Monoxide Poisoning: Travel Advice
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government advice on risks of carbon monoxide poisoning when travelling.
It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship today, Dr Allin-Khan. I also extend my gratitude to all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken the time to participate in today’s debate. Their presence means so much to campaigners, to victims of carbon monoxide poisoning and their families, as well as to the charities and organisations that support them. I especially acknowledge my constituent, Cathy Foley, who first brought the issue of CO poisoning abroad to my attention during a surgery appointment in November last year. I will open the debate with Cathy’s story, which she shared with me.
Hudson Foley, Cathy’s son, was by all accounts a bright, enthusiastic and energetic young man. As for many people his age, physical health and fitness were a pursuit, a pastime and a pleasure, as was the lure of international travel. In May 2023, Hudson set off from his family home in Surrey for an organised backpacking adventure across South America, where he planned to learn Spanish, volunteer, meet new people and explore the region.
During his travels, Hudson stayed in home-stay accommodation, arranged by a well-known travel company specialising in youth travel. On the morning of Wednesday 30 October 2023, he had breakfast, made a phone call to the UK, and shared light-hearted conversations with his host’s family, before heading for his morning shower. Only minutes later, Hudson was found unresponsive in the bathroom. Despite the best efforts of his host family, Hudson could not be revived. He was just 24 years old when he died.
The official cause of death was acute pulmonary oedema, a condition where excess fluid fills the lungs. That diagnosis made no sense to Cathy. Hudson was a healthy, active young man who neither smoked nor drank. Determined to uncover the truth of his death, Cathy reached out to the British embassy in Quito to request a post-mortem report. The first difficulty she faced was that obtaining the report required a formal request from a solicitor.
After months of persistence, even flying to Ecuador herself, Cathy finally received the report, which included a toxicology analysis from a US-based specialist doctor, whom Cathy had had to find to undertake the work. The results showed no alcohol or drug presence, but one alarming detail stood out: the carbon monoxide levels in Hudson’s blood exceeded 50%. Had it not been for Cathy’s relentless determination, including travelling to Ecuador, consulting a carbon monoxide specialist, securing legal assistance and hiring a translator, Hudson’s death would have remained misdiagnosed and there would have been no inquest. In fact, Hudson’s case was just days from being filed away for good.
Thanks to Cathy’s tenacity, the true story behind Hudson’s death is being heard today. One of the greatest challenges that Cathy and campaign groups face in their advocacy for carbon monoxide awareness is the lack of accurate data on carbon monoxide-related deaths overseas. We know that fatalities have occurred over the past 25 years—
Dr Pinkerton
As I was saying, one of the greatest challenges that Cathy and campaign groups face in their advocacy for carbon monoxide awareness is the lack of accurate data on carbon monoxide-related deaths overseas. We know that fatalities have occurred over the past 25 years in the likes of Spain, Egypt, France and Ecuador, with many more cases of travellers being hospitalised worldwide. The data remains fragmented, however, and it drastically under-records and under-represents the true scale of carbon monoxide deaths.
In many countries, post-mortem toxicology reports are not required, meaning that carbon monoxide often goes undetected and unrecorded. Ultimately, deaths caused by carbon monoxide may be attributed to generic pulmonary conditions, as happened with Hudson. The silent killer remains silent. The UK charity CO-Gas Safety has recorded 34 deaths of British citizens overseas by carbon monoxide poisoning since 1999, but it stresses that that is a vast under-recording. How many more have gone undocumented?
Many families lack the resources or ability to do what Cathy did, leaving them without the truth that they deserve. It is crucial to understand that the dangers of carbon monoxide extend far beyond sudden fatal poisoning. Since taking up this cause, I have met survivors who suffer from the long-term health implications, including severe cognitive impairments that affect memory, language, mood and behaviour, all of which are caused by prolonged CO exposure.
The risk is not limited to home stays such as the one Hudson was in when he died, nor is it confined to low-budget backpacker accommodation, as some might assume. In May 2022, three American tourists were found dead in their villas at the Sandals resort in the Bahamas, having all perished from the effects of carbon monoxide. Let me be clear: this can happen to anyone anywhere, at any age, in a luxury hotel or a backpacker hostel. Faults can develop even in well-maintained appliances, meaning that all travellers, regardless of where they stay, would be well advised to take precautions. The most heart-wrenching reality of this particular tragedy is that it was entirely preventable. If only Hudson had been aware of the high levels of carbon monoxide in his home stay—if only he had carried a £20 portable carbon monoxide alarm.
Since Hudson’s death, Cathy and her family, who are here today, have dedicated themselves to raising awareness of the risks of CO poisoning through Hudson’s Pack Safe appeal—a campaign that encourages travellers, particularly young backpackers, to carry and use a carbon monoxide alarm. Working in collaboration with the Safer Tourism Foundation, Cathy’s campaign pushes for greater responsibility across the travel industry to ensure that all accommodation providers, from chain hotels to Airbnb hosts, pay attention to carbon monoxide safety. Hudson’s Pack Safe appeal has already made significant progress in educating about these potential dangers.
Through the sheer force of her character—I can attest to that force—Cathy has taken Hudson’s message on to radio and television, and even into the match day programme at Chelsea football club, the team Hudson had supported all his life. It is fair to say that this debate would not be happening today had it not been for the constituency surgery I had with Cathy last November. That conversation opened my eyes to the devastating effect that carbon monoxide poisoning can have. Although I had heard of the odourless, colourless gas before and was aware of the “silent killer” label, I had no understanding of CO’s deadly consequences, not just for travellers such as Hudson but for people in homes here in the UK.
That brings me to what I ask the Government to do on behalf of Hudson’s family and all the campaign groups I have been working with, many of whom are in the Gallery. The root cause of these preventable deaths is the fact that travellers are simply unaware that the accommodation they are staying in could pose a potential carbon monoxide risk. They do not even realise that the danger exists. Although the risk of carbon monoxide is undoubtedly everywhere, even here in the UK, education about its risk is not at the same level as, say, education about the risk of fire. Unlike fire, people cannot see it, smell it or sense it. They would not even know if they were suffering from its effects. That is the fundamental issue.
Shockingly, many major travel companies, such as the one that Hudson used to organise his kit list for his trip to South America, are completely unaware of those risks. But there is a devastatingly simple way to put the risks of carbon monoxide poisoning on to the radar of the UK travel industry, and into the minds and plans of British people travelling overseas. The UK travel sector closely monitors and indexes itself against the travel advice provided by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. From school trips abroad to travel companies, the travel industry uses information from the gov.uk website and feeds it into corporate and institutional risk assessments and travel guides. I know, because I have done it myself when organising field trips and coursework overseas in the university sector.
The FCDO has a huge amount of influence in the UK travel sector, even if it does not always realise it, and the risks faced by travellers are clearly reflected in the travel advice and kit lists that the FCDO provides. In correspondence with me on 22 January, the Minister of State for Development stated that the British embassy in Quito had recently reviewed carbon monoxide poisoning incidents in Ecuador, and as a result had determined not to update travel advice to add the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning. Given Cathy’s experience in securing an accurate post-mortem assessment in Hudson’s case, the reliability of the data on which that assessment was made is certainly open to question.
Some may ask: why focus this debate on risk to travellers overseas? The answer is simple. Because carbon monoxide has no smell or taste, it is not an obvious danger, so it can happen anywhere in the world. Someone such as Hudson, who only felt faint in the days leading up to his death, would not necessarily have realised that he was in any imminent danger. People instinctively flee when they see fire, but the same instinctive response does not apply to carbon monoxide poisoning.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate, which, as he said, is very important to Cathy and her family, some of whom have graced us with their presence this afternoon. Although this was a tragic loss of a young man in his prime, does the hon. Member agree that if other lives are saved because better precautions are taken, some good might yet come for others from the family’s tragic bereavement?
Dr Pinkerton
I completely agree. Even though I do not speak for Cathy, I know that she would agree with that. The change that is required is devastatingly simple. It is a minor change that we are looking for. Just a few lines added to the Government travel advice could have a lifesaving impact of the kind that the right hon. Gentleman mentions. The FCDO has a real opportunity to influence the entire travel sector by identifying the risk of carbon monoxide on its travel advisory pages, from where it can cascade through the wider UK travel industry. I must confess I am not convinced that the FCDO fully appreciates or grasps the power and influence it has over that sector, or the close attention that individuals and institutions pay to its travel advisory pages.
Of course, advice can go only so far. If travellers are warned of the risks of carbon monoxide, it becomes their individual responsibility to pack a portable carbon monoxide alarm and use it while travelling. That link is often broken. We hope that today the FCDO can see a way to use its power to reduce risk and possibly prevent further tragic losses of British lives overseas. Hudson Foley’s death was not an isolated incident, but Cathy’s extraordinary determination has ensured that his story has been heard today. I urge the Government to move beyond the mindset that more numerical evidence is needed before action is taken. I contend that we cannot afford to wait for more deaths before reacting; we must act now.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I am not sure if this is the first time that you have chaired Westminster Hall, but if it is, I wish you well. I am sure that there will be many more opportunities to chair and to keep us all in place—thank you for being here.
I thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for leading this debate on an important issue. He delivered a difficult story in a compassionate way on behalf of his constituents. I have only known him a short time in this House, but this is the man I know. We all convey our deepest sympathy to those who grieve for a loved one.
Being confronted with the stark reality of the loss of a life while backpacking, when everything is about fun and enjoyment, is quite inconceivable. There is nothing more valuable than life, and that is an awful thing to happen abroad. It is therefore important to suggest some ideas for addressing the issue, as the hon. Gentleman has done. The Minister always tries to respond in a positive way, and that gives us all— especially the hon. Gentleman and his constituents, and those who are here in the Gallery—hope that some good can come out of this tragedy.
Many will know that carbon monoxide is a silent killer, because it is colourless and odourless. It is known across the USA and Europe as the leading cause of fatal poisoning. Although up-to-date figures are not available, between July 2010 and June 2011 Northern Ireland suffered seven deaths and four casualties from CO poisoning. Furthermore, Northern Ireland has been identified as having the highest rate of fatalities from CO poisoning in the UK. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath looked overseas, but by reflecting on what happens back home we get an idea of the prevalence of such poisoning. That highlights a massive need for greater integration between this Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am ever mindful that that is not the Minister’s responsibility, but, through his civil servants, can he give us some idea whether any discussions will be ongoing, in view of the fact that we have the highest figures in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
The FCDO provides guidance and support for British nationals who live or go abroad, outlining the type of help that it can provide and offering general advice on staying safe overseas. Whenever someone sets out on a fun journey overseas—for many, it may be the trip of a lifetime—it is important to have up-to-date travel advice and warnings for specific countries. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath has outlined that well for us all. The issue is that the UK has guidance only for our own country, meaning that for some destinations abroad there is no legal requirement for detectors in hostels and Airbnbs. We should be pushing for that, and the hon. Gentleman has done so forcibly in this debate, as we would all expect.
