Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
We do not support forced displacement of Palestinians or any reduction in the territory of the Gaza strip. Palestinians must be able to live and prosper in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. That is why it is essential that we work together to ensure that all aspects of the ceasefire are implemented and that it becomes permanent.
Neil Duncan-Jordan
It is very sad that the past month has marked a new and horrifying phase in the long history of attempts to ethnically cleanse the Palestinian people from their homeland. President Trump’s recent comments calling for Palestinians to be expelled from their homes in Gaza, in order for the US to take over the land, along with his failure to rule out Israeli annexation of the west bank, constitute the most explicit denial of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination by any US Administration to date. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore condemn President Trump’s remarks and set out what action the UK Government are taking to prevent further forced displacement of the Palestinian people?
Mr Lammy
This House has watched with horror the loss of life in the Gaza strip particularly and the plight of the hostages held in bunkers under Gaza. The US played a pivotal role, and all credit should go to President Trump for brokering that negotiated ceasefire agreement. I am thankful for the role that the Israeli Government, Qatar and Egypt played in getting to that ceasefire. It is our belief, and this is a cross-party belief, that there should be a negotiated two-state solution: a sovereign Palestinian state, which includes, of course, the west bank and Gaza, alongside a safe and secure Israel.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I have just been out in the middle east with the Conservative Friends of Israel—I put that on the record before I ask my question.
Given Emily Damari’s personal testimony to the Prime Minister that she was held at United Nations Relief and Works Agency facilities in Gaza during the conflict, and that her captors refused her access to medical treatment, does the Foreign Secretary stand by the Government’s decision to restart sending UK taxpayers’ money to UNRWA when Hamas terrorists were holding British hostages at its facilities, and when it has been crystal clear for months that UNRWA had many members of Hamas in its ranks, including people involved in the 7 October terrorist attacks, who have held hostages ever since?
Mr Lammy
I think we were all pleased to see Emily Damari emerge; of course, we have been in touch with the Damari family. As the right hon. Gentleman would expect, we have also been in touch with UNRWA —the Minister for Development raised this issue with Mr Lazzarini directly—which has instigated an investigation.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)
The Israeli forces are now using the same tactics in the west bank as they used in Gaza: the forced displacement of communities and the use of heavy weapons against civilians. What is the Government’s response, both to Israel and to the UN? Is it not time that we responded to the advisory opinion?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend raises a serious issue. As I have said repeatedly from the Dispatch Box, I condemn the expansion and the violence that we have seen over the last period, and I reject the calls for the annexation of the west bank. I met Tom Fletcher of the UN recently to discuss these very same issues, and renewed our commitment to the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs—that humanitarian work is important. Of course, at this time I have been in touch with the Israelis and with Prime Minister Mustafa as we discuss these issues together.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
Back on 17 October 2023, when the first hospital in Palestine was bombed, the al-Ahli Arab hospital, much conversation was had about who could have committed such a heinous crime. Since then, the Israeli army has destroyed all medical facilities in Gaza, and now we have a President of the United States using gangster-style intimidation to forcibly remove Palestinian people from their land. Will the Foreign Secretary—who has repeatedly refused to call out the Israeli Government for the war crimes they are committing, refused to ban all arms sales, refused to acknowledge that a genocide is happening and refused even to consider economic sanctions, because £6.1 billion is too high a price to pay—accept the reality of the situation and accept that Trump and Netanyahu’s plan proposes ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people in Gaza?
Mr Speaker
We are well under time, but I just need to get other Members in.
Mr Lammy
We are in the first phase of a ceasefire that we want to hold and go to phase 2. That is the issue I was discussing with Arab leaders last week at the Munich security conference. The Quint group are working with President Trump to get to that third phase and the governance issues that will be so important, with the Palestinian Authority involved in Gaza.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
My thoughts continue to be with the hostages held in Gaza and the appalling suffering they and their families are facing. The world has seen the brutality inflicted by the Iranian-sponsored terrorists, Hamas, who are a major obstacle to bringing about a sustainable and just peace in the middle east. The Foreign Secretary has previously agreed that there cannot be any future whatsoever for Hamas controlling Gaza. Can he provide an update on the actions he has undertaken to put an end to Hamas control and ensure we get to the third phase of the ceasefire? Will he discuss this issue when he goes to America with the Prime Minister to meet the President of the United States?
Mr Lammy
I can confirm that I discussed this issue with Ron Dermer from the Israeli Government last week. I discussed this issue with Arab leaders—the so-called Quint—the week before. In the end, we cannot have a Gaza run by Hamas. All roads lead back to Hamas. I think the world has looked with horror at the scenes of armed men wearing bandanas, seeming to glorify murder and hostages who have been held. Of course, we will act with international colleagues to make sure that Hamas have no role to play in the future of Gaza.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
The Minister for Development (Anneliese Dodds)
Investments in the Global Fund, Unitaid, UNAIDS—the Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS—the World Health Organisation and others have helped to cut new HIV infections by 60% since 1995 and AIDS-related deaths by 69% since 2004. I was pleased to meet HIV-positive activists in Parliament recently and to be videoed while undertaking a quick and easy HIV test. Together, we can eradicate HIV/AIDS.
Paul Davies
The Minister is aware that PEPFAR—the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief—is the largest and most successful global health programme and has saved 25 million lives. It has been advised that freezing PEPFAR will result in 228,000 fewer HIV tests being carried out daily. UNAIDS predicts that 6.3 million AIDS-related deaths will occur if PEPFAR lacks funding for the next five years. Can the Minister ensure that the Foreign Office includes HIV in all international discussions, especially at the G7 in Canada this year?
Anneliese Dodds
Tests and treatment are critical. I am pleased that the Prime Minister recently announced that, together with South Africa, the UK will co-host the eighth replenishment of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. The Global Fund is the leading financier of the global fight against HIV/AIDS, and we will work with Canada to draw attention at the G7 to the importance of the Global Fund replenishment.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
What details can the Minister give us about the financing that will be given to the Global Fund? More importantly, there is a rumour that official development assistance is going to be cut from 0.5% to 0.2%, to cover an increase in defence spending. Can the Minister confirm whether that is the case?
Anneliese Dodds
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the importance of funding for global health. Of course, this is not just important for those directly impacted; it is important for us here in our country, because we know that diseases do not respect borders. I set out a few moments ago the fact that the Prime Minister is committed to that Global Fund replenishment, and rightly so.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
The overseas territories, including the British Virgin Islands, work to uphold international standards on tax transparency and illicit finance and enforce UK sanctions. The overseas territories agreed to implement corporate registers that are accessible at least to those with legitimate interest by June 2025. We are aware of BVI’s public consultation on its register and are working with it to improve its proposal.
Lloyd Hatton
The BVI will soon close the consultation on its proposal to grant only limited access to a register of beneficial ownership. That proposal means that it will be virtually impossible for even a select few to trace those using the BVI as a place to secretly stash their cash, and this comes some five years after the first deadline to set up a register was missed. I know that the Secretary of State agrees that sunlight is the best disinfectant when it comes to combating illicit finance, so what steps is he taking to ensure that the BVI establishes a genuine and fully transparent register of beneficial ownership?
Mr Lammy
The BVI committed at the Joint Ministerial Council to improving access to its corporate register by June. I met BVI representatives just after that time at the end of last year, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State will meet the BVI again in the coming weeks. It is important that that public consultation on the proposed register will close this Friday, and we are working with the BVI to improve its proposal.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary will be aware that under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, the British Virgin Islands is obliged to introduce open registers of beneficial ownership by the end of 2020, or be subject to an Order in Council. It has not done so, it is in contempt of Parliament, so when will the Foreign Secretary issue the Order in Council?
Mr Lammy
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that if the agreed requirements are not met we will carefully consider what further steps to take. Our expectation remains clear: those registers will ultimately be public, and my hon. Friend the Minister of State will meet the BVI to make clear our expectations.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
Settler violence is unacceptable. On 15 October the UK sanctioned three outposts and four entities linked to violence in the west bank under the global human rights regime. Those measures will help bring accountability to those who have supported and perpetrated such heinous abuses of human rights. The Government do not comment on future sanctions measures, as to do so would reduce their impact.
Wera Hobhouse
Comments made yesterday by the UN Secretary-General about increasing violence in the west bank by Israeli settlers have shocked my Bath constituents and people across the country, and Members across the House are frustrated by the lack of action. Will the Government sanction those who advocate for that violence, especially Minister Smotrich and former Minister Ben-Gvir?
Mr Falconer
We have condemned the unacceptable language that has been used by Israeli Minister Bezalel Smotrich and former Minister Mr Ben-Gvir. The Foreign Secretary, and all Ministers, have been clear with their Israeli counterparts that the Israeli Government must clamp down on settler violence, as the Foreign Secretary said earlier, and end the settlement expansion. As I said in my original answer, we will not comment on future sanctions, as to do so could reduce their impact.
Anna Sabine
Many people in my constituency are passionate about resolving the situation between Israel and Palestine, and there are concerns that violence in the west bank has increased and illegal settlements have continued to expand. Does the Minister agree that if he also wants to see a reduction in settler violence, we should be considering sanctioning those settlements?
Mr Falconer
I am seriously concerned by the expansion of Israel’s operations in the west bank, and 40,000 Palestinians have reportedly been displaced. Palestinians must be allowed home, civilians must be protected, and the destruction of civilian infrastructure minimised. Stability is essential at this crucial time. We recognise Israel’s security concerns, but it must show restraint and ensure that its operations are commensurate with the threat posed. I refer to my previous answer on sanctions.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Israel has sent tanks to the west bank for the first time in 20 years, and some 40,000 Palestinians are being displaced from refugee camps there. The very least that should be done to stop these contraventions of international law is to impose a ban on Israeli goods coming from illegal Israeli settlements, so I ask the Minister: is it now the time to do that?
Mr Falconer
We call for trade to be done in the proper way. There are clear provisions around where Israeli goods are produced. We do not recognise illegal settlements. Produce must be properly labelled and there is clear advice to business on that basis.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
The Government and their partners are doing important work to support the continuation of the fragile ceasefire in Gaza, but in the west bank, as well as increased settler attacks we have seen Israeli forces attack a Palestinian bookshop in east Jerusalem, UNRWA schools closed, tanks moving into refugee camps and the forced displacement of some 40,000 Palestinians. What action are the Government taking to prevent the Gaza-isation of the west bank?
Mr Falconer
As I said in my previous answer, we are following events in the west bank closely. Stability in the west bank is crucial to ensuring that the fragile ceasefire in Gaza can last. All sides should work to ensure a lowering of tension in the west bank at this time. It is in no one’s interest for further conflict and instability to spread in the west bank.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
A week ago, I was in a Palestinian village with colleagues, including the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh). We went to a school that had been demolished by illegal settlers. Immediately, two punks turned up with sub-machine guns, intimidating us—that is happening all over the place. We went to Hebron. It is completely closed down. This is appalling. The whole House should unite against the extremist Jewish settlers and the illegal settlements, because it is not in the interest of moderate Israeli opinion. It is directly contrary to peace and we must fight this. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
Mr Falconer
The Father of the House, my constituency neighbour, can hear the strong support for his remarks from Members on the Government Benches.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
As the Father of the House just referenced, I was in Israel, on the west bank, last week, and two things became instantly clear. There was widespread revulsion at the sickening desecration of the bodies of the Israeli hostages by Hamas, and there was widespread fear among Palestinians, particularly those in rural areas whom we met, who had first-hand experience of their children having stones thrown at them by settlers, their neighbours having their cars torched and their own windscreens being smashed every night. Will the Minister reassure us that those extremist settlers will be dealt with really thoroughly in our foreign policy?
Mr Falconer
My hon. Friend sets out some of the horrific scenes that have come out of Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories in recent weeks. I restate our opposition to a further expansion of extremist settler violence and illegal settlement.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
We remain committed to concluding a deal that protects the base on Diego Garcia. Without a deal, the base cannot operate in practical terms as it should in its important role protecting the security of this country, the United States and our allies. We are currently discussing the agreement with the US and Mauritius. We will not put a deadline on its finalisation, and will come to the House in due course.
Mr Mohindra
The Labour party’s determination to give away vital strategic territory in the Chagos islands, seemingly to satisfy one of the Prime Minister’s lawyer friends over our American allies, is baffling to my colleagues on the Conservative Benches. Does the Minister agree that it is far more important to maintain our special relationship with the US and the new Trump Administration than to pay billions of pounds in the face of the self-inflicted, worsening domestic economic situation, in order to give the Chinese Government access to that vital region?
Stephen Doughty
There are so many things in the hon. Gentleman’s question that I disagree with that I do not know quite where to start. We are not giving away the base on Diego Garcia—the deal secures that base. If there was not a problem with its operation and its future, why did his Government start negotiations on it?
Lee Anderson
The Minister will be aware that the Chinese have a smart city situated in Mauritius, so what safeguards are in the deal to prevent Chinese installations on Diego Garcia that could compromise our western naval security?
