Westminster Hall

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 11 February 2025

[Matt Western in the Chair]

Cost of Energy

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Westminster Hall

09:30

[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.

09:44

[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.

09:52

[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.

09:55

[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.

09:59

[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.

10:06

[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.

10:11

[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.

10:17

[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.

10:21

[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.

10:38

[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]

indicated assent.

[Mr MacDonald]

Thank you very much.

[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.

[Graham Leadbitter]

Will the Minister give way?

[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.

10:58

[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

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Westminster Hall

11:00

[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.

11:13

[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.

11:21

Sitting suspended.

Carbon Monoxide Poisoning: Travel Advice

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan in the Chair]

11:09

[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 Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

Order.

14:33

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

14:46

On resuming—

[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.

14:55

[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.

15:02

[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.

15:08

[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.

15:18

[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.

15:26

[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.

15:28

Sitting suspended.

Youth Provision: Universal and Targeted Support

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Westminster Hall

15:59

[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.

[Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)]

rose—

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

rose—

[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.

16:20

[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.

[Tahir Ali]

Recently, it was announced that one of the youth centres that has been saved in my constituency is the Concord youth centre, which serves one of the most deprived wards in the country. I would welcome the Minister visiting it at the earliest opportunity.

[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.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[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.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[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

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Westminster Hall

16:30

[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.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[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.

[John Slinger]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[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.

[John Slinger]

On that point, will the right hon. Lady give way?

[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.

16:48

[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.

16:52

[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.

16:54

[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.

17:00

[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.

17:06

[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.

17:19

[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.

17:21

Sitting adjourned.