It is crucial that people are aware of the first signs of carbon monoxide exposure, because it is so hard to detect. Exposure to small amounts of carbon monoxide for a long time may not necessarily be fatal. It can cause flu-like symptoms, such as tiredness and headaches, memory problems and loss of vision. It can be difficult to compare, as those symptoms are common alongside other day-to-day illnesses. Someone might be under the illusion that the situation is not as bad as it was, or as it could be—hence the importance of a detector. The UK charity, CO-Gas Safety, has recorded the deaths of 34 UK citizens abroad, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath referred to, though it says the number could be even higher. That is worrying, if such a figure just scrapes at the surface.
Currently, despite carbon monoxide posing a massive risk to people of all ages, only two of the Government’s travel safety information pages, for China and Nepal, address carbon monoxide poisoning. That might be an indication for anyone travelling to those places for a holiday of a lifetime—I would hardly be going to China, but that is by the way, and Nepal could be one of those countries people might go to. The most recent advice to British travellers highly advocates carrying a mobile carbon monoxide alarm. Some people might ask how much they have to carry, but it is light and small, does not take up much room and could save lives. That is what this debate is all about.
In addition, standards for the design and manufacture of combustion appliances can be far lower outside Europe. Appliances used in makeshift holiday lets can be old and installed in rooms ill-suited to their use. Travellers should be aware of the risks and take precautions to protect themselves. That is not a criticism of places where people stay; to be honest, when I have been abroad, I have stayed in some really bad places, but that did not bother me. Ultimately, I was not worried—I was there because they were cheap. That was when I was younger and much healthier.
Precautions are a small price to pay to protect life, but I believe the Government must do more to persuade other countries to be compliant and protect their people. Figures show that 95% of households across the UK have smoke alarms. Why do only 4% have carbon monoxide alarms, when the potential dangers are just as fatal? There are things for us to do at home that cannot be ignored. There is more work to be done, not only abroad but domestically to protect our people, which we have a duty to do.
I look to the Government and the Minister for direction and plans to raise more awareness, to have a strategy and plan of action that we can point to as a result of today’s debate. The stories we have heard of lost lives are awful. International counterparts, along with our own Government, have a role to play to ensure safety for those travelling. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says. I hope he will tell us that we can do more to protect people in future. To the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, who set the scene, I say well done.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for securing this vital debate, and for the powerful and deeply moving speech he made.
The story of Hudson Foley, a young man with his whole life ahead of him, tragically lost due to carbon monoxide poisoning while travelling, is one that should never have to be told. Yet, tragically, Hudson’s story is not an isolated case. There have been too many lives lost, too many families shattered, and the Government response is sadly inadequate. As we have discussed, carbon monoxide is an invisible killer: odourless, colourless and impossible to detect without proper equipment. It is produced when fuels such as gas, oil, paraffin, charcoal or wood do not burn properly, which makes it a hidden danger in many settings. Homes, hotels and holiday rentals are all susceptible.
Without adequate warning, education and safety measures, travellers are left vulnerable to risks they do not even know exist. As we have heard, the statistics are sobering. There were 28,900 deaths worldwide in 2021 alone. This issue does not affect only one country or demographic; it is a global problem and demands urgent action. The heartbreaking reality is that those deaths are preventable. My hon. Friend rightly made the point that portable carbon monoxide alarms can dramatically reduce the risk, yet far too few travellers are aware of their importance.
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has a clear and pressing duty to act to protect not just British travellers, but their loved ones. It is failing to provide strong, explicit warnings about the dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning in its travel advice, and that must be addressed. British travellers trust FCDO guidance; it is widely used by individuals, families and the travel industry itself, and yet nowhere does it mention the very real risk of carbon monoxide poisoning. That must change.
The Liberal Democrats call on the Government to take the following steps immediately: update country-specific travel advice to include warnings about carbon monoxide poisoning risks; amend the guidance and foreign travel checklist pages to provide clear advice on CO safety; actively encourage travellers to carry portable carbon monoxide alarms and launch a public information campaign to ensure that travellers are aware of the risks and how to protect themselves. Those are incredibly simple, easily achievable measures that would save lives.
The loss of life that we have heard about today is not due to chance. It is a result of a failure to prioritise public health and safety. Under the last Conservative Government, the public health grant was cut by 26%, undermining crucial initiatives that could have helped prevent those tragedies. Let us be clear: every death from carbon monoxide poisoning is one too many. We have the tools to stop them happening and the Government should act. The case of Hudson Foley highlights how devastating inaction can be.
I must praise the dedication of Hudson’s family. It was only because of their persistence that his cause of death was confirmed—something that would have otherwise gone unnoticed, as many countries do not require a post-mortem toxicology report for suspected CO poisoning. I hope the Government will recognise that an appropriate tribute to his life and to the hard work of his family would be to adopt our proposals and prevent future deaths from happening.
We should not just stop at protecting travellers. We also need urgent action to ensure that people are safe in their own homes. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted cases in Northern Ireland. The recent tragedy in Swanage, Dorset, where three elderly people lost their lives, likely due to CO poisoning, has exposed serious gaps in our domestic regulations. Unlike in Scotland, care homes in England are exempt from CO alarm regulations—an appalling oversight. Vulnerable residents deserve protection, and the Liberal Democrats call on the Government to close that loophole immediately.
The issue also highlights broader failures in public health policy. The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for an increase in the public health grant, ensuring that funding is allocated to address the worst health inequalities, including those linked to CO exposure. We should also push for greater awareness in travel literature, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath, and urge travel agencies and tour operators to include carbon monoxide safety advice as standard practice.
Finally, I want to pay tribute to Cathy Foley, Hudson’s mother, and the incredible work she has done through Hudson’s Pack Safe appeal. Her campaign, in partnership with the Safer Tourism Foundation, has documented cases of carbon monoxide poisoning deaths across a wide range of accommodations worldwide, from major hotel chains to short-term rentals such as Airbnb. Cathy’s advocacy, alongside the cross-party support of the all-party parliamentary carbon monoxide group, demonstrates how much change is needed. I am deeply grateful to Cathy and her family for their work and for being here today to share their story—one that no parent should ever have to tell.
I do not think this should be a political issue. The Lancet has described carbon monoxide poisoning as an almost entirely preventable cause of death. There can be no justification for continued inaction. We owe it to Hudson and to his family, and to all those who have lost loved ones to this silent killer. By making simple, practical changes, we can save lives. I ask the Government to seize the opportunity to do so.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Thank you, Dr Allin-Khan, for calling me to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. It is a pleasure to serve under you for the first time. I commend the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for raising this issue on the Floor of the House today. It is an issue that most MPs never hear about and never think about. The public do not know about this issue, and he has done us all a huge service today by raising this topic and allowing us to hear about what happened in the tragic case of Hudson, who died in 2023 at the age of only 24 in Ecuador, and how carbon monoxide poisoning could happen to anybody. It is not just something that has happened once; it can happen over and over again, and we need cross-party action to deal with it. I know that the Minister will take on board all the points raised by hon. Members to ensure that we do not close down this debate and move on to other issues, but that we make the necessary changes to protect the safety of British travellers abroad.
Furthermore, as the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) said, there are risks domestically in the United Kingdom. A large number of people also die from carbon monoxide poisoning in the UK, a possibility unbeknown to most people. The debate has triggered something in my mind; many years ago, I had constituents who died in a similar situation, and it probably happens more often than we realise. Action is needed, and I hope that the Minister will trigger Government action to ensure that Hudson’s tragic death was not in vain and that others will live because of what happened to him. We must learn the lessons from that tragedy.
I again commend the hon. Member for Surrey Heath for raising this issue. I also thank other hon. Members who have made powerful contributions, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois)—I had the pleasure of visiting his constituency only last Friday. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke powerfully about the effects of this issue in Northern Ireland, and I have already mentioned the hon. Member for West Dorset. I feel that there is cross-party consensus in the room that action is needed. I thank Hudson’s family and friends who have come here today. They have our heartfelt sympathy for their tragic loss, and we hope that today will be the start of a serious change that will save lives in the future.
I will make some formal remarks on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition. We know that carbon monoxide poisoning is often misdiagnosed—or, worse, not diagnosed at all—and the number of deaths from that awful occurrence could be far greater than we know. Many deaths abroad do not even appear in national or international statistics, and we do not know for sure how many people die from this awful situation. Most post-mortem tests are not fully conducted, or not conducted at all. Do the Government have any estimate for how many Britons have died from carbon monoxide poisoning overseas in recent years? Are those statistics available—and if not, why not? Perhaps the Minister could tell us that in his closing remarks.
According to the all-party carbon monoxide group, 40 people die and thousands are injured every year in the UK from carbon monoxide poisoning. If that is happening in this country, with relatively strong gas safety regulations, what about the domestic risks to people living in our own country, as well as to holidaymakers and those staying in properties with unknown safety standards abroad? That certainly applied in the case of Hudson in a home stay, which I imagine involves far greater risks than staying in hotel accommodation. As we heard from the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, carbon monoxide can affect anyone. If, for £20, we can know that the place we are residing in is safe, I think that is worth the investment. We need all travellers to take that sound advice.
Have the Government evaluated how the risks compare for British people travelling to countries with different safety standards? Standards are not the same all over the world. Having been to Quito, I am sure that Ecuador is an example of that; it is a very different part of the world and standards differ. It is important that people understand, when they go to far-away destinations, what risks are prevalent. We need to make people aware of such risks before they travel. Will the Minister look at this issue and let us know his findings?
Travellers booking through travel agencies may receive safety information, but that does not necessarily apply to those arranging trips independently. What more can the Government do to ensure that all British travellers, regardless of how they book their accommodation, are aware of the risks involved? The FCDO’s travel advice is widely used and trusted. Would it not be logical to expand the inclusion of advice on carbon monoxide poisoning to all destinations with inadequate gas safety regulations, rather than to a handful of countries where tragic deaths have occurred?
Portable carbon monoxide alarms, as has been mentioned, are inexpensive, easy to pack and widely recommended by the experts. Surely the Government should be encouraging their use in the same way that they promote other basic travel safety measures. We have seen how determined campaigners are working to raise awareness of that fact, including Cathy Foley and her family through the Hudson’s Pack Safe appeal. The Government should move quickly on the work that is being done now to promote this serious risk and state clearly what can be done.
The Safer Tourism Foundation and the all-party carbon monoxide group have made constructive recommendations to improve public understanding. How are the Government working with those organisations to strengthen their approach, and what discussions have the Government had with travel industry representatives, including airlines, tour operators and accommodation providers, to explore ways to improve safety messaging for holidaymakers across the world? It is not about creating unnecessary alarm, but about ensuring that British travellers have the knowledge they need to make informed decisions about their safety. We already provide advice on issues ranging from food hygiene to local crime risks, so is it not sensible to have the same kind of advice for treating the potential for carbon monoxide poisoning and to treat it with the same level of seriousness as we do other possible risks to travellers abroad?