Stephen Doughty
We are absolutely clear that we will retain full control over Diego Garcia, and will have robust provisions to keep adversaries out. There will be unrestricted access to and use of the base for the UK and the US, a buffer zone around Diego Garcia, a comprehensive mechanism to ensure that no activity in the outer islands threatens base operations and a ban on the presence of any foreign security forces. I absolutely assure the hon. Gentleman that the provisions are in place to defend the security of that critical base.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary has proudly said that his Chagos surrender plan was a good deal. He told the Foreign Affairs Committee back in November that it was “a very good deal”, and that he was
“confident that the Mauritians are still sure about that”.
Three weeks ago, the Prime Minister of Mauritius told his National Assembly that since his election, he had concluded the deal
“was so bad that we said, no way!”
and that he had extracted more concessions from the UK on the length of the lease, the extension on sovereignty and the cost. Can the Minister confirm that changes have been made since the announcement of the deal on 3 October last year, and does he disagree with the account given by the Prime Minister of Mauritius?
Stephen Doughty
The fundamentals of the deal remain the same, and the overall quantum remains unchanged.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Minister for Development (Anneliese Dodds)
We condemn the Taliban’s appalling treatment of women and girls in Afghanistan. The Taliban must reverse their barbaric decrees, and we keep working hard with international partners to maintain collective pressure.
Rebecca Smith
The cruelty and inhumanity of the Taliban should appal us all, and no doubt we all condemn the ban on medical training. The UK has provided significant aid to Afghanistan to support the health of women and babies, but with the Taliban now undermining women’s health as well as their rights, what will happen to these aid programmes and funds? What actions can we take to put pressure on the Taliban to reverse their decision?
Anneliese Dodds
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the Taliban have been undermining so much of women’s and girls’ lives in Afghanistan. We are determined to support girls in Afghanistan, including when it comes to education. I have directly discussed that with the Aga Khan Foundation to ensure that support is getting directly to girls, but we also need to push hard politically. I was very pleased to announce that the UK is politically supporting the initiative to refer Afghanistan to the International Court of Justice for violations of the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The treatment of women and girls by the Taliban is disgusting, and pressure must be exerted in response. The Minister will know that there are concerns about the protection of rights for women and girls and other minorities in Syria too, given the ideology of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. Ministers have issued a statement on the future of the UK sanctions on Syria. Can the Minister give details of the measures that need to be put in place in Syria to protect those rights, and say whether such issues will be tied to future decisions on sanctions?
Anneliese Dodds
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her question, and for her passion for the protection of women and girls. Protecting them, and, indeed, religious and ethnic minorities, has been at the core of the UK’s engagement with the Syrian authorities. It was at the core of the interventions I made at the conference on Syria that I attended in Paris just a few days ago, and it is also very important in relation to the changes to sanctions that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary set out.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
The Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and I are engaging extensively with European counterparts, including through the Prime Minister’s attendance of a European Council meeting for the first time since Brexit. We are working closely with European allies, and are calling for increased defence spending and support for Ukraine. This deeper engagement has already delivered results on growth and security, including a landmark defence and migration agreement with Germany.
Freddie van Mierlo
The Thames valley is one of the most important economic zones in this country. At a recent meeting that I held with the business leaders of the Thames Valley chamber of commerce, the overwhelming message was that Brexit has been a disaster for business, and that Boris Johnson and the Tories did them dirty. Will the Minister commit to correcting that wrong, and start negotiations to join a European Union customs union?
Stephen Doughty
We have been very clear that we do not seek to rejoin the customs union, but our co-operation is already delivering results, particularly in relation to growth and business. We recently secured a £250 million Czech investment in Rolls-Royce small modular nuclear reactors, and a further £600 million investment by Polish firm InPost in its UK operations, and as I have said, we have also signed deals on migration with Serbia, Kosovo, Slovenia and Slovakia.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
Ceasefire talks between Russia and Ukraine are under way, whatever our opinion of them, but the eager eye of Putin may now look to other former Soviet countries, such as the Baltic states. I was in Estonia a couple of weeks ago, and the distance between the Russian border and the Russian-held Kaliningrad territory is just 300 miles. For context, that is roughly what I travel every week to Plymouth from London. What steps are the Government taking to deter the Russians from looking at possible future military action there?
Stephen Doughty
As I have said, security is at the heart of our engagement with European counterparts, and the UK’s commitment to the security of the Baltic states is iron-clad. We are helping to uphold that region’s security through our NATO forward land forces deployment in Estonia—the Prime Minister met joint expeditionary force leaders in Tallinn in December to discuss closer co-operation, in response to both conventional threats from Russian aggression and hybrid threats—and, of course, our work together on Ukraine. I have visited that border and met our enhanced forward presence troops there; they are doing an excellent job, and it is crucial that we stand with our Baltic neighbours and all of Europe when it comes to our collective security.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
The UK can be proud of the leadership it has shown in supporting Ukraine and rallying our international partners around this cause. What work is the Minister leading, with European allies, on unfreezing sanctioned assets, so that they can be used to equip Ukraine, and what is his timeframe for releasing critical sanctioned funds, so that they can be used to strengthen Europe’s defence of our values, security and defence?
Stephen Doughty
As the right hon. Lady knows, we have already done important work with European partners to secure the extraordinary revenue acceleration loan, which will make a tangible difference to Ukraine. We continue to work with European partners on sanctions, and of course, we are considering all lawful options going forward. We have had important discussions in the Weimar group and through the G7, and will continue to look, with European counterparts, at all options for supporting Ukraine.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
It was shocking yesterday to see the United States vote with the despots of North Korea, Belarus and Russia against a UN resolution proposed by the UK and other European democracies. Liberal Democrats want to see the UK lead in Europe against Putin’s war on Ukraine, so we were pleased to hear the Foreign Secretary say yesterday that he was taking forward our Liberal Democrat proposal that the £40 billion of frozen Russian assets held in European central banks be seized and given to Ukraine. Can the Minister confirm that the Foreign Secretary will push the US Administration to join in that initiative when he visits Washington later this week?
Stephen Doughty
I am genuinely glad of the continued cross-party co-operation on Ukraine, which we saw during the Foreign Secretary’s statement yesterday. Of course, that includes getting important resources. I am not quite sure that the proposal was a Liberal Democrat proposal, but I think there is a united front across this House on getting Ukraine the resources that it needs. We will continue to work with European counterparts in support of Ukraine at the United Nations, across Europe and through NATO, using all the means that we can to support Ukraine militarily, economically and diplomatically.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Stephen Doughty
Apologies, Mr Speaker. I am answering a lot of questions today.
I have significant concerns about the Georgian authorities’ violent crackdown on peaceful demonstrators and journalists, which is completely unacceptable. In response, we have suspended programme support to the Georgian Government, restricted defence co-operation, and limited engagement with Georgian Dream. We have imposed visa bans and sanctions on some of those responsible for the violence, and we continue to work with international partners to support a free and open civil society and media in Georgia.
Perran Moon
Meur ras, Mr Speaker. Last month at the Council of Europe, I met several Georgian opposition members, who showed me graphic evidence of the brutal physical abuse meted out by the Georgian regime before, during and since the recent parliamentary elections. Bidzina Ivanishvili, the Putin-backed oligarch and de facto ruler of Georgia, continues to suppress peaceful protest, using an identical modus operandi to that used in Russia. Violence and intimidation are distorting the political process. The United States has imposed sanctions on Ivanishvili, but much of his wealth is based in the UK or in British overseas territories. Will the Minister commit to the UK joining our allies and freezing the assets of such a despicable tyrant?
Stephen Doughty
I thank my hon. Friend and his fellow members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe delegation for the important work that they are doing, including on the issue of Georgia. It is hugely important that we stand together with fellow Europeans in the Council of Europe on these matters. In co-ordination with the US, the United Kingdom has imposed sanctions on the Minister and deputy Minister of Internal Affairs and three police chiefs responsible for violent attacks against journalists and peaceful protesters in Georgia. My hon. Friend will understand that while we continue to closely monitor the evolving situation in Georgia, we do not comment on potential sanctions designations, as to do so would lessen their impact.
James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)
The European Parliament recently recognised Salome Zourabichvili as the rightful President of Georgia. Protesters who are on the streets of Tbilisi day in, day out, agree with that view. She has met the President of France, Emmanuel Macron, and she attended the recent inauguration of the US President. Will the Minister commit to meeting with Madame Zourabichvili the next time she visits the UK?
Stephen Doughty
We continue to engage with a range of figures in Georgia. We continue to engage with all those who seek a Euro-Atlantic path for Georgia, which is defined in its constitution and is the wish of its people. We will continue to work closely with European counterparts on the issue.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
The Minister for Development (Anneliese Dodds)
The slave trade was abhorrent. We recognise its horrific impacts and the ongoing strength of feeling, but there have been no such discussions. As the Foreign Secretary made clear to the Foreign Affairs Committee after the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting,
“There was no discussion about reparation and money. The Prime Minister and I were absolutely clear that we will not be making cash transfers and payments to the Caribbean”.
We are focused on working with our Caribbean partners to tackle the most pressuring challenges of today and the future, including security, growth and climate change.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
Last week saw the 38th ordinary session of the African Union Assembly of Heads of State and Government, the topic of which was “Justice for Africans and people of African descent through reparations”. Caribbean Heads of State were also present, and we know that the Caribbean Community, or CARICOM, has long engaged in discussions on reparative justice. Whether or not we participate in these discussions, they will continue to happen. Does the Minister accept that the world and its power structures are changing? In our turbulent post-Brexit reality, we need allies and friends, but we will not even say that we are sorry. We would be foolish to think that we are not deeply resented for that. Is it not better for the UK to engage in these discussions and ensure that we play a constructive role in addressing the enduring legacies of slavery and colonialism?
Anneliese Dodds
We recognise that this is an issue of enduring concern to many. We listen to views from our Caribbean partners on the full range of bilateral issues, but our policy on reparations is clear: we do not pay them. We are determined to work together for the future.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
A quick question: to what extent do the Government support CARICOM’s 10-point plan for reparatory justice?
Anneliese Dodds
As I just stated, our policy on reparations is clear: we do not pay them.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
Ending the conflict in Sudan is a personal priority for me. I recently visited the Adré border with the Chadian Foreign Minister to increase international attention on Sudan, and to meet Sudanese civilians who are bearing the brunt of this crisis. I am happy to announce that I will convene Foreign Ministers in London in April, around the second anniversary of the outbreak of the civil war in Sudan, to foster international consensus on a path to ending the conflict.
Rachael Maskell
I thank the Foreign Secretary for all that he is doing. As in so many conflicts, the discourse about this brutal Sudanese war is being fuelled by external actors with economic and mineral interests in Sudan, and with interests in wider geopolitical agitation, such as Russia; Egypt, with its support for the Sudanese Armed Forces; and the UAE, with its support for the Rapid Support Forces. There is also the wider user of mercenaries. What further steps can the Foreign Secretary take to use our leverage, not least our trading leverage, to ensure that actors are not fuelling this horrendous war and humanitarian crisis?
Mr Lammy
My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that I raised these issues in my contribution at the G20. I had a lengthy discussion with Amina Mohammed of the United Nations, with the Foreign Minister of Angola, and with President Ramaphosa on the situation in Sudan. I am looking forward to convening this conference in London, and working with the French and the African Union. We continue to emphasise, with all international partners, the importance of refraining from actions that prolong the conflict.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The Foreign Secretary indicated that he would engage in further discussions, along with the African Union. Given that there are about 9 million displaced people in one of the most significant, if not the most significant, humanitarian catastrophes that the world faces today, will he impress on the African Union and partners the need for urgent action to try to resolve this situation?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Gentleman is right to ask that question. I went to the Adré crossing not just to spend time with the overwhelming number of women and children who are fleeing the conflict, but to announce £20 million in additional support for refugees and, in particular, for access to reproductive and sexual health services on that border. The situation is grim; it is horrific, and has been given too little attention, and I intend to ensure that we do all we can to bring it to an end.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
The Minister for Development (Anneliese Dodds)
On 28 January we announced a further £17 million for healthcare, food and shelter, and to support vital infrastructure across the Occupied Palestinian Territories. This was an investment in the ceasefire, which must hold.
Andrew Pakes
It is utterly heartbreaking to see the desecration of hostages’ bodies, and to see men, women and children returning to Gaza to try to rebuild their lives among the rubble. I welcome the Government’s efforts on humanitarian aid during this fragile ceasefire, which is becoming more fragile as tanks roll into the west bank. What more can we do to ensure that the ceasefire is implemented in full, and to protect human rights and communities in the west bank?
Anneliese Dodds
I know that many Members on both sides of the House will share my hon. Friend’s revulsion and concern at those scenes. We are committed to working with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, the United States and regional partners to build confidence in the ceasefire and support conditions for a permanent and sustainable peace, including Palestinian reconstruction. To support immediate needs, £2 million of the recently announced funding has been committed to critical water and energy infrastructure projects.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I visited Israel recently as part of a delegation from this place, and met politicians from across the political spectrum. Some support the Israeli Government’s current approach, while others do not, but what unites them is their criticism of the UK Government’s continued support for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. Will the Government please reconsider that support?