This is a conversation about simple, practical steps that can and will save lives. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to outline what action the Government will take to help keep British travellers safe. I again thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath and all Members who have contributed to the debate. I particularly thank Hudson’s family. Let us leave today in the knowledge that the debate has changed history, and that, from now on, the British people will know, and the Government will advise them, that they must take the adequate precautions that could save their lives and those of their loved ones.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) for securing the debate. I send my condolences to Cathy and to the whole family for the tragic loss of Hudson in Ecuador. I know how difficult it must be, and my thoughts are with them. I am grateful, too, for the contributions of other hon. Members, and I shall try to respond to the points that have been made. I know that some of those contributions are informed by personal and painful experience.
I am the Minister with consular responsibilities for British nationals overseas, so I hope hon. Members will forgive me if my speech focuses on the overseas elements of the debate. We have taken careful note of the points made for other Departments, including the Northern Ireland Office, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. My officials will seek answers for hon. Members on the more detailed questions that I am unable to answer today.
Supporting British nationals abroad is clearly a key priority for the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Most British people live or travel abroad without incident or needing to seek consular assistance. When an incident does occur, they naturally and understandably ask whether it was preventable. If it was not, what might have made it more bearable?
Let me say a few words on how the Government are acting to help British nationals in need abroad. I will begin by setting out our approach to travel advice, the goal of which is to help British nationals to make better informed decisions about international travel. Their safety is always our top priority, and our advice is based on objective assessments of the risks, based on inputs from multiple sources. That includes our own embassies, foreign Governments, and, where relevant, intelligence services.
On carbon monoxide poisoning specifically, as the House will be aware, building, fire and gas safety standards abroad do not always match those in the UK, as the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) identified. Since the Foreign Office lacks in-house expertise on building safety, we share information from expert organisations, such as Energy UK, in some of our travel advice. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, for some countries, such as China and Nepal, where carbon monoxide poisoning is a higher risk, we include specific information on that in our travel advice, based on local reports and consular case trends.
I recognise the questions asked by the hon. Member for Romford about trends; it is difficult to determine those on the basis of the information available to the Foreign Office. Last year, sadly, 4,000 British nationals lost their lives overseas, and we believe that at least two of those were as a consequence of carbon monoxide poisoning. However, as many hon. Members have identified, we cannot be sure of what we do not know. Wherever cases are raised, as with the tragic case raised by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, my officials and I are available. If there is uncertainty about the cause of death and further support is required from the Foreign Office, we stand available to provide that. But as I think the hon. Member identified, ultimately, our advice is there to guide people, not to set rules that people must abide by. It is intended as just one source of information to help British people to make informed decisions about where and how they travel.
I acknowledge what the hon. Member for Surrey Heath said about the impact of our advice. I assure the House that we always consider the arguments for changes to travel advice on their merits. We must make judgments, try to consider all risks proportionately, and consider the best way to ensure that advice is presented to travellers.
Mr Francois
On the point about the extent of guidance, with my recent gas bill, I got a leaflet from British Gas—which I take to be authoritative—warning about the dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning. It estimated that about 50 people had died from it in the UK in the previous year. That is slightly higher than but similar to the APPG’s estimate. British Gas is warning people here in the UK. Given what has happened, it would not be a great deal of skin off the Minister’s nose if we were able to say that the Government will make including that a standard part of travel advice for Brits going abroad. Can I invite him, with the family here, to do the right thing?
Mr Falconer
I think the right hon. Gentleman’s proposal is that we include the risks from carbon monoxide everywhere in the world. I am happy to take away that proposal and to come back with a more detailed answer, particularly in relation to the letter from the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, in which he set out some further requests of the Foreign Office, as he did in his speech. With travel advice, we always balance the desire not to have too much standard text across all countries with the wish to keep it as focused as possible, but I am happy to take away that question and return to it.
Alongside travel advice, of course, the Government aim to reduce incidents through our long-standing Travel Aware campaign, which includes key messages such as encouraging British nationals to have appropriate travel insurance, to read our travel advice and to sign up for our alerts. We partner with more than 100 organisations from across the travel industry, including airlines, tour operators and insurance providers, and we ask them to help to amplify our key messages and drive customers to our travel advice pages.
We try to regularly review our work with partners to ensure that they highlight appropriate issues to British travellers. That has included work with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and the Safer Tourism Foundation, which I think the hon. Member for Surrey Heath has mentioned already, to raise awareness specifically on the risks of carbon monoxide poisoning around the world. I commit that my officials will hold another meeting with the Safer Tourism Foundation later this month to explore opportunities for greater collaboration.
Turning now to our work on prevention, we use a range of sources—customer feedback, casework data and in-house research—to determine when to take preventive action. We also work closely with host authorities, partners in the travel industry and others to improve local support for British people abroad. Through our student brand ambassador programme, we aim to raise awareness among young people of preventable incidents.
Let me assure the House that the Government are committed to continual improvement. We are looking for ways to improve our consular services, including our prevention activity, messaging and travel advice. Priority themes are constantly under review, with decisions being made according to what poses the greatest risk to British travellers abroad. We will also explore options for linking to other expert sources through our travel advice pages for solo and independent travellers. That includes advice such as that shared by the Safer Tourism Foundation on carbon monoxide safety.
I admire the efforts of the Foley family to urge travellers to take safety equipment such as carbon monoxide detectors on their travels. We will consider including that in our advice, and it is of course important that travellers use them in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions and that they should be maintained and tested regularly.
I emphasise that we welcome all feedback and use it to improve our services. I recognise the strength of feeling from the House and from the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. We will consider his proposals carefully, and I am happy to meet with colleagues again to follow up on these important issues. In the spirit of the speech from the hon. Member for Romford, we intend to work on this on a cross-party basis. I reiterate the Foreign Office’s commitment to providing clear, accessible and up-to-date travel advice. We will keep it under constant review and ensure it reflects the latest assessments. We will continue to collaborate with the travel industry to amplify personal safety messages, and we will work with host Governments to reduce the risks for British people abroad.
Dr Pinkerton
I extend my thanks again to all hon. and right hon. Members who have come to this debate; they have spoken passionately, supportively and constructively. I think we all recognise that what is being asked for is a comparatively small change: the addition of some extra lines on some web pages. However, those extra lines could have a transformative effect, because of the power of the FCDO website in setting a tone among UK tourism organisations and the wider UK travel and tourism sector. The way that risk assessments and other institutional documentation are indexed against the travel advice provided by the FCDO mean that such a small change could have a transformative effect. An explicit recommendation to carry an incredibly cheap, incredibly portable and hugely effective CO alarm could genuinely save lives in the future.
I am hugely grateful to all who attended the debate. I want, one final time, to pay tribute to Cathy Foley and her family, along with the representatives of charities and organisations who are in the Gallery. They have supported Cathy, and they bring awareness to us all of the issue of carbon monoxide poisoning. I am hugely grateful to them all. I thank the Minister for committing to look again at that travel advice. I am encouraged to hear about the forthcoming meeting with the Safer Tourism Foundation, and I would be happy to be part of any future discussions.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government advice on risks of carbon monoxide poisoning when travelling.
Youth Provision: Universal and Targeted Support
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
I will call Harpreet Uppal to move the motion and I will then call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates. There will be no other speeches, but Members can intervene briefly.
Harpreet Uppal (Huddersfield) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered access to universal and targeted youth provision.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan, and a pleasure to open this important debate on access to universal and targeted youth provision. It is fantastic to see so many Members here—I should have gone for a 90-minute debate after all!
I am grateful for the opportunity to highlight the vital role that youth services play in supporting young people across the country and delivering on the Government’s mission to reduce barriers to opportunity. I know that many colleagues share my deep commitment to ensuring that every young person in our constituencies has the support and opportunities they need to thrive. Members from across the House recognise that youth services are not a luxury, but an essential part of our communities.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this issue forward for a debate. It is obvious that if she had applied for a 90-minute debate, or even a three-hour debate, she would have got a good crowd for it. One feature in my constituency—I am sure that it is the same in hers—is church-based organisations. Churches remain the largest non-governmental institutions across Northern Ireland, and the largest organisations with voluntary membership. They provide the uniformed organisations, the youth clubs, the drama classes, the choirs and so much more. Does she agree that there is an opportunity for the Government and for the Minister’s Department to work alongside church groups—all church groups, that is—to provide the help for the youth that we all wish to see?
Harpreet Uppal
The hon. Member is absolutely right that faith organisations and voluntary organisations play a huge part in the youth services that we deliver.
Trained youth workers create trusted relationships, offering safe spaces where young people can explore their interests, develop a sense of identity and, importantly, feel supported. Youth provision is also about giving young people the tools to lead happy, healthy and productive lives.
I want to recognise the steps that the Government have taken in this area. Initiatives such as the national youth strategy for England and the young futures hubs aim to bring together targeted support for young people, and they reflect a growing understanding of the importance of youth services. However, we must also be honest about the challenges we face.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. May I just say how wonderful this debate is? I very much appreciate my hon. Friend’s work in securing it. I also commend the work of the voluntary sector, of local authorities, and of church groups and other faith communities. In particular, they provide much-needed targeted support on very difficult issues such as mental health. That is much appreciated in many communities across the country.
Harpreet Uppal
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and I will come on to mental health.
Fourteen years of Conservative Governments have resulted in a £1.2 billion real-terms reduction in local authority spending on youth services in England since 2010.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this really important debate. She is making a powerful introduction. The Street Foyer YMCA in my constituency provides excellent support for a lot of young people, many of whom come from challenging backgrounds and circumstances, but the local authority faces severe financial difficulties. Somerset council can spend only £13.47 per head on young people in Somerset. Does the hon. Member agree that it is crucial that we address the broken local government funding model if we are to improve youth service provision?
Harpreet Uppal
I thank the hon. Member for her point. I am sure the Minister heard what she said.
Kirklees council, which covers my constituency of Huddersfield, has seen a 70% decrease in funding in the 14 years that I mentioned. That leaves just £47.76 per young person spent on youth services in our community.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this really important debate. In Stoke-on-Trent, the amount spent per young person is £10.76, but in inner London it is £110—10 times more. Does she agree that we need to look at the regional inequalities in how these services are funded? Hopefully, the Minister will hear that point too.
Harpreet Uppal
I am sure the Minister has heard my hon. Friend’s point.
The Children’s Society’s “Good Childhood Report” shows that 15-year-olds in the UK have the lowest life satisfaction of young people across 27 European countries, based on programme for international student assessment data from 2022. Despite the financial outlook, there are many incredible organisations working in my constituency to support our young people, including Positive Stepz, Conscious Youth, Central Stars youth club, Team KickStart, Yorkshire Community Development, Empower, Boxpower and Temple Well-Being.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Everyone wants to intervene, and she is being very generous with her time. As she mentioned a few important local organisations, I want to do the same for my constituency. The redevelopment of Highgate Newtown community centre is an example of how an ambitious community space can serve as a welcoming hub that children and families look forward to visiting, and I thank Andrew Sanalitro and his team for making that happen. Does my hon. Friend agree that housing developers should not just retain community centres, but enhance them, in order to make provision for young people and families in our constituencies?
Harpreet Uppal
I agree with my hon. Friend, who has been a great champion in this area.
Such organisations deliver outstanding community-led services to our young people and offer them experiences, opportunities and environments that allow them to thrive. However, despite the best efforts of the incredible staff and volunteers, financial constraints have resulted in many having to reduce the services they offer. The evidence is clear: when youth services are cut, young people suffer.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
Does the hon. Lady agree that the Minister should answer two questions? The first is about the funding and jobs that will flow from the national youth strategy, and the second is about integration. We need a youth chapter in the housing strategy, as Centrepoint has asked for, and to bring its co-production values into the “Get Britain Working” strategy, aspects of which are quite worrying.
Harpreet Uppal
I am sure the Minister has heard what the hon. Lady has said. I am proud that the Government are developing a national youth strategy, which has not happened before.
Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that the closure of youth clubs led to a 4% drop in GCSE performance at age 16, with even greater effects on pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. Worse still, the loss of youth services has been linked to a 14% increase in youth crime within six years of youth services closures.
Harpreet Uppal
I will take both interventions, but then I need to make a bit of progress before I take interventions from other Members.
Jas Athwal
I am pleased that my hon. Friend has secured this debate. Last week, I spoke about the importance of a holistic approach to preventing crime, and especially of providing young people with safe spaces. We have had 14 years of brutal cuts. The council I used to lead had a £1 billion budget, but now it is £800 million—£200 million has been cut from it. Despite those punishing cuts, it is still building the first lido to be built in London in decades, a swimming pool and a leisure centre. We must build infrastructure. Does my hon. Friend agree that the phrase “If you build it, they will come” should be at the forefront of everything we do?
Harpreet Uppal
I do agree. I will now take the intervention from the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire).
Helen Maguire
The 2020 investigation by the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime and violence reduction found a strong negative association between the closure of youth centres and increases in local knife crime. Every year, youth services save the public purse £500 million by preventing crime. In Surrey, spending has fallen by 49% since 2010, so does the hon. Member agree that investment in youth services is invaluable in preventing both knife crime and antisocial behaviour?
Harpreet Uppal
The hon. Member is quite right, and I am coming to that point now.
Unfortunately, we are seeing the consequences of reductions in youth service provision across the country, as organised criminal gangs lure children and young people into county lines networks and organised criminality. Too many communities have seen children criminally exploited and, sadly, we have seen the devastating consequences of knife crime. In Huddersfield, 15-year-old Khayri Mclean and 17-year-old Harley Brown sadly lost their lives to knife crime in recent years, and only last week, 15-year-old Harvey Willgoose was fatally stabbed in Sheffield. Knife crime leaves too many parents dealing with consequences that no parent should have to face, communities broken, and too many children and young people left with mental scars.
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
Thank you for chairing the debate, Dr Allin-Khan—it is good to see a fellow Khan in the Chair. My hon. Friend is making excellent progress on such an important subject. Across the country, children are being let down by the absence of support tailored to their multi-layered and complex needs. Does she agree that, in order to protect the mental wellbeing of young people, it is necessary to invest in good-quality, trauma-informed youth provision for all, and that the Minister should be looking at the regional inequalities that we can all see?
Harpreet Uppal
I agree with my hon. Friend. I will make a bit of progress before taking more interventions.
More than one in five children now have a diagnosable mental health condition, and many wait over a year to access a mental health specialist, with nearly 40,000 children waiting more than two years in 2023-24. Research shows that it is 100 times cheaper to treat a young person in the community than as an in-patient. The Government have taken steps to improve mental health support in schools, but youth services play a critical role in addressing these challenges early on. While I recognise all the work that this Government have already done to address these issues, the challenges facing the sector require more than short-term funding. The youth investment fund, for example, is helping to develop youth facilities, but it largely covers capital investment, leaving critical gaps in operational funding for staffing and programme delivery.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend for her excellent speech. I totally agree that we need investment in capital as well as revenue funding. I recently brought together young people and youth organisations in Norwich to discuss the challenges they face, and there was a particular gap in the period between 3 pm and 7 pm. Does my hon. Friend agree that, when we are developing these strategies, we must make sure that the voices of those on the ground, particularly young people, are at the forefront?
Harpreet Uppal
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We must make sure that young people play a part in the programmes that are delivered for them.
While 22 young futures hubs are being piloted through the shared outcomes fund, they are only funded for one year. To recover from years of Conservative neglect, youth services need sustainable, long-term funding.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. Does my hon. Friend agree that, to ensure adequate provision for youth services, we need to consider creating a statutory youth service with ringfenced funding? That would ensure that young people across the country are able to access high-quality services irrespective of the financial position of the local council. Often, when cuts are made to youth services, they cannot do that.
Harpreet Uppal
I agree with my hon. Friend that we need more investment in youth services, and I am sure the Minister has heard the point about statutory provision.
I know from recent meetings with incredible organisations working in this space that the young futures hubs pilot is hugely welcomed, and they would appreciate confirmation from the Minister of the timeline for delivery of the hubs. In addition, the Duke of Edinburgh’s award team are calling for a universal enrichment guarantee that offers 80 hours of enrichment activity per year, giving all young people regular access to positive activities. I hope the Minister will look into that new policy from the Duke of Edinburgh’s award team.
The benefits of investing in youth services are clear. As the Labour party manifesto said,
“nothing says more about the state of a nation than the wellbeing of its children.”
Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham Erdington) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. In Birmingham Erdington, we have a high proportion of young people with poor access to youth services and shockingly high youth knife crime statistics. Does she agree that the youth funding crisis must be urgently resolved?
Harpreet Uppal
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope we can work together on that issue in the future.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
It is obviously a pleasure to follow my near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Erdington (Paulette Hamilton). Politics is about choices, and it is no surprise that not a single Conservative Back Bencher is here to listen or contribute to the debate. With that in mind, will my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield join me in calling on Conservative-run Staffordshire county council to pull its finger out and make sure that young constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme, Kidsgrove and across the county get the youth services they need and deserve?
Harpreet Uppal
I support my hon. Friend’s call, and it is disappointing that we do not have any Members from the official Opposition present.
Research shows that, for every £1 invested in youth work, the return to the taxpayer is between £3.20 and £6.40. Additionally, for every £1 invested in child and adolescent mental health services, the return on investment is an estimated £2.85 in benefits to the individual and an additional £1.40 in savings to the Government.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
If anyone does not get to intervene today, I would ask them to please sign up to my Backbench Business debate on youth services, because we need more time to discuss this matter. As my hon. Friend rightly points out, supporting youth services is not just a moral case, but a financial one. Does she agree that the 73% decline in youth services points to the fact that we need to give them statutory protection and to have benchmarks for provision?
Harpreet Uppal
I do agree that we need more protections, and I am sure the Minister has heard my hon. Friend’s point about statutory protection. I, too, urge hon. Members to sign up to my hon. Friend’s application for a Backbench Business debate.
As hon. Members have said, providing youth services reduces the need later in life for more costly interventions, from social care to the criminal justice system. It also means that we give young people an opportunity to thrive.
A thriving youth sector depends on a strongly skilled workforce, so we need to ensure that the youth sector can attract, train and retain skilled professionals. The National Youth Agency’s 2024 workforce survey found that more than 4,500 youth workers have left the profession in the past decade, and only six undergraduate youth work programmes remain, down from 37 in 2013. At the same time, the demand for youth services is constantly increasing, with 82% of youth sector organisations reporting growing demand for mental health support.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
DrMz, a youth organisation in Caerfyrddin, provides a safe space for diverse young people. The young farmers’ clubs also provide life skills that are used in public office, including public speaking, the arts and chairing meetings, for young people in our rural communities. Children’s services are devolved in Wales, but all those things are supported by our local authority. Does the hon. Member agree that adequate local authority funding is essential to safeguard these services for all our young people?
Harpreet Uppal
Yes, I do agree.
If we want the young futures hubs and other youth initiatives to succeed, we need to invest in training and development for youth workers. I urge the Government to consider a national training programme for youth workers to ensure that we have safe, effective and impactful youth provision. Good youth services change lives. Over the past months, I have met and heard stories from national organisations, and I have seen at first hand the incredible work done on the ground in Huddersfield. All of that highlights the transformative effects of providing young people with safe spaces, trusted relationships and pathways to brighter futures.
I know from first-hand experience that when young people are given the right support, they go on to achieve their potential, contribute to their communities and lead happier, healthier lives. Unfortunately, too many times I have seen talent squandered. We must ensure that every young person, no matter where they live, has access to high-quality youth services. The evidence is clear: investment in youth work is an investment in the future of our young people and our country. If we want to meet our growth ambitions, that also means investing in our young people.
I thank hon. Members for intervening, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister how we can work together to restart and strengthen youth provision across the country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the first time, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) on securing this important debate. It is brilliant to see so many Members from across the House, which reflects how important this issue is to Members. Slightly unusually, because this is only a 30-minute debate, not a 90-minute debate, I will respond to some of the points made in interventions. If I cannot respond to them all, or I cannot take all Members’ interventions, I will of course write to hon. Members.
My hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) and for Manchester Rusholme (Afzal Khan) raised important points about regional inequalities. As a constituency MP in South Yorkshire, I have of course seen that in my own area of Barnsley. We are looking at a pilot of a local youth transformation project, which could look at areas where local authority funding has fallen away, and we will of course take regional inequalities into account.
Rightly, the issue of mental health was raised, and I will touch on it in my speech. Evidence shows that youth services of course have a positive impact, and my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield spoke powerfully about that. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, spoke about faith groups, and we are working with them in programmes such as Uniformed Youth. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) had specific questions, and I will touch on them in my speech, but I will also write to her if I do not answer them fully. I want to say from the outset that we want a more co-ordinated cross-Government approach, which, again, is something I would like to touch on.
There were specific questions about the Duke of Edinburgh scheme, and I will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield about that. She also rightly and powerfully referenced the devastating impact of knife crime, and I send my and the Government’s condolences to the family of Harvey, who was tragically killed in Sheffield last week.
I want now to address some of the substantial points, and I will write to hon. Members if I cannot take all their interventions. In the short time I have, I want to start my response by outlining that the Government recognise the transformative role that youth services play in young people’s lives. We know that being part of a supportive community and having access to positive activities can improve a young person’s wellbeing, health and personal development. We also know that youth workers and volunteers are vital to these services, building trusting relationships, creating safe spaces and, where needed, providing life-changing, targeted support. We have strong evidence of the impact of trusted adults in youth clubs, sports clubs, early support hubs, jobcentres and even in A&E.
We also know that the workforce situation is fragile. Local authority spending on youth has reduced by 73% since 2010. That equates to over £1 billion less being spent on young people each year. Sustainable jobs are becoming a rarity, and co-ordination of support has been lost. Now more than ever we need a thriving youth sector staffed by trained professionals and supported by incredible volunteers. Young people today face complex challenges, from navigating social media and new technologies to experiencing at first hand the devastating effects of antisocial behaviour, crime and violence. It is undeniable that those challenges, and therefore the way we tackle them, are constantly changing.