Anneliese Dodds
I too have had such discussions, both in Tel Aviv and elsewhere. I recognise that there was particular concern about the events that led to the production of the Colonna report. As was mentioned earlier, there were disturbing allegations about the involvement of UNRWA staff, and there is also concern about reports that Emily Damari may have been placed within an UNRWA camp. We have taken this up with UNRWA, and have supported its reform agenda. It has delivered change, and it is the only organisation that can deliver the humanitarian support that is so desperately needed by millions of Palestinians.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton and Winchmore Hill) (Lab/Co-op)
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)
The Minister for Development (Anneliese Dodds)
We remain desperately concerned about the humanitarian situation in Sudan. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has set out the measures taken by the UK to seek to ameliorate that appalling disaster, included a doubling of aid to Sudan.
Kate Osamor
In recent days, Sudanese armed forces have advanced into El-Obeid, the capital of North Kordofan state, ending a two-year siege by the Rapid Support Forces. This has caused serious food shortages in North Kordofan, which is deemed to be suffering famine conditions under the integrated food security phase classification. What are the Government doing to ensure that aid is fast-tracked into the city?
Anneliese Dodds
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue, because the situation she has described is intolerable. I was grateful to the international counterparts who attended a discussion on these subjects, in which we took part, at the Munich security conference. My hon. Friend referred to the famine designation. We regret the fact that the Sudanese armed forces have said that they will not co-operate with that assessment, but we have seen both the RSF and the SAF restricting aid and using it as a weapon of war, and that must end.
Munira Wilson
The Genocide80Twenty campaign group at Hampton school in my constituency recently met members of the Darfur diaspora who have fled the atrocities in Sudan, and they would like to know what the UK Government are doing to help those targeted simply for who they are. With a staggering 16 million children desperately needing food, shelter, healthcare and education, could I ask the Minister for assurances that we will not see any cuts to UK aid to the region, and what assessment has she has made of the impact of the Trump Administration’s cuts to US aid?
Anneliese Dodds
The hon. Member is right to raise the disturbing accounts of atrocities that we have heard. She will be pleased to know that the UK led efforts to renew the UN Human Rights Council fact-finding mission mandate last October, and I was very pleased to see additional African countries coming on board with that. We have doubled our aid to Sudan, so that commitment is not in doubt.
Afzal Khan
I welcome the Government pushing a ceasefire in Sudan and doubling aid. Sudan’s civil war, now in its third year, has triggered one of the worst humanitarian crises of the decade, with 5.1 million internally displaced people and 1.3 million refugees since April 2023, and famine is now looming. Given this, will the Minister outline what urgent steps the Government are taking with their international counterparts to help de-escalate the conflict in Sudan?
Anneliese Dodds
Ending the conflict in Sudan, and the appalling consequences of it, is a UK priority. Both the Foreign Secretary and I have visited the region, including Chad and South Sudan. We have increased aid, and we have been determined to increase international attention. That includes the April conference to which the Foreign Secretary referred, but I also convened Development Ministers from a number of countries a few days ago, with the emergency relief co-ordinator, to try to pile on the pressure.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
The last time the Minister was in the House talking about Sudan, she told us it was important to have trust in the international system. Given that the RSF are accused of ethnic cleansing and genocide, are so far acting with complete impunity and have just pledged to form a rival Government, what are the UK Government doing to garner trust in the international system and to hold the RSF to account?
Anneliese Dodds
I regret that we see both parties to the conflict behaving in a manner that is having a truly catastrophic impact on civilians—we see famine and appalling levels of conflict-related sexual violence—and the international community must step up. That is why the Foreign Secretary is seeking to convene leaders on this in April, why I have pulled together Development Ministers on this and why we have repeatedly raised these issues at the UN.
Mr Paul Kohler (Wimbledon) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)
The UK Government are committed to human rights in Sri Lanka and are leading international efforts to promote accountability and human rights, including at the UN Human Rights Council. In a visit to Sri Lanka last month, I raised these issues with Ministers in the new Government in Colombo.
Mr Kohler
It is over 15 years since the end of the bloody civil war in Sri Lanka, but those responsible for the many war crimes committed during that conflict, including the targeting of civilians and sexual violence, have still not been held accountable. In opposition, the Foreign Secretary called on the Government to follow the example of our allies, including the US and Canada, in imposing sanctions against individuals suspected of committing these appalling acts. Now he is in government, will he commit to finally doing so?
Catherine West
In October 2024, the UK and our core group partners got a resolution on Sri Lanka in the UN Human Rights Council, outlining just what the hon. Member says. It renewed the mandate of the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to report regularly on Sri Lanka, and to protect and preserve evidence to use in future accountability processes. We consider a range of justice and accountability options, including sanctions, and keep evidence for any potential designations under close review.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)
As I set out in the House yesterday, securing a lasting peace that safeguards Ukraine’s sovereignty for the long term is essential. To achieve this, Europe and the United States must provide the support Ukraine needs to stay strong, and Ukraine must be at the heart of any talks. The UK is playing a leading role on assistance to Ukraine, on pressure on Russia and on keeping our allies united.
Alison Bennett
Will the Government bring forward emergency legislation to seize frozen Russian assets and ensure they are repurposed to support Ukraine in the wake of Trump’s talks with Putin? If not, can the Foreign Secretary explain why?
Mr Lammy
The hon. Lady raises an important issue. It is not something on which any Government can act alone; we must act with European allies. It was a topic of conversation at the G7 and at the Weimar group. Of course, Europe has to act quickly, and I believe we should move from freezing assets to seizing assets.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
I can confirm that we will continue to support the ceasefire deal through all three of its phases, which we hope to see concluded in full. I am working with international partners, as are other Ministers; I saw the Jordanian and Egyptian ambassadors on this question just last week.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
This House stands united with the people of Ukraine. In the light of Putin’s brutality towards the people of Ukraine, what discussions will the Foreign Secretary be having with allies, including his American counterpart, on the international effort to prosecute Russia for the invasion of Ukraine and the sheer barbarism it has inflicted on the people of Ukraine?
Mr Lammy
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for raising the issue of justice and accountability. As she knows, this work was begun under the previous Government, when we led the world in ensuring there were sufficient funds in Ukraine. The Foreign Office supports lawyers working in Ukraine to gather evidence; I will never forget the scenes that I saw in Bucha and the victims I stood with. The UK will not let up on justice. When it comes to accountability, Putin should pay—not the British and European people.
Priti Patel
Russia, Iran and China all pose threats to Britain, and they go out of their way to do us harm. Can the Foreign Secretary explain why the Government have yet to implement the foreign influence registration scheme, which the previous Government legislated for, and can he confirm when it will come in and whether China will be on the enhanced tier?
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Mr Falconer
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question and for her long commitment to these issues. As I made clear in the Westminster Hall debate on 12 February, the UK respects the independence of the ICJ, and we are considering the court’s advisory opinion with the rigour and seriousness it deserves. We remain clear that Israel should bring an end to its presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories as rapidly as possible, while making every effort to create the conditions for negotiations towards a two-state solution.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
The whole House will be shocked to learn the worrying news that the mother of British-Egyptian political prisoner Alaa Abd el-Fattah, Laila Soueif, was admitted to St Thomas’ hospital last night. She is 68 years old and has been on hunger strike now for 149 days. Will the Foreign Secretary update us on whether the Prime Minister has spoken to the Egyptian President to secure the release of Alaa Abd el-Fattah and allow Laila to break her strike?
Mr Falconer
The whole House is engaged in this case, and we are all hoping for Laila’s health. The Prime Minister recently met Laila and the rest of her family—a meeting I was pleased to join—and has undertaken to make every effort to ensure Alaa’s release. We will continue to do so.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has visited those incredible commandos during their training. I, too, have visited our Royal Marines and Army commandos in the high north in Norway and witnessed the vital role that they play in our strategic defence efforts. The UK and Norway work closely together as NATO and joint expeditionary force allies. Our Prime Minister signed a strategic partnership agreement in December, and, last week, the Defence Secretary visited Norway to launch a new agreement on deeper defence co-operation. I and the Foreign Secretary have also visited our counterparts, and I can tell my hon. Friend that security and defence co-operation were absolutely at the heart of our efforts and discussions with our Norwegian friends.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
Mr Lammy
I was very pleased yesterday to announce one of this country’s biggest ever sanctions packages, which will bear down further on Russia’s shadow fleet. I remind my hon. Friend that interest rates are running at 21% in Russia and inflation is running at 9%. We are doing a lot to take off the table money that Putin uses to fund his war machine.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
In January, a Minister in the Foreign Office said that they would challenge the Northern Ireland Executive to be more robust in their reporting of international affairs and meetings. At the start of this month, the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister met again with the Chinese consul, but still no details of that meeting or previous meetings have been reported or shared. Has that challenge been made, and what was the response?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Catherine West)
We regularly engage with Northern Ireland on all matters of foreign policy. However, this Chinese consular matter is not something that Ministers can discuss at the Dispatch Box.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Stephen Doughty
I thank my hon. Friend for his praise and support for the action that the Foreign Secretary has just mentioned. This was our largest ever sanctions package since the start of Russia’s illegal and barbarous invasion. We and our G7 allies are absolutely clear on the principle that Russia must pay for the damage that it is causing to Ukraine, and we of course look at third country routes by which support is being given to Russia’s illegal actions in Ukraine. As part of the package announced yesterday we are taking a number of steps in that regard, including with companies in China.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
Last week, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), left open the possibility that the FCDO might revisit the issue of explicit carbon monoxide warnings on FCDO travel advisory pages—a change that we contend would have a cascading effect on the UK travel industry, drive up the use of carbon monoxide alarms and save lives of British travellers overseas. May I encourage the Front-Bench team to pick up this issue in the name of my constituent, Hudson Foley, to ensure that the lives of British travellers overseas are kept safe?
Mr Falconer
I can confirm that I will be adding information to our dedicated page for independent travellers to highlight the risk of carbon monoxide poisoning globally. I shall be writing to Cathy Foley, who I was moved to meet, and to the hon. Member.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
Gaza’s healthcare system has been devastated, and many civilians are in desperate need of treatment and specialist care, which is not available in Gaza itself. Will the Minister ensure that the Government continue to raise with Israel the importance of allowing safe passage out of Gaza for those children in need of urgent medical treatment? Will they consider additional evacuation routes for critically unwell children?
The Minister for Development (Anneliese Dodds)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important question. We have been working closely with Egypt, which has sought to support many of those requiring medical assistance. Across Government we continue to look carefully at this issue, but Gazans need healthcare support in Gaza, and the UK Government have been supporting that.
Mr James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
As I am sure those on the Treasury Bench know, soft power and diplomacy are most effective when they are backed up by hard power. When will the Government commit to spending 3% of GDP on defence, to make sure that we have a real voice at the international table to encourage European countries to increase their defence spending?
Sadik Al-Hassan (North Somerset) (Lab)
I look forward to seeing relations between the UK and Iraq blossom in the years to come under this Labour Government. Will the Minister share the recent conversations that he has had with Iraqi counterparts on reducing barriers to trade, such as diverging trade regimes?
Mr Falconer
I was very pleased to meet the Iraqi Foreign Minister Dr Fuad Hussein during the official visit of Prime Minister Al Sudani to the UK from 14 to 16 January. During that visit our two Prime Ministers signed the landmark partnership and co-operation agreement, a wide-ranging treaty on trade and strategic co-operation, and announced a trade package worth up to £12.3 billion.
Defence and Security
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before the Prime Minister’s statement, let me point out that the Government’s own ministerial code says that the text of statements should be provided in advance to the Opposition and the Speaker. It does not provide for the text to be redacted. I am particularly concerned by reports that some of the redacted information was provided to the media in advance. If correct, that is very discourteous to this House, and I take it very seriously. It could well have been leaked, in which case I hope that there will be an inquiry into what has happened. I ask the Prime Minister to look into what has happened and to report back to me and to the House as soon as possible.
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
Let me begin by giving my word to this House that the statement was not given to the media. I will absolutely have an inquiry into that. I spoke to you, Mr Speaker, this morning. I would not be discourteous to you, the Leader of the Opposition or the House in that way. I give you that assurance from this Dispatch Box. I apologise to the Leader of the Opposition, and I will have that inquiry.
Three years since Russia launched its vile assault on Ukraine, I would like to address the international situation and the implications for Britain’s national security. In my first week as Prime Minister, I travelled to the NATO summit in Washington with a simple message: NATO and our allies could trust that this Government would fulfil Britain’s and, indeed, the Labour party’s, historic role of putting our collective security first. I spoke of my great pride in leading the party that was a founding member of NATO, the inheritor of the legacy of Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin, who not only stood behind Winston Churchill in wartime, but won the peace by establishing the great post-war order here and abroad.
It is a proud legacy, but in a world like ours it is also a heavy one, because the historical load that we must carry to fulfil our duty is not as light as it once was. We must bend our backs across this House, because these times demand a united Britain and we must deploy all our resources to achieve security.
Mr Speaker, as a young man, I vividly remember the Berlin Wall coming down. It felt as if we were casting off the shackles of history; a continent united by freedom and democracy. If you had told me then that in my lifetime we would see Russian tanks rolling into European cities again, I would not have believed you. Yet here we are in a world where everything has changed, because three years ago that is exactly what happened.
Britain can be proud of our response. British families opened their doors to fleeing Ukrainians, with the yellow and light blue fluttering on town halls and churches the length and breadth of the country. The Conservatives in government were robust in our response. I supported that in opposition and I applaud them for it now. We have built on that, bringing our support for Ukraine to a record level this year.
We should not pretend that any of this has been easy. Working people have already felt the cost of Russian actions through rising prices and bills. None the less, one of the great lessons of our history is that instability in Europe will always wash up on our shores and that tyrants like Putin only respond to strength. Russia is a menace in our waters, in our airspace and on our streets. It has launched cyber-attacks on our NHS and—only seven years ago—a chemical weapons attack on the streets of Salisbury.
We must stand by Ukraine, because if we do not achieve a lasting peace the economic instability and the threats to our security will only grow. And so, as the nature of that conflict changes, as it has in recent weeks, it brings our response into sharper focus; a new era that we must meet—as we have so often in the past—together and with strength.
The fundamentals of British strategy are unchanged. I know that the current moment is volatile, but there is still no good reason why they cannot endure, so let me now spell out to the House exactly how we will renew them for these times. First, NATO is the bedrock of our security and will remain so. It has brought peace for 75 years. It is as important today as the day on which it was founded. Putin thought he would weaken NATO; he has achieved the exact opposite. It remains the organisation that receives the vast bulk of our defence effort in every domain, and that must continue.
Secondly, we must reject any false choice between our allies—between one side of the Atlantic and the other. That is against our history, country and party, because it is against our fundamental national interest. The US is our most important bilateral alliance. It straddles everything from nuclear technology to NATO, Five Eyes, AUKUS and beyond. It has survived countless external challenges in the past. We have fought wars together. We are the closest partners in trade, growth and security.
So this week, when I meet President Trump, I will be clear. I want this relationship to go from strength to strength. But strength in this world also depends on a new alliance with Europe. As I said in Paris last week, our commitment to European defence and security is unwavering, but now is the time to deepen it. We will find new ways to work together on our collective interests and threats, protecting our borders, bringing our companies together and seeking out new opportunities for growth.
Thirdly, we seek peace not conflict, and we believe in the power of diplomacy to deliver that end. That of course is most pressing in Ukraine. Nobody in this House or this country wants the bloodshed to continue—nobody. I have seen the devastation in Ukraine at first hand. What you see in places such as Bucha never leaves you. But for peace to endure in Ukraine and beyond, we need deterrence. I know that this House will endorse the principle of winning peace through strength, so we will continue to stand behind the people of Ukraine. We must ensure that they negotiate their future, and we will continue to put them in the strongest position for a lasting peace.
Fourthly, we must change our national security posture, because a generational challenge requires a generational response. That will demand some extremely difficult and painful choices, and through those choices, as hard as they are, we must also seek unity—a whole-society effort that will reach into the lives, the industries and the homes of the British people. I started this statement by recalling the era of Attlee and Bevin, and this year we will mark many anniversaries of that greatest generation. We must find courage in our history and courage in who we are as a nation, because courage is what our own era now demands of us. So, starting today, this Government will begin the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. We will deliver our commitment to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence, but we will bring it forward so that we reach that level in 2027 and we will maintain that for the rest of this Parliament. Let me spell that out. That means spending £13.4 billion more on defence every year from 2027.
However, we also face enemies that are sophisticated in cyber-attacks, sabotage and even assassination, so our intelligence and security services are an increasingly vital part of protecting both us and our allies. On top of the funding of 2.5% that I have just announced, we will recognise the incredible contribution of our intelligence and security services to the defence of our nation, which means that, taken together, we will be spending 2.6% on our defence from 2027.
We must go further still. I have long argued that in the face of ongoing and generational challenges, all European allies must step up and do more for our own defence. Subject to economic and fiscal conditions, and aligned with our strategic and operational needs, we will also set a clear ambition for defence spending to rise to 3% of GDP in the next Parliament.
I want to be very clear: the nature of warfare has changed significantly. That is clear from the battlefield in Ukraine, so we must modernise and reform our capabilities as we invest. I equally want to be very clear that, like any other investment we make, we must seek value for money. That is why we are putting in place a new defence reform and efficiency plan, jointly led by my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Defence Secretary.
This investment means that the UK will strengthen its position as a leader in NATO and in the collective defence of our continent, and we should welcome that role. It is good for our national security. It is also good for this Government’s defining mission to restore growth to our economy, and we should be optimistic about what it can deliver in those terms. But, in the short term, it can only be funded through hard choices. In this case, that means we will cut our spending on development assistance, moving from 0.5% of GNI today to 0.3% in 2027, fully funding our increased investment in defence.
I want to be clear to the House that this is not an announcement that I am happy to make. I am proud of our pioneering record on overseas development, and we will continue to play a key humanitarian role in Sudan, Ukraine and Gaza, tackling climate change and supporting multinational efforts on global health and challenges like vaccination. In recent years, the development budget was redirected towards asylum backlogs, paying for hotels, so as we are clearing that backlog at a record pace, there are efficiencies that will reduce the need to cut spending on our overseas programmes. None the less, it remains a cut, and I will not pretend otherwise. We will do everything we can to return to a world where that is not the case and to rebuild a capability on development. But at times like this, the defence and security of the British people must always come first. That is the No. 1 priority of this Government.
But it is not just about spending; our whole approach to national security must now change. We will have to ask British industry, British universities, British businesses and the British people to play a bigger part, and to use this to renew the social contract of our nation—the rights and responsibilities that we owe one another. The first test of our defence policy is of course whether it keeps our country safe, but the second should be whether it improves the conditions of the British people. Does it help provide the economic security that working people need? Because, ultimately, as Attlee and Bevin knew, that is fundamental to national security as well. We will use this investment as an opportunity. We will translate defence spending into British growth, British jobs, British skills and British innovation. We will use the full powers of the Procurement Act 2023 to rebuild our industrial base.
As the strategic defence review is well under way, and across Government we are conducting a number of other reviews relevant to national security, it is obvious that those reviews must pull together. So before the NATO summit in June we will publish a single national security strategy and bring it to this House, because, as I said earlier, that is how we must meet the threats of our age: together and with strength—a new approach to defence, a revival of our industrial base, a deepening of our alliances; the instruments of our national power brought together; creating opportunity, assuring our allies and delivering security for our country.
Mr Speaker, at moments like these in our past, Britain has stood up to be counted. It has come together. And it has demonstrated strength. That is what the security of our country needs now, and it is what this Government will deliver. I commend this statement to the House.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for the partial copy of his statement. Now that I have heard the unredacted bits, I must welcome his response and his fulsome support for Ukraine.
This weekend marked a grim milestone: it is now three years since Putin’s invasion. The Conservative party stands resolutely with the people of Ukraine. Our hearts are with those still caught up in this conflict as we remember the many innocent lives lost. I will always be proud of the support that the last Conservative Government gave in the run-up to Putin’s invasion, and in the first crucial weeks and months of the war. We helped prevent Kyiv from falling and we supported Ukraine in regaining territory initially lost to Russia. But it is also true that, overall, the west has not done enough to support Ukraine.
As has been the case from the outset, it ultimately remains for Ukraine, as a proud and sovereign nation that has sacrificed so much to defend itself and the fundamental freedoms that we all hold dear, to decide its future. We want this terrible war to end, but Ukraine needs to be at the negotiating table. Like President Zelenksy, we hope for a lasting, reliable peace, but the west must continue to be intensely robust in the face of Putin’s aggression. The lesson of the past 20 years is clear: he only comes back for more.
The first duty of every Government is to protect their people. That means a strong state that stands up for our national interest. Our foreign policy should seek to support our national interest, which should always come first, so I am very pleased to hear the Prime Minister announce the increase to 2.5% by 2027. All of us on the Conservative Benches welcome that; we have all wanted to see more spending on defence. On the inclusion of the intelligence budget, will the Prime Minister confirm whether that means new money for the intelligence services? Does it mean that there will be new money in the next financial year?
The Prime Minister will know that I wrote to him at the weekend with suggestions on what we can do to help increase defence spending, so I welcome his announcement on repurposing money from the overseas development budget—that is absolutely right—and I look forward to him taking up my other suggestion of considering what we can do on welfare. He will know that we had a fully funded plan, and we urge him to take it up.
Having said that, can the Prime Minister say with confidence that 2.5% by 2027 is sufficient? We need to look at exactly how we fund this. He must not raise taxes further, as that would destroy our economy, and we need a strong economy to pay for strong defence. He cannot borrow more; we are already spending more on debt interest than on defence. We all know that he must make difficult decisions on spending, and he has our support in doing that.
In his statement, the Prime Minister also told us about his new value-for-money defence reform and efficiency plan. Does he agree that the first thing that must be looked at is the spending of billions of pounds of taxpayer money to lease back the defence base on Diego Garcia, which we currently own? Why is he still pursuing that deal? Earlier today, I made a speech about the realism that should drive our foreign policy. As part of that, he must scrap his disastrous plan to surrender the Chagos islands and have British taxpayers pay for the privilege.
The key difference between we Conservatives and the Labour party is that we know that we need a strong economy for defence. We need a serious plan to get the British economy growing again. We do not have that with the latest Budget from the Chancellor. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether there will be a fiscal event this spring, even though his Government are committed to only one fiscal event per year?
In summary, the Prime Minister made four points. I agree with him that NATO is a bedrock of our security, as I said this morning, and that the US is our most important bilateral relationship, but friends tell each other when they disagree. We agree on this issue; we know that Ukraine must be supported, and I share his concern about statements that have been made about President Zelensky. I agree with him about protecting security in Europe, and I welcome his continued strengthening of alliances, but we must do that through NATO, building on the joint expeditionary force approach. Of course, we agree that we need peace, with Ukraine agreed.
I do not necessarily agree with the Prime Minister’s change of the national security posture, because we have different views on that—I am a Conservative realist, not a progressive internationalist—but I want him to know that when he does the right thing, we will work with him in the national interest.
The Prime Minister
May I first thank the Leader of the Opposition for her support in relation to today’s announcement and on Ukraine? That is important to the Government, to the House and, most of all, to the Ukrainians and President Zelensky. They want to see unity in our House—they value unity in our House—as they enter, after three years of conflict, a very difficult stage in the war with Russia and against Russian aggression. I hope and believe that we can maintain that unity in relation to Ukraine, as we have done for three years. I am very proud that this House has done that, notwithstanding a change of Government, for three long years—we will continue to do so.
The Leader of the Oppositions asks about the money for defence, security and intelligence. There was new money in the Budget in relation to that, but what I am doing here is in addition to the 2.5%, which is the increased defence spend as it has always been understood, to recognise that the nature of the threats to our county are different now, and that the security and intelligence services play a key part for us and our allies in our defence. That takes the total to 2.6%.
The Leader of the Opposition asks whether we will tax or borrow to pay for the 2.5%. The answer is no, which is why I have today set out precisely how we will pay for it, pound for pound. That has meant a difficult decision on overseas development—a very difficult decision, and not one that I wanted or am happy to take. But it is important that we explain where the money will come from in terms and today. I was only ever going to come to the House with a plan that had a timeline and a percentage in it, and an answer to the question, “How will you pay for it?” I would not have come to the House with a fanciful plan.
The Leader of the Opposition says that they had a plan—[Interruption.] She says, “Of course we did.” I have my views on that, but the Institute for Government said that the Conservatives’ pledge of 2.5% by 2030 did “not add up” and was “not a serious plan.” The Institute for Fiscal Studies called it “misleading and opaque”. I am not giving my view; I am giving the view of other bodies on the plan that the Conservatives put forward. They said that they would fund it by cutting the civil service, and then increased the civil service by 13,000. I am not prepared to operate in that way, which is why we have taken the difficult decision on overseas development today, to be absolutely clear on where the money is coming from.
In relation to the Leader of the Opposition’s final point on the approach that we take here and whether there is a difference between us, I hope not. What I have set out was NATO-first, as the bedrock of our security. I hope that is common ground, whatever we may call our respective positions. I also set out that we must not choose between the US and our European allies. That is what I fundamentally believe, and I will resist that choice. I hope that is common ground between us, notwithstanding the language that she uses, because it is important, not for exchanges over the Dispatch Boxes, but for the future defence and security of our country and of Europe.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement on defence and security, because times are a-changing and we must all recognise that these are pivotal moments not just for our nation’s security but for our Ukrainian friends, whom we must wholeheartedly support in their fight for survival.
In my various interactions with key stakeholders in my role as Chair of the Defence Committee, I have begun to realise that there is considerable consternation among our European allies about whether long-established and hard-earned alliances—rather than a short-term transactional approach—can still be relied on to secure lasting peace. Also, given the proposed reduction in the American presence on our continent, people are looking for leadership. I feel that this is our time to step forward as a nation and take the lead on defence and security matters on our continent.
Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister convey to President Trump and our American allies the anxieties of our European allies and the need to strengthen our transatlantic NATO alliance at this perilous time for Europe, and does he agree that he can be the person to take the lead on defence and security matters in Europe, coalescing with our NATO allies?
Mr Speaker
Order. I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that I know he has a lot to say, but I have a lot of Members to get in, including other party leaders.
The Prime Minister
I do agree that our alliances are important, and that is why NATO is the bedrock of our approach. It has been for many, many years and will continue to be. I do accept that European allies and the UK have to step up and do more. In our heart of hearts, I think across this House we have known that this moment was coming for the last three years. We have put that plan before the House, and of course, I will do everything I can to strengthen the alliance and the relationship between the US and the UK. It is a special relationship. It is a strong relationship. I want it to go from strength to strength.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. Three years ago, Putin began his brutal full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and as we watched Russian missiles rain down on Ukrainian cities, we feared he might have struck a decisive blow to Ukraine and its sovereignty, yet Putin underestimated the strength of the ideals we share with our Ukrainian friends of democracy, truth and liberty. He underestimated the courage and grit of Ukrainian soldiers, who have spent three years heroically resisting Putin’s war machine.
Britain stood together with our allies in support of Ukraine, and families up and down the country opened their doors wide for Ukrainian refugees, because we know that Ukraine’s fight for democracy and liberty is our fight, too. In this House, we stood strong together, and yet three years on, the future of Ukraine and security in Europe seems even more perilous. Then, Washington was clearly on our side, but now, the United States is voting with Russia, Belarus and North Korea in the United Nations. President Trump labels President Zelensky a “dictator”, but not Vladimir Putin.
After the second world war, Britain came together with allies around the world to establish NATO and, with America, agreed to underwrite security on this continent, recognising that a threat to the security of one nation was a threat to the security of all nations. The events of the past few days are clear: that era is over. We may be watching before our very eyes the betrayal of our Ukrainian allies by America, and with it, the potential betrayal of Europe and of Britain, too. We must respond. Now it is up to the United Kingdom to lead in Europe. As a nation, we must seize this moment.
It is for our national interest that Liberal Democrats have supported the Prime Minister’s proposals on Ukraine, including British troops joining a reassurance mission in Ukraine if a just settlement is reached. That is why we strongly support the Prime Minister raising defence spending to 2.5%, preferably using seized Russian assets to pay for extra defence support for Ukraine. We will scrutinise all aspects of the Government’s spending plans carefully, but I hope that moving at pace to 2.5% means that Ministers will shortly announce the reversal of the Conservatives’ short-sighted cut of 10,000 troops from our armed forces.
The Prime Minister is right: we must go further, so will he initiate talks between all parties in this House to establish the vital consensus needed to take us to spending 3% of GDP on defence as soon as possible? The Prime Minister will know that for months, we Liberal Democrats have urged the Government to seize frozen Russian assets, which amount to over £20 billion, and repurpose those funds for Ukraine’s defence. Will he take immediate steps to gather European leaders and begin the seizure of Russian assets, so that we can support Ukraine no matter what America does? Will he, on his trip to Washington, try to persuade President Trump to do the same—to make Russia pay?
The Prime Minister will know that the whole country will be willing him on, hoping that he might be able to persuade Donald Trump to change his mind on Ukraine. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches think he is right to try, but should that not work, will he be clear where the United Kingdom then stands? Will he make it clear that, if absolutely necessary, it will be with Ukraine and our European allies, not Putin and Trump?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support on Ukraine; it has been steadfast, and it has been across this House. For the same reasons that I gave to the Leader of the Opposition, that is important not just here but to those in Ukraine.
We do need to step up and lead in Europe—we have been saying that for a very long time. All European countries need to do more, and now is the moment to do so, but we need to do that together with the US, because what is needed more than anything is a lasting peace. A ceasefire that simply gives Putin the chance to regroup and to go again is in nobody’s interest. A lasting peace means that we must talk about issues such as security guarantees. We are prepared to play our part, as I have indicated, but I have also indicated that to be a security guarantee, it requires a US backstop—US support for that security guarantee. That is at the heart of the case I have been making for some time.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, of the assets that have been seized already, the interest on those of £3 billion has already been committed to Ukraine, and we are working with our European allies to see what more can be done in relation to the funding that will be necessary. Stepping up means stepping up on capability, on co-ordination and on funding, which is what we have done today with this statement.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and this strong commitment to defence spending. I welcome as well the work being done with the Chancellor and the Defence Secretary on ensuring that we get as much value as we can for each pound spent on delivering capability. Will the Prime Minister reaffirm his commitment to the parliamentary scrutiny of that spending, including on the most sensitive areas?
The Prime Minister
Yes, of course; it is extremely important, and my hon. Friend knows that well. She is absolutely right to say that we must get value for money. This is a huge increase in defence spending. It is very important that it is used on the right capabilities in the right way, and that is why we intend to get a much better grip on the money that will be put in.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement. I personally think it is a start, not a finish—I think we will find that we have to raise defence spending further—but I welcome it none the less, and on behalf of all of this House and my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), I will support it.
The Prime Minister is due to go to Washington. One problem we have there is that they seem to have reached the conclusion that peace is simply the absence of war. Can he remind the President that a peace without justice, the right to freedom and choice in democracy is not peace, but a partial ceasefire? He might also remind the President that the last great test we faced united the United Kingdom and America, with Lady Thatcher and Ronald Reagan taking decisions that moved Europe in the right direction. Can he appeal to the President that, instead of running around making adverse comments, he should link hands with the United Kingdom to persuade the rest of Europe to step up, as we are now stepping up?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support. The point he makes about a lasting peace and what it must be is really important. This is not just about stopping the fighting; it is about an enduring and lasting peace for Europe and, of course, the sovereignty of Ukraine—the sovereign ability to choose the alliances that Ukrainian people want, to choose their own Government and to choose how they defend themselves in conjunction with others. It is about the sovereignty of Ukraine, but it is also about the values and freedoms across Europe, including our values and freedoms. That is why this is such an important moment to ensure that NATO is as strong as it has been in the last 75 years as we go forward, and that the bond between us and the US is as strong as it has ever been. That has to be part of the case—the argument—and the way in which we have stepped up today and will continue to do so.
Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, and particularly his commitment to accelerate the increase in defence spending, although I fear that we may have to visit the 3% target before the next Parliament. It is very important that we have a whole-society approach to defence. Will he be bringing forward a strategy to make that happen, particularly around the great need to improve our reservist forces?
The Prime Minister
It does have to be a whole-society response, which is why I set that out in my statement in the House, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it. Of course it has to be a driver of industrial growth and our industrial strategy.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Aside from a few of Putin’s poodles, who are not in their seats in the Chamber today, we are of course united in our support for the people of Ukraine, and in wishing the Prime Minister well in his discussions with the President of the United States later this week. But I am afraid that is where the unity ends, because while we support increasing defence spending, we cannot support the populist playbook of cutting foreign aid. Indeed, that position was shared and agreed with by the Foreign Secretary just a matter of days ago, when he said that it would be a “big strategic mistake” that would allow China to step in. Why was the Foreign Secretary wrong, and the Prime Minister right?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support on the question of Ukraine, which is important. I reassure him that the decision that I have taken today on development aid is not an ideological one. I absolutely understand its importance—it is a difficult and painful decision, but a necessary one. He talks about choice. SNP Members welcomed the biggest settlement since devolution in the Budget, but they voted against it because they could not take a choice. The right hon. Gentleman welcomes the increase in defence spending, but he does not want to say how he will fund it. Grown-up choices about the future of Europe require grown-up decisions and choices, and that is what we have done.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
Instability in Europe washes up on our shores, and I accept the hard decision that the Prime Minister has made to invest in defence, which means difficult decisions on international development. Can we please invest more in cyber, given the disinformation and cyber-attacks that our country faces on a daily basis?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that because cyber is one of the tools for warfare these days. That is why we increased funding in the Budget, and why I have adjusted the 2.5% to 2.6% in the case presented to the House today.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I agree entirely with the strategic direction that the Prime Minister has set out. Defence and security must come first, but he does have choices about how he funds that important uplift. In the last Parliament, he and I voted together against balancing the books on the backs of the poorest people in the world. Does he still think that vote was right?
The Prime Minister
I am proud of that vote at the time, and proud of the work that our country has done on development. This is not a decision that I want to make, and I absolutely want us to get back to more funding on overseas development and increasing those capabilities. Some of that will be helped if, as we are doing, we get the asylum backlog down and stop using that money to pay for hotels, which is not what it is intended for. This has been a difficult decision. The right hon. Gentleman knows how much I value overseas development and how important it is, but I thought, and think, that the most important thing today is to be clear about the commitment we are making on defence, to spell out the reasons that we are making those decisions, and to set out penny and pound exactly how it will be funded. I would not come to the House with a plan that was not credible and not costed, because that would be far worse for our country, but I accept the tenor of what he says about the importance of the issue.
Alex Baker (Aldershot) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for the leadership that he has shown in these uncertain times. As the Member of Parliament for the home of the British Army, I know that this is hugely welcome news for my constituency and that my community is ready to serve. What will the Prime Minister do to help to create jobs in the defence sector in my community?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Given the make-up of her constituency and constituents, they are hardwired for this. This is an important obligation that we must rise to, but it is also an opportunity to ensure that the jobs that will be generated are British jobs, with British skills, in all our constituencies. We will endeavour to ensure that that is the case.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
We are pleased to hear the announcement that the Government will increase defence spending to 2.5%, but we are still waiting for the strategic defence review to be completed, as without that we are in the dark. Will the SDR be announced soon, and if not, will the Prime Minister outline how the additional money will be spent?
The Prime Minister
The SDR is advanced and I will come to the House with it as soon as we can. I want to make sure that we have properly identified the challenges and capabilities. Obviously, we have put the funding forward today. We will do that as soon as we can, and when we do, it will be a credible plan for the House.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his tireless efforts to bring security to Ukraine, because its security is our security. Does he agree that that is possible only because we are one United Kingdom, and that that strength, that solidarity, is possible only because our four nations work together? Does he agree that those who attempt to fragment that Union in these perilous times do us great harm?
The Prime Minister
I do agree with that. As the United Kingdom we have always stood up in moments such as this, and we stand up again as the United Kingdom and are proud to do so. This is an important moment and a juncture after three years of a conflict, and the whole House will be aware of the potential consequences of decisions in coming weeks. It is a time for us to pull together.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
President Trump says that he wants his legacy to be that of a peacemaker. In his difficult conversations with the President in a few days’ time, will the Prime Minister remind him that the reason the enforced division of Czechoslovakia before the war was a step on the road to disaster, but the division of Germany at the end of the war did not lead to world war three, was that the western half of Europe at the end of world war two was not demilitarised? If there is to be a stable Ukraine after any such enforced division, there must be military protection for the unoccupied half of Ukraine.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is right to talk about peace. It is what everybody wants, not least the Ukrainians, but it must be a lasting peace and not a temporary ceasefire. I agree that that means it needs security guarantees. The configuration of that needs to be agreed, but the security guarantees must be sufficient to deter any further aggression. Otherwise it will be a ceasefire, and that would be the worst of outcomes for the whole of Europe.
Mr Calvin Bailey (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his leadership and the announcement today, committing us to 2.6% of GDP on defence spending, and 3% beyond that. That is in stark contrast to the 14 years of erosion of defence spending, the hollowing out of our services, and the service life that resulted. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that the reforms put forward by the Defence Secretary are essential to delivering deterrence and to preventing further acts of Russian brutal imperialist aggression in Europe?
The Prime Minister
The reforms are really important. The strategic review is very important, and the funding is very important. This is a moment when we must step up and play our full part in the defence of our country and the defence of Europe. I have already commented on the plan that the Conservative party put forward at the election. I have not quoted my words; I have quoted the words of the Institute for Government, which said—[Interruption.] Well, I would say what I think, but what the Institute for Government said was perfectly right. The plan was not properly funded and it was not a credible plan. We have put a credible plan before the House, and I am glad it has been welcomed.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Plaid Cymru stands firm with the need to safeguard Ukraine’s sovereignty, because international security is also national security. However, the UK will now cut the already diminished foreign aid budget to fund military spending. National security calls for building peace, as well as for armed forces. Given the importance that overseas aid plays in preventing conflict, building democracy and curbing warmongering tyrants, to paraphrase the Foreign Secretary, surely cutting foreign aid too is a massive strategic and moral mistake?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady is right to raise the importance of overseas development—I have said that from the Dispatch Box a number of times—but this is a moment when we have to step up and increase our defence spending. Of course, everybody in this House would wish that was not the situation. We have had a peace dividend for many years, but that has come to an end. We have to step up and our first duty is to keep the country safe, which requires a credible plan. I accept that it is a difficult plan—this is not a decision that I wanted to make—but it is a credible plan for the defence and security of our country and of Europe.
Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. I agree with him that it is the beginning, not the end, of the process, but does he agree that it is not just how much money we spend, but how well we spend it? Will he join me in thanking all our armed forces personnel for the commitment they show day in, day out to defending our nation?