Talent and potential exist in every postcode in this country, but opportunity does not. Fewer than half of all respondents to our youth participation survey agree that there are enough clubs and activities in their area. As the Member of Parliament for Barnsley South, I know about the huge contribution and value of organisations such as the Barnsley Youth Choir, with hundreds of young people taking part and young people across Barnsley being given amazing experiences, opportunities and skills. Since becoming the Minister with responsibility for youth, I have been pleased to visit youth organisations, from the Really NEET project in Rotherham to Sport at the Heart in Brent.
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful for that kind invitation, and I will do my best to visit in the near future.
Although the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is the lead Department for out-of-school youth provision, as a former teacher and a constituency MP who visits schools regularly, I know that support for young people is a challenge that can and should be met across Government. That is why the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport announced in November last year the co-production of an ambitious new national youth strategy. That strategy will put young people back in charge of their own destiny, providing them with meaningful choices and chances.
We have now begun our engagement with young people and the sectors that work with them, as part of the co-production process. We kick-started that process back in November, when I had the opportunity to meet a group of #iWill ambassadors. They told me how important it is for local areas to empower their young people, and they also raised concerns about mental health, youth loneliness, education and work opportunities. I have also met other stakeholders in the sector, such as Girlguiding, the Youth Endowment Fund and the National Association of Boys and Girls Clubs, to listen to those who work closely with young people and who provide them with access to trusted adults, safe spaces and new opportunities.
Stephanie Peacock
I am really sorry, but in the interests of time, I will make some progress.
Those stakeholders experience youth work at first hand, and it is vital we hear from them about the challenges that young people and the sector face, as we build the national youth strategy. A vital part of co-producing the strategy will take place through our youth advisory board and the expert advisory group, both of which will be involved throughout the strategy development process. They will provide expertise, challenge and a diverse range of perspectives. I joined the first meeting of the expert advisory group, and I look forward to dropping into a meeting of the youth advisory group soon. Its members have already provided a wealth of valuable information, which will of course inform our thinking.
In addition to listening to the insights from those groups, we are engaging in a number of other ways to ensure that all young people have the opportunity to have their say—particularly those whose voices are too often excluded. We will work closely with expert organisations, which will lead a range of engagement activities with young people. That includes a wide-reaching national survey asking about young people’s needs, challenges and priorities, which we will launch very soon. The survey is currently being finalised in conjunction with our expert groups. I do not want to pre-empt what it will include, but I would expect it to cover a wide range of issues, such as what young people’s current needs are, whether they have access to safe spaces, what they would like to have access to outside of school, and much more. The expert organisations will also be conducting in-depth focus groups and innovative events with young people to develop solutions.
Stephanie Peacock
I am really sorry, but in the interests of time, I will make more progress.
We will provide more information to MPs within the next month regarding the development of the national youth strategy. That will include an engagement toolkit so that MPs can run their own workshops and discussions with young people or share this toolkit with organisations in their constituencies that work with young people. We will also share information regarding the national survey once it is live. It is vital that we reach young people from all parts of the country, and we will be asking MPs to help with that.
As I have set out, the national youth strategy is being led by my Department. However, increasing access to universal and targeted youth provision is a shared mission across Government. Therefore, we want the national youth strategy to co-ordinate the work of Government, helping to ensure that all young people from every corner of the country have access to the services they need.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield specifically raised the young futures hubs, which will be placed in local communities to improve the way that young people can access opportunities. My Department is working closely with the Department for Education, the Home Office and others to take that forward. Tomorrow, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), and I will co-chair the first meeting of the young futures ministerial group, which sits under the safer streets mission board. That will be the first step towards delivering a new cross-Government approach to supporting young people.
Today’s debate has focused on young people’s access to universal and targeted provision. This Government are committed to delivering on our national missions, and young people and their access to the opportunities they deserve form a vital part of that. We have an opportunity, through the national youth strategy, to work collectively, and across Government, to set a new direction for young people, listening to their needs and responding through universal and targeted youth provision.
The debate has been incredibly popular, and I am sorry I have not been able to take all the interventions. This has been a great opportunity to showcase the role of youth provision and the difference it makes to young people, and I look forward to seeing what we do together. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield once again on securing this important debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Employer National Insurance Contributions: Police Forces
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of planned changes to employer national insurance contributions on police forces.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this important issue. I rise to address a matter of significant concern that will affect police forces in my constituency and across the country.
Hon. Members will be aware of the broader tax and fiscal challenges presented by the Government in the autumn Budget, including changes to the agricultural property relief and the cruel cutting of the winter fuel payment, which have been rightly widely condemned, and to which I have objected many times in this House. In fact, this room was jam-packed last night with hon. Members from across the House condemning the Government’s family farm tax. People sat on the ledges here trying to speak—some were not able to—such was the feeling against some of the disastrous consequences of the Budget.
Esther McVey
I will not just yet. Please allow me to make the case, and then I will come back to the hon. Gentleman. We know about the removal of the winter fuel payment from nearly 10 million pensioners, we know about the family farm tax and we know about the VAT on private schools. All have received much attention in this House, but we must not overlook the breadth of the ramifications of the autumn Budget, particularly the changes to employer national insurance contributions. They will have a devastating impact on individual employers and businesses, but their impact on our treasured public services has been widely overlooked. I want to focus my comments on the impact on our police forces.
You will be wondering, Dr Allin-Khan, how the Member for Tatton knows what is going to happen here. Did the Treasury conduct an impact assessment? Did the Chancellor generously share the assessment with Members from across the House? Were police forces consulted on such changes? The answer to all those questions is no, as is often the case with the Government’s policy announcements.
Late last year, I submitted freedom of information requests to every police force in the UK, asking for the expected additional costs that each will incur as a result of the Chancellor’s hike in employer national insurance contributions. I was shocked, yet unsurprised, to learn of the devastating impact that the policy will have on our police forces. In my county of Cheshire, the local constabulary will face an additional £3.7 million per year in employer national insurance costs.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and for securing this debate. She is making an excellent speech, as always. She and I are both Cheshire MPs, and we are fortunate to work with the Cheshire constabulary, one of the best forces in the country. Like me, however, she will know the challenges that Cheshire police face with rural crime. It is estimated that the changes to employer national insurance contributions will cost the force £3.7 million. Does she share my concern that that could have a significant impact on rural crime, in particular, especially if cuts are made or funding is diverted away from rural into urban areas?
Esther McVey
My hon. Friend and neighbouring MP makes a valid point; £3.7 million is the equivalent of about 67 police officers. That is a recurring expense, not a one-off. In places such as Devon and Cornwall, the police will face a £6.3 million tax bill each year. Greater Manchester will be hit with a whopping extra tax bill of £11.9 million each year. Those are just a few examples, and the list goes on.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The estimated cost for the west midlands is in the region of £12.8 million, which is a huge amount of money. What this Government do not seem to understand is that when the pressure of national insurance is put on to businesses, people cannot squeeze and squeeze profit margins; in the end, that will impact employment, training, and so on. When it comes to the public sector, if we keep squeezing and squeezing, the money has to come from somewhere. Does that mean reduced public services—fewer police officers, as in this case—or will the burden come back on the taxpayer?
Esther McVey
My right hon. Friend might have hit on a point, as the burden could well come back to the taxpayer. Remember that this is tax—it is money that will be going on tax, and a bill that the Government are imposing. However we look at it, it is money that the frontline police service are being deprived of. Let us consider the financial burden that the changes will place on the police force. Employer national insurance contributions represent a significant cost for everyone, but they will hit the police especially hard. For police forces that employ a number of police officers and staff to protect our communities, the cumulative cost of the increase will run well into the tens of millions of pounds. To put that into perspective, take West Yorkshire, where the figure of £11.2 million per year is the equivalent of 220 police officers. That is potentially 220 fewer police officers keeping our communities safe as a direct result of the Government’s Budget.
Let me name a few other places, such as my home area of Merseyside—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]—Thank you very much indeed. It will be paying an extra tax bill every year of £7 million, which is roughly 130 police officers. Kent will be paying more than £6 million, which is about 100 police officers a year, and Thames Valley police will face an £8 million tax bill every year.
John Slinger
The right hon. Lady is making an entertaining speech, as is often the case. In the midst of all those words about tax, I merely point out the Conservative party’s two unfunded national insurance tax cuts and the £22 billion black hole that is based on unfunded spending pledges and kicking the can down the road. What is her suggestion for filling that devastating black hole, which affects our constituents? Is it more austerity, an increase in borrowing or other tax rises? Ultimately, this Government, like any Government, have to deal with the crisis that is a £22 billion black hole.
Esther McVey
I think I need to pull the hon. Gentleman up straight away. This is not in any way an entertaining speech—indeed, I would put this down as a horror speech. This is a disgrace of monumental proportions, so the word “entertaining” was used absolutely incorrectly.
Let me talk about the choices that different Governments have made, and where money could have been saved. One example is GB Energy, which the new Government thought they could find money for. They could not find money for the pensioners or the farmers—this Government are giving away half a billion pounds a year to farmers overseas, but they cannot find that half a billion pounds here. We would stop money being spent on things like GB Energy, which does not produce any energy; it seems to me like another quango that will cost money. We would not have increased foreign aid, and I can tell Members one thing that we would not have done: we would not have capitulated to the rail unions, finding money for the railway workers without any modernisation whatsoever. There is a big list of things that we would not have been paying for.
Esther McVey
I will not take another intervention, because I cannot quite get over the word “entertaining” being used about such a devastating policy, which will have devastating impacts on the streets of all our communities. There is a real risk that police forces will have to scale back on recruitment—that is not entertaining. There is a real risk that they will have to cut back on vital training—that is not entertaining—or reduce operational spending in other areas, which again is not entertaining. These decisions could have serious consequences for the police service’s ability to deliver an effective police force. The planned national insurance increases will make it harder for police forces to recruit new officers, particularly in areas where the cost of living is already high. The Government have committed to recruiting more officers, yet those efforts will be undermined by these fiscal pressures through taxation.
A common theme of this Government is their lack of foresight. They failed to consult with Back Benchers, public services and Government Departments before steamrolling ahead with this policy. They failed to understand the impact of the rise in employer national insurance costs on our public services, a mistake so basic that it is sometimes hard to comprehend. I think we all remember the immediate outcry that we heard from GPs, charities, social care providers and hospices. I remember being in the main Chamber when the Secretary of State for Health came to the Dispatch Box to answer questions on this policy, and he was taken aback. He did not know how to answer those questions, and his plea to the Chancellor at the time was, “Where are we going to get that extra money? I hope I will get that extra money, and I will come back to Members later with answers.”
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government must know that this policy is damaging the ability of the police to operate? The Government know it is causing damage to the public sector, and that is why they have exempted the NHS, but they have failed to exempt other public sector services such as the police. They cannot pretend that this policy is not causing damage.
Esther McVey
My hon. Friend is correct. That is why I highlighted the cost implications of the policy to the Secretary of State for Health that day on the Floor of the House, and he was absolutely taken aback. There was muttering among the Government Front Benchers, and the Government put in a solution straight away, but they overlooked the police. Later in my speech, I will come on to the fact that the Government now think they will put money into this area.