The Prime Minister
I agree with both those propositions, and about what we spend and how we spend it. Speaking for myself, the Government and, I am sure, the whole House, we thank our armed services for what they do on our behalf, day in, day out.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
It is without doubt that enduring peace is achieved only if we have enduring security arrangements, so I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement on defence expenditure and the commitment to it. However, I reiterate my observation, and the observation of others, on the way that that money is spent. For a generation, we have been complacent. There is significant dysfunctionality in the way that industry works with Government on the procurement and delivery of defence capabilities in this country. I urge him to keep his Defence Secretary in place for the duration of this Parliament, so that we can find some common purpose, across this House, and deliver enduring reforms that stand the test of time. Treasury after Treasury has found it impossible to get to grips with defence expenditure—we must achieve that in this Parliament.
The Prime Minister
The Defence Secretary has just asked me whether he could reply to that question. The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Procurement and the grip on defence spend has not been in the right place, and we have not used our businesses in the way that we could have done in the past. I gently say that the past 14 years might have been a good period to have got to grips with that, but we need to get to grips with it now. I think that will be welcomed by the whole House, because we need to do that.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
I and many of my colleagues started our careers in the shadow of Putin’s first invasion of Ukraine, back in 2014. We knew then what Putin was capable of and what Putin intended to do. However, our service was marked by swingeing cuts from the Conservative Government that left our armed forces lacking key capabilities. There is an old saying that if you want peace, prepare for war, so will the Prime Minister assure me that the extra cash will be well spent to cover those capabilities and to take advantage of the new technologies we desperately need?
The Prime Minister
May I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for her service? She is absolutely right that this money must be well spent on the capability that we need, and it will be.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and I wish him well as he goes to America to persuade the Americans to side with democracy, rather than vote with dictators. There will be a long lead-in time before we see the effects of today’s announcement. Given that and the overstretched commitments of our armed forces, how will he give assurances to the Ukrainians that Britain will be able to supply arms and personnel to defend any peace agreement that is reached?
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support. On the question of security guarantees, intense discussions are going on about how that would look and what that might involve. I am absolutely confident that we can play our full part. I will not disclose details to the House for reasons that he will understand, but I am confident that we can and will play our full part in whatever security guarantees may be needed. They will, of course, be with US backing, which is important if they are to be proper guarantees.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the uplift in defence spending but, as the Prime Minister has recognised, there has been a difficult decision about our aid budget. Like many hon. Members, I have seen at first hand the impact of the aid budget, not only on tackling poverty but on our own stability and prosperity. I welcome what the Prime Minister has said so far, but will he reassure us that our commitment remains to get back to 0.7% of GDP for overseas aid, as soon as fiscal circumstances allow?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I want to see that. Notwithstanding the difficult decision we have taken today, I reassure the House that it is important that vital issues, such as those in Gaza, Sudan and Ukraine, are prioritised for reasons that are obvious to Members across the House.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Members across the House recognise the need to invest more and to invest differently in defence and security, but it is unbelievably counterproductive and short-sighted to fund that by slashing aid to the poorest and most fragile countries, or by squeezing already stretched departmental budgets. Why will the Prime Minister not fund this by increasing taxes on the most wealthy, rather than placing the burden on the poorest?
The Prime Minister
I do not think the plans put forward by the hon. Lady, as far as I have seen them, are realistic. To make a commitment such as the one we have made, we have to put forward a credible, costed plan in which we can say with certainty precisely where the money is coming from. That is why we have taken the difficult decision that we have taken today.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Prime Minister’s statement hits the nail on the head, unlike the rantings of J. D. Vance on European freedom of speech at the Munich security conference. I know the statement will be particularly welcome at the Ealing ex-servicemen’s club, so will the Prime Minister recommit to our veterans, to the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, and to organisations like the Army cadet centre in Acton and the Territorial Army reservists in Wood Lane, either of which would welcome a visit, for those who have served our nation and those who will do so in the future?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I am happy to make that commitment. I ask my hon. Friend to carry that message to her constituents, along with my thanks and those of the Government and the House.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
When the Prime Minister flies off to Washington, he will go with the confidence that this House and the whole country are behind him and wish him well in that very difficult meeting. We know that this country and our continent face possibly the most dangerous moments that we have experienced since the height of the cold war. I welcome his statement on increasing defence spending, which some of us would say is a couple of decades overdue. Will he accept that the benchmark for the success of the defence review is not some arbitrary percentage of what we are spending, but whether we are spending whatever is necessary to give back to our armed forces the warfighting capability that is the only real deterrence that the Russians will respect? I very much doubt that 2.5% or 3% will be enough; I do not say that as a criticism, but because, as a nation, we must be prepared for that.
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his sentiments. At a moment like this, it is important that I am able to carry the House with me as we undertake the next stage of these discussions about the security and defence of Europe. It is a very important generational moment, and this House and this country have always come together and stood up at moments like this. I know he has long been a supporter of increased defence spending and capability, and of the notion that there must be a warfighting capability. He is right about that, which is why we have made the decision we have today.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and his strong leadership. Does he agree that as we rightly reassert the concept of taking responsibility—of responsibility being taken by our own military, people and economy, and by our friends on the continent of Europe—we must also reassert the responsibility of all countries to defend the international rules-based system, which has at its core the concept that bullies must not get away with invading their neighbours? If they do, not only will we dishonour the bravery and sacrifice of our Ukrainian friends, but our collective security will be weakened.
The Prime Minister
Two of those rules-based systems are fundamental: the UN charter and the NATO framework and all the articles in it. Those are hugely important rules-based frameworks that we must absolutely adhere to. I wrote many times about the UN Security Council as a lawyer. In my first appearance at the Security Council, I was sitting at the table with a country that was in clear violation of the charter, and I did not feel at all comfortable.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
I have distinct memories of, three years ago, helping my Ukrainian friends and colleagues flee the country as tanks came towards their homes. Since then, people across Harpenden, Berkhamsted and Tring have opened their doors to those from Ukraine, but the hope that they once had has turned to fear of what is happening globally. Can the Prime Minister assure the British people that when he speaks to President Trump, he will push for lasting peace, and highlight the importance of working with our European colleagues?
The Prime Minister
I thank, through the hon. Lady, everybody in this country who has opened their doors to Ukrainian refugees. I am very proud of the fact that we have done that, and that the Ukrainian flag flies in so many places across the country. I can reassure her constituents that this announcement today and the approach that we are taking are to ensure that peace continues, but for peace to continue, we have to put ourselves and Ukraine in the strongest possible position, and this is a step along that road.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
It is shameful that in such a volatile world, for far too long, conversations around defence spending have involved a lot of hot air and not much hard action. Colleagues from across the House will today have to recognise that the Prime Minister has changed that, with a clear, funded and needed plan for investing in our defence. Supply chains are so important to security, so he will recognise, as I do, that what matters is not just what we spend, but where we spend it. How will he make sure that our whole Government are united in the effort to build up our domestic supply chain capacity, when it comes to key defence assets?
The Prime Minister
This is where the industrial strategy and growth are so important, because as we move to greater defence spend, it is vital that we ensure that supply chains are in this country, as far as they can be, and that they lead to British, well-paid and secure jobs. We know that the defence sector already provides many well-paid jobs across the country. I want more.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Can I say to those who were late, please do not embarrass the Chair by standing?
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
Almost on that point, Mr Speaker, what an abdication of responsibility and duty it is that not a single member of the Reform party is able to ask a question of the Prime Minister this afternoon on these precious issues of defence and security. They are treated with a very different level of seriousness by Members on the Conservative and Government Benches.
Many have asked the Prime Minister about the use of Russian frozen assets. Anybody who has studied the issue with regard to Libya will know just how complicated international law and convention has made the defrosting of frozen assets so that they can be put to proper use. In his discussions in Washington and with the other European leaders, can the Prime Minister press for urgent, collaborative and international reform of those rules, so that those frozen assets can be used to help the Ukrainians and their military to defeat Russian aggression?
The Prime Minister
The point that the hon. Gentleman raises is important. The process is very complicated, for reasons that he will understand. Obviously we have been able to use some of the interest on those frozen assets, which has proved valuable to Ukraine, but we need to work with our European colleagues and to collaborate on other legitimate, proper ways to raise further funding, and we will continue to do that with our allies.
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
I welcome the statement from the Prime Minister. This is a major commitment to our defence; I think it will be heard across the world and welcomed by our allies, particularly those facing Russian or Iranian aggression. How will the Prime Minister ensure that British businesses, which are so crucial to our defence, are supported in their important task?
The Prime Minister
That has to be done through the industrial strategy and the growth strategy that we will put in place, but it is vital that this is seen as not just a duty and responsibility, which it is, but as an opportunity for British businesses, and for well-paid, secure jobs, which are so vital to so many communities.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The Prime Minister knows that he can rely on the support of the SNP when it comes to efforts to restore Ukrainian sovereignty in the face of Russian aggression, despite the baseless rhetoric from those on the Benches behind him. I would like him to acknowledge that.
I welcome the Prime Minister raising defence expenditure to 2.5%, albeit by 2027, which will be three years after the election, despite the pledge being in the Labour party’s manifesto. However, it cannot be right to balance the books at a cost to the poorest in global society, when there is a Government Budget of £1.1 trillion. When he goes to Washington on Thursday and gets his pat on the back from the President of the United States, will he spare a thought for those—predominantly women and children—who will suffer immeasurably, and some of whom will die, as a result of his decision today?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support on Ukraine. The First Minister has set out that support in clear terms in recent days; that is important, and I acknowledge it. We have had to make difficult decisions, but as he and the House know, wherever there is war and conflict, it is the poor and the poorest who are hit hardest. There is no easy way through this, but we have to ensure that we win peace through strength, because anything other than peace will hit the very people the hon. Gentleman has identified harder than anybody else on the planet. That is why it is so important that we have taken the decision we have today.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
National security is the first duty of any Government, so I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement, and his strong leadership today. This Government are rising to the challenge of investing in our defence, whereas the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has said that Vladimir Putin is the leader he admires the most, and that NATO provoked Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Does the Prime Minister share my concern that those comments play right into the hands of Britain’s enemies?
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
No decent Government cut international development budgets lightly. The Prime Minister’s discomfort is plain for all to see and will be shared across the House, but will he look at other things that perhaps present easier choices—in particular, his choice to spend billions of pounds on Mauritius? Will he repurpose that money in defence of our armed forces?
The Prime Minister
Obviously in the short term, we have to make decisions between the here and now and the commitment to 2.5% in 2027. Having looked at the available options, this was the choice that had to be made, and that I think would have been made by any serious Prime Minister making the commitment that I have made today. Of course, we need to look at other things as we go forward from here. Many people across the House have mentioned, and I have set out, the ambition of getting to 3%, but I will put forward only credible costed plans to this House, not fantasy figures. [Interruption.] The Opposition chunter away, but this is a moment for a serious, costed plan. It is not the time for ridiculous, uncosted plans.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. I think the entire House agrees that our safety and that of our allies depends on showing Putin that we have the resolve and resources to defeat him. We are far more prosperous than he is: European NATO’s GDP is $24.5 trillion, and Russia’s is only $2 trillion. Clearly, the matter before us is converting those resources into fighting forces and matériel in the years ahead. Can the Prime Minister assure me that the strategic defence review and our defence industrial strategy will ensure that we have long-term orders that give us the capacity that we need, as well as secure supply chains, inputs such as steel and, of course, the ability to scale rapidly if we need to rearm?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising those points. They are all important, and of course, they have to be hardwired into the work we do as we go forward.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Prime Minister will have the support of both sides of this House when he goes to see President Trump on Thursday. If he fails to encourage the US to become the backstop for Ukraine, though, no matter how much he increases spending in the next couple of years, there will be difficulty. What conversations is the Prime Minister having about a backstop for Europe to make sure that Ukraine gets that support?
The Prime Minister
I am not going to pre-empt the discussions I will have, but the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I absolutely believe that we should play our full part in any security guarantees—if that is what happens; we do not even know whether we will get to that stage—but I also absolutely think there needs to be US backing for that, because I do not think a security guarantee will be operative without that backing.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, because although difficult decisions have had to be taken today, the alternative is inaction—which, of course, is also a decision. Does the Prime Minister agree that the lesson of history is that Ukraine’s survival and its defence are completely indivisible from our own?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I do. That is why I say that this is not just about the sovereignty of Ukraine, but about European defence and security and our own defence and security. We have already paid a heavy price in this country—the contribution we have made has had an effect on our cost of living, our energy prices and so much else—but this is fundamental. It is about our values; it is about our freedom; and it is about understanding who Putin is, and what his ambitions are. We must never forget that.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
With some of our European allies likening our predicament in 2025 to that of 1938, the increase in defence spending announced today by the Prime Minister is welcome, but I am concerned that it will come too late. Will the Prime Minister look at Liberal Democrat proposals to increase the digital services tax, which would raise £3 billion this year?
The Prime Minister
I do not accept the argument that this has come too late. It has come at the point at which we are able to put a credible, costed plan before the House. We have known for three years that this moment was going to come, and the last few weeks have accelerated this and made it more urgent, which is why I have made the statement I have today.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s leadership today. He is undertaking the first duty of any leader, which is the defence of the nation, and reiterating the fundamental British value that our country opposes fascists, and never appeases them. He rightly talked about renewing the social contract with the British people when it comes to jobs, skills and industry. Does he agree that if we are to do that, it must reach every part of our country, including areas that I represent that are far too often left behind?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I do. We must rise to that challenge. Many of the well-paid, skilled jobs in the defence sector are found across the whole United Kingdom. We need to ensure that there are more of those well-paid, skilled jobs across the whole United Kingdom.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, and for acknowledging that although what has been said today is very important, he and the Government will need to come back to us on getting towards 3%. In response to an earlier question, the Prime Minister said that the peace dividend is gone. Does he agree that we also need to look at welfare spending, given that in the current circumstances, no serious country can spend more on welfare than on defence?
The Prime Minister
I do agree with that. The last Government let welfare spending spiral by an additional £30 billion. Some 2.8 million people are out of work because they cannot go to work due to some health-related issue. That is a very high number. It is out of control, and we have to get it back under control.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, with which I agree. Does he agree that Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin showed that the defence of the United Kingdom and Europe against totalitarianism is at the core of this House’s values and those of our party? Does he also agree that what we can learn from their great political lives is that we will face very many difficult public spending decisions over the next decade, and that our moral duty as a Government is to take those decisions, however difficult or heartbreaking they may be?
The Prime Minister
I agree with my hon. Friend. These are difficult decisions with very real consequences, which I acknowledge. As an earlier contributor said, though, the alternative to action is inaction, and in the light of the last three years and particularly the last few weeks, inaction would be completely the wrong thing for our country and our continent.
Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)
I absolutely agree with the Prime Minister that this is an important moment for our nation, and I welcome the rebalancing of expenditure towards defence. However, does he agree that the success of our national security posture will be judged not by percentages but by the strength of the deterrent that we build, and is it his abiding commitment to be unwavering in building such a deterrent?
The Prime Minister
Yes, it is, because I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is the strength of our deterrent that counts in a moment like this. I am very proud of our armed forces—those who have provided so much for so long—but now is a time to ask more of them and to step up.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister spoke about the threat that Russia poses in our waters. Just a few weeks ago, I saw a piece of undersea cable that had been cut, almost certainly by a Russian vessel. What more can the Government do to protect Britain’s undersea infrastructure from foreign attack?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. It is a bit like cyber: the way in which conflict, war and aggression are demonstrated these days is changing, and we must protect our vital assets, including the cables under the sea. I have had extensive conversations with European allies and NATO about how we can better protect that infrastructure.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I have been to war three times, each time working for an American general—General Schwarzkopf in the first Gulf war, the outstanding David Petraeus in the second Gulf war, and General Richard Mills of the US Marine Corps in Afghanistan. One of the lessons that keeps coming up after those wars is that we have to prepare for the fight that we do not want to have. I absolutely welcome the Prime Minister’s statement today. As well as sending the Chancellor into the new defence reform and efficiency team, I encourage him to take a personal interest in the way that this money is spent, in order to prepare us for the fight that we do not want to have.
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his service to his country, and he is absolutely right that we have to prepare for the fight that we do not want to have. I can assure him that as Prime Minister, I have a very keen personal interest, duty and responsibility in all these matters.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
I welcome the statement from my right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister. In places such as Telford—which has a proud defence sector—companies, communities and supply chains need certainty. British taxpayers will be demanding that their money is used to enable British-based companies to support our British troops around the world. Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that each and every pound will be diverted to British industry or British-based industries, enabling them to support our interests around the world?
The Prime Minister
I certainly want that to be the case wherever we can. That is why we will have the plan for reform and efficiency, but that needs to be translated into British skills and secure British jobs in every constituency across the land.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
It is disappointing that the Prime Minister’s statement did not include any reference to the United Nations, or a pathway to end the dreadful conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan or the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Clearly, his statement will have a massive effect on the poorest people in the poorest countries in the world through a cut in overseas aid budgets, but what effect will it have on the poorest people in this country—for example, those disadvantaged by the two-child benefit cap or by the housing crisis that so many face? The Prime Minister says that tough decisions are coming up; what is going to be the effect of the increase in defence spending on the poorest people in this country?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman says I did not mention the UN. The UN charter is at the heart of this, because Russia is in breach of it. Russia is an aggressor that has invaded another country and is occupying part of that country, and it will go further if it is encouraged down that line. That is why we need to take these decisions. It is the first duty of Government to keep our country safe and secure. That is a duty I take extremely seriously. The poorest people in this country would be the first to suffer if the security and safety of our country was put in peril.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister is absolutely right to say that NATO is the bedrock on which we found our alliance. He is absolutely right to say that we can only achieve peace through strength, and he is absolutely right to cut the foreign development budget to pay for a £13.4 billion increase in defence spending. It is a difficult decision, but there is nothing more important than the defence and security of the British people. What conversations has the Prime Minister had or does he hope to have with our European allies about their defence spending? Does he hope to see increases across the continent in the future?
The Prime Minister
As my hon. Friend may know, I have had extensive discussions with all our European allies. Those have been particularly intense over the past three or four weeks, and I will continue to have those discussions, because it is right to say that Europe and the United Kingdom need to step up. We need to do that alongside our allies. That means capability, co-ordination and spending. The best way, in my view, to do that is in a collegiate, collaborative way, working with our allies. That is what I have been doing.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
In a world where our adversaries are intent on blunting our national security and prosperity, I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement and thank him for his commitment to increase defence spending. Can he update the House on what actions the Government are taking to discourage BRICS nations and other emergent high-growth economies from advertently or inadvertently doing anything that would assist Russia in its pursuit of its invasion in Ukraine?
The Prime Minister
This is a really important issue, and it is important that, as well as sanctions, we bear down on those providing assistance to Russia, whether that is countries or individual businesses. We shall continue to do so, working with allies.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
My right hon. and learned Friend the Prime Minister is absolutely right to say that this is a generational moment for this country’s security. I pay tribute to this generation’s armed forces and all those who work in the defence sector, including in Stevenage, where they are refitting the Storm Shadows for use by Ukraine for its security and our security. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the increase in defence spending he has announced today will, done properly, also help the wider economy?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend’s constituents working in Stevenage for their important work. It is important that we make sure that this spending is measured in jobs and secure jobs across the country.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Last night, I attended a concert in Bath abbey called “Together We Stand”. The Ukrainian deputy ambassador was there, and he particularly praised the direct link that my Bath council had formed with the city of Oleksandriya. It has formed such strong people-to-people contact, and it is enduring and provides direct support. What more can the Government do to encourage other councils to form these direct links to Ukrainian communities?
The Prime Minister
I am pleased to hear about that direct link. I think that people-to-people contact is important, both in relation to our appreciation and understanding of what is going on in Ukraine and in relation to the resilience of Ukrainians. I support any such initiatives.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. In particular, I know that the Ukrainian forces on the frontlines will be reassured today. Clearly, the aid spending decision will not have been taken lightly, but following reductions at the US Agency for International Development, it does mean tens of billions out of the global aid system, which could be exploited by Russia and China. Will the Prime Minister consider a deadline for ending the accounting of asylum costs to the aid budget, which is currently 28%, or £4.2 billion of money that should be used on aid spending overseas?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. It is a really difficult decision, and it is important that we make clear that we remain committed to the work we are doing in Gaza, Ukraine and Sudan. It is important, as he rightly says, that we get the asylum numbers down and the processing done so that we can end the ridiculous use of money—money that should be for overseas aid—on hotel bills in this country. That spiralled under the last Government.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
As a veteran, I welcome the move to 2.5%. It is a milestone on the right track to increasing defence spending to 3.0% and probably beyond, particularly given that defence chiefs are reported to have requested 2.65%.
With increasing defence spending and suggestions that British forces may be involved in a peacekeeping mission, along with ongoing support to Ukraine, it is reassuring to see that we are not prepared to acquiesce to Russian belligerence. With that in mind, as the Prime Minister prepares to meet President Trump, will he clarify with the President why the US sided with Russia and North Korea yesterday, voting against the European resolution that Russia should withdraw from Ukraine at the UN General Assembly?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his service. Our position on the UN resolution was clear from the way we voted yesterday. I think that sends a very powerful signal of where we stand, and that is with Ukraine.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement today, his commitment to 2.5% defence spending and his continued engagement with our international partners. As we are a proud maritime nation that is facing threats from Russian interference with undersea cables and from incursion into our waters by the shadow fleet, does he agree that now is the time to bolster our Royal Navy?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I think it is important that we bolster across our forces. There are threats on land, threats in the air, threats at sea and, indeed, threats under the sea. It is important that we can meet all those threats.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I welcome this important statement from the Prime Minister. The Liberal Democrats support an increase in defence budgets and the leadership in Europe that the Prime Minister has described. The Prime Minister spoke about the need for unity and a whole-society approach. He will have heard the concerns from across the House about the way he is proposing to fund this increase in the defence budget, and the deep concern that it will create opportunities for our adversaries, Russia and China, around the world. Will he undertake to meet other parties to build the consensus behind the funding of 2.5% and then 3%, so that we can maintain the unity and the national purpose that he has so eloquently described?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Member for his support and that of his party. That is important at a moment like this. So far as the funding of the 2.5% is concerned, that has been set out today. The commitment on the ambition to get to 3% is something that we need to talk about across this House. I will work with all parties on any issue of the security and defence of our country.
Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has delivered a powerful statement today, and I know that his unwavering commitment to the defence of the realm will be greatly appreciated by my constituents in Stockton North. He mentioned the industrial strategy. Does he agree that we need to start immediately to mobilise our steel, chemicals and shipbuilding industries, working with regional groups such as the Teesside defence and innovation cluster to ensure that we build the capability that we need for our defence supply chains at home?
The Prime Minister
The industrial strategy and steel within it are vitally important, as my hon. Friend and the House will know. Steel and our ability to manufacture it are vital to our security, and we must do everything to ensure that is preserved into the future.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
Scotland wants to play its full part in this great national endeavour at this moment of peril, yet, almost incredibly, tomorrow the Scottish Parliament will discuss stripping defence companies of state funding. It is remarkable. The measure may not pass, of course, and I certainly hope it does not. Will the defence industrial strategy take into account what is happening in Scotland, where certain elements seem to be siding with other national interests, so that we can protect our defence industry and this great country?
The Prime Minister
Across the country, it is important that we stand by our defence sector and enhance our defence sector. We should thank those who work in it for what they are doing. Today’s announcement will mean that there is more yet to do.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, this Government’s unwavering support for Ukraine and this very necessary decision to increase defence spending. As someone whose close family has served in our armed forces, I know that over the years as a country, we have not always provided our servicemen and women with the equipment and support that they deserve. Can the Prime Minister reassure the House that this funding will be used to ensure that our servicemen and women are provided with that equipment and that support and with respect, given that they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for our country?
The Prime Minister
Yes, that is hugely important, and we will ensure that we do so. I had a family member who served and whose ship went down, and I will never forget the agony that my mother went through until she knew for sure that he was safe. That is what is on the line each and every day for our armed services.
Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)
I thank the Prime Minister for his very strong statement. He has talked of a national security position, a whole-society response and a time for us all to pull together. May I ask him to ensure that Northern Ireland businesses are part of that national response? May I also ask the Government to recognise and support the strategic and long-term importance of the Aldergrove military base and RAF station in Northern Ireland, which is able to contribute to not only our national but our international defence? Will the Prime Minister ask the Secretary of State for Defence to meet me to discuss those two issues?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the question of Northern Ireland. It is important for this to be a whole-United Kingdom effort and contribution, and for us to ensure that those opportunities are there across the whole United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. I will of course ask the Defence Secretary for that meeting, and I am sure he will agree to it.
David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)
I spent all last week in Ukraine, and had the opportunity to meet a Defence Minister and a number of soldiers on the frontline. The Defence Minister painted a bleak picture of the situation there, including the fact that Russian production of arms continues to go up and up and up. Meanwhile, the soldiers I spoke to on the frontline are facing unimaginable challenges, and need much more resources to win this fight. I strongly welcome the announcement that defence spending will reach 2.5%, that support for Ukraine will be increased and that defence spending will reach 3% in the future, because I am convinced that we face an existential crisis in the world.
However, as one who founded the Labour Campaign for International Development, I am pained by today’s other news, and I hope we can get back on track for 0.7% as soon as possible. In that spirit, may I draw the Prime Minister’s attention to the last Labour Government’s record of thinking of innovative and different ways of securing development finance, and may I ask him to meet me, and other Labour Members with development experience, to consider alternative ways of financing support for development, such as special drawing rights from the International Monetary Fund and more debt relief?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his commitment to international development. He is absolutely right about that, and we will of course work across the House on alternative and innovative ways in which to support development around the world.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
I welcome the Prime Minister’s announcements wholeheartedly, and encourage him to get to 3% as soon as possible. However, we do not just need a monetary value; we need to know how and where the money will be spent, and that will be done through the strategic defence review, which gives assurance to our allies, deterrence to our enemies and, most important, confidence in our troops. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the SDR will be published in the spring—in a couple of weeks’ time—or will it be delayed until June, as the statement seemed to suggest?