Fewer police will inevitably have broader consequences for public safety. Police officers are on the frontlines, tackling serious and organised crime, addressing domestic violence and responding to emergencies. Every officer we lose or fail to recruit means less protection for communities such as Tatton. To give an example, in Cheshire there has been a significant rise in serious sexual assaults by people who are in this country illegally. Money that should have gone into supporting our police force to halt that crime will not be there, which is making our streets less safe.
This Government are fiscally illiterate. They made a £25 billion grab in employer national insurance contributions at the Budget, without really thinking where that money would come from. Remember, the Government said that they did not want to tax working people, yet we know this will hit working people—the Government never thought where that money would come from. Instead, the measure was born from ideological reasons, whether that meant funding the Government’s net zero obsession, foreign aid or their union paymasters. In introducing the change, the Government have failed to consider the most basic duty of any Government: to protect their citizens.
Esther McVey
I am afraid I will not.
I understand that the Government say that they will pick up the £230 million tab, but that still means that the Government will be paying a tax bill rather than having money to spend on frontline police. Last month, we heard the Home Secretary announce a £200 million boost to neighbourhood policing to fund the recruitment of 13,000 new neighbourhood police officers, as the Government said before the election, although they had been very quiet on that for a long period of time.
I wonder whether the Government can do that. The numbers are very similar: £200 million for 13,000 new neighbourhood police officers, yet they have given themselves a £230 million a year tax bill. Will those 13,000 neighbourhood police officers ever materialise? In her summing up, will the Minister say what will happen, particularly in light of the national insurance contribution black hole, as those national insurance contributions are to be paid year in, year out? Will the Government pay for those police officers, year in, year out? If so, what will be the amount paid during a whole Parliament? Where will that money come from?
I urge the Government and the Chancellor, through the Minister, to stop this ill-thought-through, ham-fisted Budget change to employer national insurance contributions. The only solution to the problem—
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
On that point, will the right hon. Lady give way?
Esther McVey
Can I finish my sentence? There is only one solution to the problem that will have the correct consequences: scrap the diabolical tax on our police forces.
Adam Jogee
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving way. I want to say two quick things. First, my grandmother was born and raised in Birkenhead, so we have some common heritage. Secondly, the right hon. Lady just said that certain Labour Members are driven by ideology, but I want it to be noted that I am driven by a love of country and, in this context, by being tough on crime and on the causes of crime. I thought it was important to provide that clarification for the House.
Esther McVey
I thank the hon. Member for saying that. I hope he too shares my delight that Liverpool is top of the football division as well. We all should share a love of this country, and we should all want the best for this country. I too want a safe country, so it is vital that the money goes to the police and the police forces to ensure that happens, and not on increased tax bills. That is why I am asking for this ham-fisted tax increase to be reversed.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for securing this important debate. She recently highlighted the significant increase in costs to police forces resulting from the Government’s decision to raise employer national insurance contributions. I begin by expressing my sincere thanks to our local neighbourhood police teams for their dedicated work in supporting citizens and communities across my Aldridge-Brownhills constituency. They protect the public, help tackle crime at the grassroots level, and often go way above and beyond.
Let me turn to the impact of the increased employer national insurance contributions on police forces. Tempting though it is, I will refrain from delving into the decision by the Labour police and crime commissioner to close and sell off the police station in Aldridge. However, I want to make it clear to my constituents that I will continue to stand up for them and for our share of policing resources.
According to HMRC’s impact assessment, the Government’s changes to employer national insurance contributions—I would actually call them choices—will affect approximately 1.2 million employers, which, as we have heard today, includes police authorities. It is my understanding that for the West Midlands specifically, this policy choice—let us remember that that is what it is—will cost a staggering £12.8 million. In my view, that is £12.8 million that should be spent on frontline policing, especially if this Government are genuinely serious about tackling crime. If an average officer’s wage is, say, £35,000, by my calculations that £12.8 million could fund the equivalent of an additional 365 police officers just in one policing authority area alone.
Last week, I raised that issue in the Chamber with the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), particularly because she seemed a little unaware of the cost. I was left unclear about its local impact. I ask the Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention to confirm whether the funds awarded to police authorities for the upcoming financial year to cover increased national insurance costs will be added to base budgets, or is this a one-off grant? In addition, has the new funding for the 13,000 neighbourhood police officers promised in the Labour party manifesto taken into account the additional burden of national insurance increases from April?
Unlike the constituencies of some of my rural colleagues, my constituency is on the periphery of the west midlands; it is not entirely rural, but it is not exactly urban either. Consequently, we often find ourselves competing for resources with Birmingham and to some extent Walsall. I would be grateful for clarification today on the 13,000 additional officers promised in that Labour party manifesto, with the West Midlands police and crime commissioner saying that they will be funded by a neighbourhood policing grant. Can the Minister confirm how long the Home Office has budgeted for these additional officers, or will individual forces need to precept the ongoing costs? I ask because it is not just this year that we must consider; we must also look to the future.
I will conclude by saying that we need clarity and we need answers. My constituents need reassurance that they will not be left facing the consequences of yet another poorly thought-out Labour policy or broken manifesto promise.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Thank you, Dr Allin-Khan, for the opportunity to speak in this very important debate; it is good to have an opportunity to air some of these ideas.
Let me point something out to the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). I sought to pay her a compliment about her oratorical style; these issues are not entertaining, of course, but I found her oratory powerful. However, in this instance I think the content is wrong.
The Government have secured a £1.1 billion funding boost for policing. It is a real-terms increase in the settlement on what the previous Conservative Government would have provided of 4.1% in real terms and a cash increase of 6.6%. That is a significant increase in funding and will allow this Government to provide the additional officers and support to our police forces that will enable us to take back control of those streets from the criminals.
I will conclude by saying that law and order is not an issue on which any particular party has a monopoly. Government Members and I think Members from across the entire House care greatly about giving our police officers leadership; I meet rank-and-file officers regularly, as I am sure the right hon. Lady does in her area. We want to support them, and this new Labour Government are supporting them.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) on securing this important debate. Like the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), I thank my local police force for all the excellent work it does and its collaboration with me.
For years, thanks to the previous Conservative Government, policing in this country has been underfunded, undermined and increasingly overstretched. The new Labour Government claim that they are putting more money into frontline policing, but the reality on the ground appears completely different. Across the country, forces are battling severe funding pressures. In Devon and Cornwall, the police have been relying on second home council tax increases to plug their financial gaps. The right hon. Member for Tatton pointed out that the increased cost for the Devon and Cornwall force is about £6.3 million. With the rise in employer national insurance contributions, there is a real risk that forces will face yet more impossible choices come April and will have to cut officer numbers or pass the bill on to local taxpayers.
The £230 million allocated in the police grant report is supposed to cover the national insurance rise, but when the broader Budget is examined, the reality is clear. Although the headline figure is £986 million, if we factor in the reliance on council tax precepts, the Government’s so-called increase in police funding is only about £426 million of new cash. That is simply not enough to ensure safe and effective policing across the country. Forces are already stretched to breaking point, and officers are unable to focus on the crimes that matter the most to our communities. According to Home Office figures, 6,000 cases are closed daily without a suspect being identified, and three in every four burglaries and car thefts go unsolved. Yet instead of fixing the underlying problems, the Government are adding new financial burdens on forces, which will inevitably mean fewer officers on our streets.
In rural constituencies such as mine, rural crime is up 4.3% year on year, and criminal gangs are targeting farmyards and villages. The theft of agricultural equipment, including GPS systems, has spiked by 137%, yet just 0.1% of police officers are dedicated to tackling rural crime. For my constituents and those of other hon. Members, that is nothing but shameful. The rise in national insurance will only make the problem worse, forcing already strained rural policing teams to spread their resources even thinner.
The police grant report does not directly mention rural crime once. I fear that tells my constituents and those of other hon. Members representing rural areas everything they need to know about where the Government’s priorities lie.
We need to think bigger. If the Government truly want to invest in frontline policing, they should scrap the failing police and crime commissioner system, which drains millions that could be spent on actual frontline policing. Our Devon and Cornwall PCC is already on her third chief constable and her second deputy police and crime commissioner. We need to fund officers, not office administrators.
Let us not forget the wider impact of the national insurance increase on our public services. The Liberal Democrats opposed the hike from the beginning, calling for GPs, firefighters, hospices, care providers and NHS dentists to be exempt from the rise. Petroc doctors’ surgery in St Columb Major in my North Cornwall constituency told me last Friday that it faces a bill of £180,000 in national insurance rises and increased wages. It is completely counterproductive to increase funding for vital services such as healthcare on the one hand while taxing them more on the other.
The exact same principles apply to the police. If the Government refuse to cancel this damaging rise, at the very least they should exempt policing from the additional costs. For years, forces across the country have struggled to deliver the neighbourhood policing that our communities expect and deserve. The national insurance increase threatens to take yet more money away from those who need it most and will reduce the number of frontline officers and bobbies on the beat.
I conclude by asking the Minister whether the Government will commit to properly funding frontline policing without relying on council tax increases. Will they support my call for a dedicated rural crime taskforce, so that rural communities such as mine are not left behind? If they insist on pushing through this flawed national insurance rise, will they at least protect essential services such as policing from its worst impacts. If we are really serious about making our streets safer, we need more officers on the streets, not the higher costs that risk endangering us all.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Thank you, Dr Allin-Khan, for chairing this debate. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for securing this important debate, and for all her work in raising awareness of this issue and its consequences.
The last Government recruited 20,000 more police officers, ensuring that there were more police officers on our streets than ever before. Why would anyone think that the solution to any problem would be a tax raid on our police forces? Any MP who has engaged with their PCC or chief constable knows that the funding settlement put forward for local police forces by this Government is entirely inadequate. Just the other week, when questioned by Nick Robinson about the absurd tax raid on local police forces and the fact that the police funding settlement will cut the number of police on our streets, the Minister conceded that she was not going to pretend that it is not challenging for police forces.
Since then, the Government have painted a different picture, understating the impact that this could have on our police forces and on police numbers. At first glance, the settlement may appear generous in cash terms. However, there is a sleight of hand. The Government are claiming to have increased police funding by £1.09 billion, masking their tax raid on our police forces and their failure to build police pay awards into the baseline. The previous Conservative Government provided in-year funding for PCCs to cover the police pay award, adding this to the baseline for subsequent years. By contrast, the in-year adjustment for this year’s pay settlement was not added to the baseline, so about £200 million of the apparent increase this year simply makes up for that omission.
Furthermore, as hon. Members have said, some £230 million of this apparently generous settlement will go straight back to the Treasury to pay for the Government’s national insurance tax raid on our local police forces. The Government are literally taxing the police off our streets. Therefore, about £430 million of this apparently generous increase just makes up for the Government’s choices. Adjusting for that, the increase in funding for policing next year is not £1.09 billion, but more like £660 million, or nearly £300 million less than the last increase under the previous Government. Make no mistake: this tax raid on local police forces, created by our own Government, will have real consequences for communities across England and Wales.
There are estimates that the shortfall in police funding could see 1,800 fewer police on our streets. My force, Cleveland police, has already been placed under special measures, with a recent report from His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services giving it an inadequate rating for responding to children at risk of harm and for investigating child abuse, neglect and exploitation. It is deeply concerning and entirely unacceptable that vulnerable young people are being let down in such a way. Protecting children should be a priority for the Labour Government and for Cleveland’s Labour police and crime commissioner. These children deserve better. Does the Minister agree that creating a shortfall in funding for a force could lead to more failures in responding to and investigating child abuse, neglect and exploitation in Cleveland?
Adam Jogee
The shadow Minister knows I am a reasonable man, and I am not going to engage in partisan games for the fun of it—not all the time, anyway—but I want to draw him back to his use of the word “inadequate” to describe the settlement. Will he confirm that, if he had been the Policing Minister, the settlement would have been higher, and if so, how would that have been paid for?
Matt Vickers
As the hon. Member will have seen, in previous years, we were increasing the funding by more. In fact, last year we increased by £300 million more than what Labour is doing this year. We were not raiding our police forces with national insurance tax raids; we were putting the pay award into the baseline. I would be wasting less money on GB Energy. I would not be looking to give train drivers on £55,000 a year a bumper pay rise of almost £10,000, with no efforts to increase productivity. It is about priorities. Policing was a priority for the Conservative Government. That is why 20,000 more police officers were put on the streets, reaching record numbers.
The Government have pointed to their promise to recruit 13,000 new neighbourhood police officers, but we all know that a relatively small number—just 3,000—are new officers. Most of the claimed 13,000 are either reassigned or redeployed, are part-time volunteers or are police community support officers with no powers of arrest. That redeployment is concerning for many. Will the Minister assure MPs that when their constituents ring 999, they will not have to wait longer for an emergency response because response officers have been redeployed to neighbourhoods? Will she guarantee that police numbers will not fall any lower than the current level as a result of her funding settlement?
Given the nature of modern policing and overtime, to what extent did the Government consider the impact of overtime on the increased national insurance cost, and could there be a further shortfall as a result? We owe a huge debt of gratitude to our brave, hard-working police officers, PCSOs and police staff. They deserve resources and support, not tax raids and funding shortfalls.
The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)
It is a pleasure to serve under you this afternoon, Dr Allin-Khan. Let me begin by thanking the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) for securing this debate. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) about the right hon. Lady’s skills of oratory. I did not agree with what she actually said, but she has a very engaging and enjoyable style of communication. She should take that as a compliment.
I also thank the other hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon: the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), another Cheshire MP; the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), who recognised at the start of her contribution the valuable role of neighbourhood policing in her area; and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), who intervened. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Ben Maguire) spoke on behalf of the Liberal Democrats; I was rather intrigued, because I am long enough in the tooth to remember when Liberal Democrat Ministers in the coalition Government actively argued for putting PCCs on the statute book in the 2010 to 2015 Parliament. I heard his comments on rural crime, which a number of Members are very concerned about. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby set out clearly this Government’s commitment to policing and the police settlement that was finalised last month.
I want to take a moment to express my gratitude to each and every police officer, staff member and volunteer who works tirelessly, often in the most difficult circumstances, to keep our communities safe. This Government recognise the invaluable contribution that they make, and the need to ensure that policing is properly funded and protected. The challenges that police personnel face are very real. It is essential that they are equipped and resourced to do their jobs effectively. The resourcing of police forces is, understandably, a subject of considerable interest for parliamentarians and the public. Discussions that help to shine a light on these important issues, such as this debate, are to be welcomed.
In a moment I will turn to the specific focus of the debate—national insurance contributions—but in the interest of providing some important context and background, I will refer briefly to the police funding settlement that was put before the House in January. The settlement for 2025-26 provides an increase of up to £1.1 billion to policing, taking the Government’s total investment to £19.6 billion. We have listened to the police, and we know the challenges that they face.
I gently say to Opposition Members, who perhaps served in previous Conservative Governments, that there is quite a history with how the Conservatives funded or did not fund policing. I know the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), takes great delight in talking about the additional police officers towards the end of the Conservative time in office, but he also needs to remember the huge cuts that happened to policing. More than 20,000 police officers and thousands upon thousands of police staff were lost in the years of austerity and through the cuts that the Conservative Governments brought forward.
John Slinger
Does the Minister agree that if police officers are cut by 20,000, and then their numbers are replaced by 20,000, not a huge amount has been done to boost police numbers?
Dame Diana Johnson
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am also conscious of the loss of experienced officers in that 20,000. We know that the service is now very young; I think about 40% of officers have under five years of service. That presents all sorts of challenges for policing.
I want to make it clear that we have increased the funding available for neighbourhood policing by an additional £100 million. That is compared with the provisional settlement that was announced at the end of last year. We in this Chamber can all agree that neighbourhood policing is so important to our constituents, and the figure for that will now be at £200 million. That investment is to kick-start the delivery of the 13,000 neighbourhood police officers, PCSOs and specials that the Labour Government promised in their manifesto. It will also ensure that public confidence in policing is restored. As I said when opening the debate on the police grant report last week in the main Chamber, the settlement underlines the Government’s commitment to working with the police to deliver the safer streets that all our constituents deserve.
It is worth saying that I spoke to the PCC in Cheshire last week about the funding settlement. He was positive about the settlement that had been announced for his force. He did not raise any specific issues on national insurance, and the force did not raise any concerns in the consultation on the provisional settlement after it was published in December.
Esther McVey
Did the Minister receive a further letter from the chief constable, expressing serious concerns about the rising number of serious sexual assaults going on in Cheshire?
Dame Diana Johnson
As I have just said, the PCC I spoke to last week did not raise any concerns about the financial settlement. Obviously, the PCC and the chief constable use that money in the way that they decide for Cheshire. I have certainly had conversations with the chief constable of Cheshire, and the right hon. Lady is right that I have received a letter from the chief constable that was copied to a number of Members of Parliament in Cheshire.
I accept and recognise that the changes to national insurance contributions will have an impact on public sector budgets, including policing. Although the decision to increase national insurance was made to ensure the sustainability of essential public services, I recognise that the changes create additional cost pressures for police forces. It is useful to note that in 2003, and in 2011 under the coalition Government, there was an increase in employer national insurance to fund the national health service and wider national priorities. So this is not unusual; Governments of both complexions have taken forward changes to national insurance.
It is also worth noting that the changes introduced in the Budget last year broadly return national insurance contributions revenue as a proportion of GDP to the level that they were before the previous Government’s cuts to employee and self-employed national insurance contributions. That sets the context, and this has been done in a way that does not result in higher taxes in people’s payslips.
Wendy Morton
When the right hon. Lady says that this change will not impact on employee’s payslips, she completely misses the point: whether in a business or the public sector, we cannot just keep squeezing and squeezing and expect things to continue as they are. If it is a business, we squeeze them out of business—there are no jobs; there will be no pay packet. If we keep squeezing the public sector, there will be no public services.
Dame Diana Johnson
With the greatest of respect to the right hon. Lady, who I think was Chief Whip under the disastrous premiership of Liz Truss, I am not really prepared to take lessons on economic stability and how to run the economy from a Government that trashed the economy and that caused such devastation to many families through the rise in interest rates and mortgages. I think perhaps a little humility might be in order.
We have set aside funding to protect the spending power of the public sector, including the NHS, from the direct impacts of the increase in employer national insurance. That is why we are providing compensation of £230.3 million to support forces with the cost of changes to national insurance and to ensure that no force is left out of pocket as a result. The right hon. Member for Tatton may like to know that that is similar to the funding provided by the previous Government in the 2024-25 police funding settlement to cover the additional costs of pension changes. Again, this is not unusual.
The right hon. Lady may have concerns about the £3.7 million pressure reported by her local police force as a result of the changes and the impact that that could have on officer numbers. As set out in the settlement papers, however, we are fully covering those costs. Actually, Cheshire is getting £3.9 million in national insurance compensation for next year—more than the anticipated need. That is alongside the £200 million that we are investing in neighbourhood policing to ensure not only that officer numbers are maintained, but that visible policing in our communities increases. Our mission is clear, and the funding provided in this settlement will ensure that forces across the country are equipped to meet the challenges that they face and to protect our communities.
As I have said a number of times this afternoon, I of course recognise that any additional pressures on forces are concerning. That is why we will continue to engage closely with forces and finance leads to ensure policing has the resources it needs.
I thank the right hon. Member again for securing this debate, and thank all those who have spoken. We are compensating for the national insurance increases to ensure that forces have the resources they need to protect visible neighbourhood policing. Our position could not be clearer. We will work in lockstep with the law enforcement system in our shared effort to keep people safe, whether that involves restoring and protecting the long-standing tradition of British policing, such as neighbourhood policing, or acting to combat the most dangerous emerging threats. This Government are wholly committed to providing the police with the powers, resources and tools that they need to protect the public.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)
I call Esther McVey to wind up the debate.
Esther McVey
I thank all Members for taking part in today’s debate. I think I understood from everyone that they would not want to see police officers taxed off our streets. There was one area on which I did not get consensus, which was why I said that the current Government were fiscally illiterate: what Government Members did not seem to understand is that money going to pay for extra taxes means money that will not be going on the frontline. The very fact that it is going in taxes and has to be compensated for shows that it will not go on the frontline. That is why I am asking for this policy to be stopped and reversed.
There seems to be collective amnesia among those on the Government Benches. The coalition Government came into power because the previous Labour Government pretty much crashed the economy. That was why the coalition was voted in. I have to say that I already see—in just seven months—that this Labour Government with that awful, awful Budget are doing exactly the same thing: they are crashing the economy all over again, but in record time. I just want to make sure that our police and our streets are protected.
I wish to thank the Minister because I know that she takes this matter very seriously. Whatever she said or did not say in the debate today, I know that she will take that message back and I know that she will be fighting to get this terrible employer national insurance contribution policy reversed.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of planned changes to employer National Insurance
contributions on police forces.
Written Corrections
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Corrections
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Education
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine McKinnell
… 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.
[Official Report, 3 February 2025; Vol. 761, c. 570.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell):
Catherine McKinnell
… 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 up to £100,000 per school to drive that improvement.
Transport
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mike Kane
… I will turn back to the point made by the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) on air ambulance provision by NHS Scotland and the Scottish Government. The sector has made an incredible contribution. I am led to understand that there are no current plans for officials to work with the Department of Health and Social Care or the NHS.
[Official Report, 14 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 76WH.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane):
Mike Kane
… I will turn back to the point made by the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) on air ambulance provision by NHS Scotland and the Scottish Government. The sector has made an incredible contribution. My officials work closely with the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS.
Other Correction
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Olivia Bailey
Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill
The following extract is from the Second Reading debate on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill on 10 February 2025.
Olivia Bailey
…Whereas the Conservative party spent nearly £9 million a day on hotels for asylum seekers, we have restarted processing to save the taxpayer £4 billion a year over the next two years, and to end the use of hotels.
[Official Report, 10 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 82-83.]
Written correction submitted by the hon. Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey):
Olivia Bailey
…Whereas the Conservative party spent nearly £9 million a day on hotels for asylum seekers, we have restarted processing to save the taxpayer £4 billion over the next two years, and to end the use of hotels.
Written Statements
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Crown Prosecution Service: Contingencies Fund Advance
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Solicitor General (Lucy Rigby)
The Crown Prosecution Service requires a Contingencies Fund advance of £60 million to cover urgent payments of resource departmental expenditure limit expenditures, such as February payroll, and to pay suppliers’ invoices. Due to the uplift in funding sought at the supplementary estimate, this has led to the CPS requiring a Contingencies Fund advance to ensure it has the cash required ahead of the parliamentary approval of the supplementary estimate.
Parliamentary approval for additional resource of £60 million will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Crown Prosecution Service. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £60 million will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
[HCWS433]
Growth Guarantee Scheme
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)
I wish to make Members aware of the details of a proposed variant of the existing growth guarantee scheme that is designed to increase uptake by businesses of green assets that facilitate the transition to a low-carbon economy.
The GGS was launched on 1 July 2024 and is facilitated by the Government-owned British Business Bank and delivered through its delivery partners. Under the scheme, lenders offer facilities of up to £2 million to support businesses that would otherwise be unable to access the finance they need, or would only be able to do so on worse terms.
Green GGS uses the infrastructure of the existing GGS programme to help increase the supply of affordable finance for businesses investing in green technologies. Lenders face uncertainty over the future value of these green assets in the instance of borrower default, due to the pace of technological advances and a lack of observable track record or data in the relevant second-hand markets. As a result, lenders raise the up-front cost of financing green assets to mitigate this uncertainty, or simply choose not to finance the green asset. This in turn dampens business demand for green investment.
The BBB’s GGS variant is designed to address this uncertainty by setting a floor on losses that a lender would take if a borrower defaulted on the loan. This would give lenders the confidence to support finance for green assets or lower the up-front cost of that finance, increasing the supply of finance available to small and medium-sized enterprises to invest in green assets. The terms of the programme ensure that the benefit of the guarantee is passed to the business.
Initially, the British Business Bank will reallocate funding from the existing GGS to pilot this scheme with a single lender, facilitating an initial portfolio of £30 million of investment in green assets. There will be no change to the maximum lending facilitated across both GGS variants, which will remain at £2.2 billion, as notified to Parliament by means of a written ministerial statement made on 24 May 2024. Any future proposed increase in the capacity of green GGS will be notified as applicable.
I will be laying a departmental minute today containing a description of the liability undertaken.
[HCWS432]
Public Service Pensions: Indexation and Revaluation 2025
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
Legislation governing public service pensions in payment requires them to be increased annually by the same percentage as additional pensions (state earnings related pension and state second pension). Public service pensions will therefore be increased from 7 April 2025 by 1.7%, in line with the annual increase in the consumer prices index up to September 2024, except for those public service pensions which have been in payment for less than a year, which will receive a pro rata increase. This will ensure that public service pensions take account of increases in the cost of living and their purchasing power is maintained. Scheme Police Fire- fighters Civil Service NHS Teachers LGPS Armed Forces Judicial Revaluation for active member 2.95% 4.5% 1.7% 3.2% 3.3% 1.7% 4.5% 1.7%
Separately, in the career average revalued earnings public service pension schemes introduced in 2014 and 2015, pensions in accrual are revalued annually in relation to either prices or earnings depending on the terms specified in their scheme regulations. The Public Service Pensions Act 2013 requires the Treasury to specify a measure of prices and of earnings to be used for revaluation by these schemes.
The prices measure is the consumer prices index up to September 2024. Public service schemes which rely on a measure of prices, therefore, will use the figure of 1.7% for the prices element of revaluation.
The earnings measure is the whole economy year-on-year change in average weekly earnings (non-seasonally adjusted and including bonuses and arrears) up to September 2024. Public service schemes which rely on a measure of earnings, therefore, will use the figure of 4.5% for the earnings element of revaluation.
The effective date of revaluation listed in the order is 1 April 2025, but some schemes have chosen to move their effective revaluation date to 6 April 2025 in order to manage interactions with the annual tax allowance.
Revaluation is one part of the amount of pension that members earn in a year and needs to be considered in conjunction with the amount of in-year accrual. Typically, schemes with lower revaluation will have faster accrual and therefore members will earn more pension per year. The following list shows how the main public service schemes will be affected by revaluation:
[HCWS437]
Ministry of Defence: 2025-26 Estimate
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
The Ministry of Defence Votes A Estimate 2025-26, has been laid before the House of Commons on 11 February 2025 as HC638. This outlines the maximum numbers of personnel to be maintained for each service in the armed forces during financial year 2025-26.
These numbers do not constitute the strength of the armed forces, which is published separately in the “UK Armed Forces Quarterly Service Personnel Statistics”.
[HCWS438]
National Apprenticeship Week
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
This is National Apprenticeship Week, when we celebrate the life-changing opportunities that apprenticeships offer people up and down this country. I want to update the House on a range of steps that this Government are taking to introduce the greater flexibility in our apprenticeships system that learn to break down barriers to opportunity and boost economic growth.
First, we have confirmed today that we will be changing the rules relating to achievement of English and maths qualifications as part of an apprenticeship for over-19s. Upskilling in English and maths will continue to remain a key feature of all apprenticeships, and from today we have listened to employers and will be offering more flexibility over when a stand-alone qualification is required in addition to this.
All apprentices will be required to secure, and will be assessed on, the job-specific skills—English and maths—that they need. But, moving forward, employers will have more flexibility over whether adult apprentices—over-19s—are required to achieve a stand-alone English and maths qualifications. In future, adult apprentices will be able to complete their apprenticeship if they have demonstrated that they have the skills—including relevant English and maths skills—to be effective in the role without undertaking a stand-alone English and maths qualification. All 16 to 18-year-old apprentices will continue to be required and funded to secure up to a level 2 qualification in English and maths if they do not hold one, consistent with our expectation that all young people should have a meaningful further opportunity to secure a level 2 qualification in English and maths post 16. This delivers the flexibility that employers have long called for, and we expect it to lead to thousands more qualified apprentices in a range of key sectors, including in social care and construction.
Secondly, we will reduce the minimum duration of apprenticeships to eight months from August 2025. This new flexibility will mean that employers can make greater use of apprenticeships and learners can be fully trained more quickly. We expect this new flexibility to particularly benefit learners with high levels of prior learning, where the current 12-month requirement means they are not eligible for an apprenticeship; and particular occupations that do not typically work in fixed 12-month training cycles. We will be working closely with Skills England to identify where this new flexibility will have the greatest impact. Today we are announcing that the first shorter apprenticeships to be available to all apprentices will be in priority occupations, including healthcare support workers, dual fuel smart meter installers, and production assistants in the creative industries. We will be setting out more details in due course.
Finally, in our next step towards establishing Skills England as the key driving force behind this Government’s growth plans, I am confirming that the new chair of Skills England will be Phil Smith CBE, with Sir David Bell serving as vice-chair.
This team will bring together extensive industry experience in digital, tech and innovation, with decades of experience in the education and skills sector. They will work with employers, with national, regional and local government, and with providers and unions, to identify skills shortages and provide strong strategic direction for the skills system, ensuring that we have the highly skilled workforce needed to deliver our industrial strategy and the Government’s plan for change. I look forward to working with them to deliver the dynamic skills system and economic growth that this country needs to thrive.
[HCWS436]
Telecare National Action Plan
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
The digital phone switchover is a necessary upgrade to our underlying national digital infrastructure as the old analogue landline network is becomingly increasingly unreliable. The safety of telecare users throughout the switchover is the Government’s utmost priority. That is why I am pleased to publish a joint telecare national action plan with the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), setting out the steps that stakeholders need to take to safeguard telecare users during the digital phone switchover.
The digital phone switchover means that traditional analogue devices, such as telephone handsets and telecare units that are currently connected to the analogue landline network, will need to be reconnected to the digital network. There is a risk that the process of migrating telecare users to digital landlines will disrupt their telecare services. Telecare users must be protected during the digital phone switchover and every effort must be taken to avoid these risks.
Our action plan is predominantly aimed at communication providers, local authorities, housing providers, third sector organisations and commercial providers. It demonstrates the Government’s commitment to working with the telecare and telecommunications industries and ensuring that telecare users’ safety is put first during the switchover. Officials have worked closely with stakeholders to develop and agree the actions set out in this plan.
This telecare national action plan sets out the actions that the Government expect to see delivered. The actions are set out against the following outcomes:
No telecare user will be migrated to digital landline services without the communication provider, the user or the telecare service provider confirming that the user has a compatible and functioning telecare solution in place;
Use of analogue telecare devices is phased out to ensure that only digital devices are being used. DHSC will be working with stakeholders over the coming months to set a deadline for this;
Telecare users, their support networks and their service providers understand what actions they need to take to ensure a safe migration to digital phone lines; and
Stakeholders identified within the plan collaborate to safeguard telecare users through the digital phone switchover.
The Government are committed to improving adult social care for those who draw on it, helping people to stay independent in their own homes, joining up services and improving the quality of care. The Government recently announced an independent commission into adult social care led by Baroness Louise Casey as part of their critical first step towards a national care service. While the Casey commission carries out its work, the Government are getting on with the job of reforming the system and have announced immediate actions to improve adult social care services. This includes the development of new national standards and trusted guidance for technology in social care. The new standards and guidance will make it easier for providers, commissioners and people who draw on care and support to identify the technologies that will work best for them.
The transition to digital telephone networks will lay the foundations for a next generation of telecare services that will support more personalised and early preventive interventions, and support the Government’s reforms to adult social care. The plan includes examples of where local areas have utilised the opportunities presented by the digital phone switchover to advance the use of technology within their social care provision.
Given the complexity of the issue, it is possible that additional necessary actions might be identified. We will review progress against the telecare nation action plan every six months and identify new actions as needed. A copy of the telecare national action plan will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and will also be published on www.gov.uk.
[HCWS434]
Designated Vendor Directions: Enforcement
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
Today the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has published guidelines on how the Secretary of State will approach compliance and enforcement of designated vendor directions (DVDs) issued under the Communications Act 2003, as amended by the Telecommunications (Security) Act 2021.
The 2003 Act introduced powers for the Secretary of State to issue designation notices to vendors whose presence in UK networks poses national security risks and DVDs to public communications providers (PCPs), placing controls on their use of goods and services provided by a designated vendor. The Secretary of State can issue a DVD to a PCP if they consider that it is necessary in the interests of national security and the requirements imposed by the DVD are proportionate to what is sought to be achieved by the DVD.
The Act also provides the Secretary of State with powers to ascertain whether PCPs are complying with the requirements imposed by a DVD and to enforce against a PCP where they are found to be non-compliant with the requirements in a DVD.
This guidelines cover:
the background to DVDs and the powers available;
the approach to enforcement action;
how to establish whether there has been a contravention of a DVD requirement;
how to determine whether to enforce against a contravention;
the process for coming to a proposed penalty;
issuing formal enforcement action;
issuing a confirmation decision; and
the governance for how decisions on enforcement are made and communicated.
This document acts as a guiding framework for His Majesty’s Government when considering enforcement and imposing penalties in relation to non-compliance with requirements in a DVD.
[HCWS435]