The Prime Minister
I did not mean to imply that in the statement; I was referring to the security strategy. The SDR is well under way, and as soon it has been completed I will put it before the House, but what is most important is for us to get it right rather than meeting a timeline. I am not seeking to delay it, but I am absolutely clear in my own mind that we need to ensure that we understand the challenges we face, and the capability.
I am particularly struck by the developments that have taken place during the three years of the conflict in Ukraine. The way in which the fighting started three years ago is very different from the way in which it is happening now. I was there a few weeks ago, and among the things I took away was the need for us to learn the lessons of Ukraine and bind them into what we are doing, rather than thinking that we are dealing with the world of even two or three years ago. That is why I want to ensure that this is the right review and the right strategy to put before the House.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
Let me start by drawing attention to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in respect of the GMB defence manufacturing trade union. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to rebuilding the UK’s industrial capacity in defence.
All Governments face a balance between international collaboration and avoiding dependency on complex supply chains which can limit freedom of action, as some of our allies have found in their attempts to aid Ukraine. Does the Prime Minister agree that one of the objectives of the spending announced today must be to maintain and strengthen our sovereign freedom to aid our allies and defend our own shores?
The Prime Minister
I do agree with that, and I agree with my hon. Friend’s comments about the supply chains, which are vital to the security effort.
Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)
The former United States Defence Secretary Jim Mattis once said:
“If you don’t fund the State Department fully, then I need to buy more ammunition ultimately.”
Can the Prime Minister not see that funding this uplift through official development assistance is short-sighted and a strategic and moral mistake, because prevention is cheaper than wars, because this gives more leverage to Russia and China, and because we do it on the backs of the world’s poorest? In fact, it is something that I never thought I would see a Labour Government do, and a pitiful inheritance from 1997. Given that it is a policy choice and not a retrospective fiscal one, and given that it is in direct contravention of the law passed here in 2015, which rules out the link between levels of defence and development funding, will this Labour Government be repealing that law?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is right to say that prevention is better than war—that is why it is important that we prepare our defence to be able to secure and maintain the peace, and that is precisely why I made my statement today—but she is wrong about the law, and we are not going to repeal it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a surprise not to be called last, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. It has encouraged everyone in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and we thank him for that. As for an increase in defence spending from 2.5% to 3%, let me gently remind the House that during the cold war it was 7%—so we have a bit to go yet to catch up, but there we are.
The new defence and security agreement with Norway is to be welcomed, but I am a great believer in ensuring, while we build new rooms in a house for new family members, that existing family members are comfortable at home with us. What discussions has the Prime Minister had with our closest ally, the United States of America, about aligning our defence strategies and solidifying the network of information-sharing?
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. We already work closely with Norway on defence and security, and we want to enhance and strengthen that, which the bilateral relationship will do. Of course we need to work with the United States, and I will be leaving for the US tomorrow. I have already had a number of conversations with President Trump, and our teams are speaking continually about these very important matters.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the ever-patient Charlotte Cane to ask the final question.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I welcome much of what was in the Prime Minister’s statement, particularly what he said about our continued support for the brave people of Ukraine, but I was shocked by what he has described as a difficult and painful decision to cut overseas aid. I suggest that it was nowhere near as difficult and painful as it will be for the very poorest families who find that our aid is no longer there for them. It is also hugely short-sighted, because helping communities to be stable and secure reduces the risk of war and unrest. Will the Prime Minister please assure us that he will look for less damaging ways of funding this much-needed increase in defence expenditure?
The Prime Minister
It is a difficult decision—there is no getting away from that—but we cannot have a situation in which Members of this House stand up and support 2.5%, heading to 3%, and then cannot agree, or will not take the difficult decisions that are necessary in order to get there. I am not pretending that this is an easy decision, and I am certainly not pretending that it is a decision I wanted to make as Prime Minister. It is a decision that I am driven to make for the security and safety of our country and our continent.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the Prime Minister. We got in all the Members who were bobbing throughout.
Warm Home Discount
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Miatta Fahnbulleh)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the action we are taking to protect families in the face of the global spike in gas prices. In recent months, wholesale gas prices have risen to their highest level in two years. They are up nearly 15% compared with the previous price cap period. As a result, this morning Ofgem announced the energy price cap will rise by around £9 a month between April and June. We know this will be unwelcome news for families across the country that are already worried about their bills, but as Ofgem’s chief executive officer, Jonathan Brearley, said today,
“our reliance on international gas markets leads to volatile wholesale prices, and continues to drive up bills”.
This week marks three years since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and once again the British people are paying the price of our country being exposed to fossil fuel markets controlled by petrostates and dictators. The truth is that every day we remain stuck on gas is another day families, businesses and, indeed, the public finances are at risk from these kinds of price spikes. That is why sprinting to home-grown, clean energy is the only way to end our exposure and our vulnerability as a country. In the meantime, we are determined to do all that we can to protect people, and today I want to set out the measures we are taking.
First, we want to provide greater help to the most vulnerable in time for next winter. The warm home discount currently gives around 3 million families a £150 rebate on their energy bills. The current system provides help to those on means-tested benefits, but excludes millions of people in homes not classified as hard to heat, as a result of criteria introduced by the last Government in 2022. These criteria are seen by many as arbitrary and unreliable, and they mean there are families in almost exactly the same circumstances with some receiving help and others not.
Today, we have announced that we will consult on proposals to abolish this restriction, meaning all households receiving means-tested benefits would be eligible for bills support next winter—from 3 million families in the current system to more than 6 million with our proposals—so that one in five families in Britain would get help with their bills through this scheme, including an additional 900,000 families with children and a total of 1.8 million households in fuel poverty. This Government are determined to do everything in our power to help people struggling to pay their energy bills and support the most vulnerable in our society.
Secondly, because of our exposure to fossil fuels, the cost of living crisis saw bills rocket to £2,500 and families plunged into unstable debt—debt that continues to accumulate today. In the system we have inherited, every bill payer pays for managing this debt burden. We are determined to act on behalf of those in debt and all the bill payers who are paying the costs of it. So we are working closely with Ofgem to accelerate proposals on a debt relief scheme that will support households that have built up unsustainable energy debt through the crisis and have no way of paying it. This will be an important first step to cut the costs of servicing bad energy debt, and under these plans the target would be to reduce the debt allowance paid by all bill payers to pre-crisis levels.
Thirdly, we know that one of the best answers to high bills is upgrading homes so that they are cheaper to run, so we will shortly announce the details of around £0.5 billion pounds of funding under the warm homes local grant and £1.3 billion under the warm homes social housing fund to invest in home upgrades over the coming years and cut fuel poverty. In all, up to 300,000 households will benefit from upgrades in the next financial year through our warm homes plan—whether it is new insulation, double glazing, a heat pump or rooftop solar panels—which is more than double the number supported in the last financial year. We will also ensure that landlords invest in energy efficiency upgrades that will make homes warmer and bring down costs for tenants, lifting up to 1 million people out of fuel poverty, so that we are doing everything we can to ensure people have the security of a home they can afford to heat.
Fourthly, we are clear that we need a regulator that fights for consumers. That is why we have called on Ofgem to use its powers to the maximum to protect consumers by challenging unlawful back billing, taking action on inaccurate bills, driving the smart meter roll-out, giving every family the option of a zero standing charge tariff so they have more choice in how they pay for their energy, and ensuring that compensation is given for wrongful installation of prepayment meters. We are moving forward on our review of Ofgem to ensure it has the powers it needs to stand up for consumers and clamp down on poor behaviour by energy companies.
This set of measures shows a Government willing to use all the powers at our disposal to help protect consumers. However, important as these measures are, I must stress to the House that there is no proper solution to rising energy bills while this country remains exposed to the rollercoaster of fossil fuel markets. That is why this Government are moving at speed to deliver clean power by lifting the onshore wind ban in England, consenting nearly 3 GW of solar, setting up Great British Energy, delivering a record-breaking renewables auction, making it easier to build the next generation of new nuclear power stations, and getting on with the job of implementing the reforms to the planning system, the grid and renewables auctions set out in our clean power action plan.
I have to report to the House, however, that despite the importance of this mission and the fact that we are running it, we continue to receive representations from Opposition parties not to speed up, but to slow down and to reject solar power, reject onshore wind, reject offshore wind and reject new transmission infrastructure—representations that, if accepted, would leave us more vulnerable and more insecure, with the British people paying the price. Let me tell the House that we will reject those representations. We know that every solar panel we put up, every wind turbine we build and every piece of transmission infrastructure we construct makes us more secure, and every time the Conservatives oppose those measures, they double down on their legacy of leaving this country exposed and the British people deeply vulnerable.
This Government will do whatever it takes to stand up for working people now and in the future—protecting families and businesses from the consequences of global events, driving forward our plans to bring down bills for good and doing everything in our power to support those most in need. I commend this statement to the House.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. Today, the Government have announced an expansion of the warm home discount, with a change to the criteria that will see more low-income households receive a £150 payment to heat their homes, but for many this payment will be immediately eaten up by the increase in the energy price cap. We must be clear that the best protection for vulnerable households is to prioritise cheap energy. The announcement today is, frankly, a sticking-plaster approach to rising energy bills.
This Government fail to grasp the core issue: energy costs in this country are far too high for businesses, industry and, of course, bill payers. When the energy price cap rose in 2022, the now Secretary of State called it a “national emergency”. He called for an urgent freeze on energy bills and cited a lack of leadership. Now that he is in government, the only thing he is able to freeze is vulnerable pensioners by taking away their winter fuel allowance with no notice. Does the Minister think that shows leadership? I know that my constituents, and presumably hers too, will be concerned about their bills rising, concerned about inflation creeping back up—hitting 3% in January, despite the hard work done last year to bring it under control—and angry that Labour’s promise to cut bills by £300 is being broken.
The worst part of all of this is that this Government, led by ideological zealotry from the Secretary of State, are doubling down. Their obsession with going further and faster than any country in the world to meet their own self-imposed 2030 target is going to increase people’s bills even further. The renewables industry has warned that their rush to build record renewables in the next five years will push up prices and “consumers will lose out”. The Government’s rush to build twice as much grid in the next five years as was built in the last decade will increase the network costs on people’s bills. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that the environmental levies will increase to £14 billion in 2030, largely driven by the hidden cost of renewables, all of which will end up on people’s energy bills.
The Labour party was not honest about its promise during the election to cut bills by £300, it was not honest about its plan to take the winter fuel payment away from millions of pensioners living in poverty, and now it is not being honest with the British people about what its plans will do to our energy bills. If we have learned anything over the past few years, it is that the cost of energy is absolutely critical to any modern economy. We cannot go on following ideology over evidence and putting political targets ahead of what will cut the cost of energy in this country. However, this Government are in denial, which is why they scrapped the full system cost analysis commissioned when the Conservatives were in office.
Will the Minister say when proposals for a debt relief scheme will be published? Will she confirm by how much she expects levies to increase over the next five years? Will she commission a full system cost analysis of what the 2030 target will do to people’s energy bills? Will she confirm by how much bills will rise before we see the £300 off, which we were all promised?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The hon. Gentleman is right that energy prices are too high—on that, we agree. We also agree that that is worrying for families and businesses across the country. However, I would point out that 80% of this rise has been driven by wholesale prices. I would also gently remind him that the reason we are in this position—the reason we are so exposed to global fossil fuel prices over which we have no control—is because the Conservatives spent 14 years in government squandering the opportunity to accelerate the transition to clean power and reduce our dependence on global fossil fuel prices, leaving families across the country exposed.
The status quo is not tenable. We are at a point where energy prices are at an historic high, and we got here under his Government. That is a status quo that we are not willing to contend with. That is the reason—not because of ideology, but because we see the obvious: as long as we are dependent on global fossil fuel prices, we will be on this rollercoaster. That is what is driving the push to clean power. While the Conservatives have no alternatives, we have a clear alternative: we run to clean power; and while we do that, we support the most vulnerable households in the short term.
To answer the shadow Minister’s question, Ofgem is in the process of consulting on the debt support scheme as we speak, and we will support it to put that in place. We know that the debt burden has increased by £3.8 billion, and more than 1.8 million households in need of help will be supported by that scheme. We are absolutely committed to cutting bills—everything we are doing as a Government is driven by that desire and clear commitment. We will do that both through short-term measures and, critically, by running at clean power by 2030.
We have a plan to deal with energy bills. The Opposition have a plan to slow down and do nothing, and it will be the British public who pay the price.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
It is clear that the Conservative party left this country dependent on global fossil fuel supplies, which both burn the planet and are damaging in terms of price controls. However, the Tories left something else as well: a rigged energy market, which gave £480 billion to the energy industry yet left 8 million households—probably 17 million people—in fuel poverty, spending more than 10% of their income on energy.
It is therefore welcome that the Minister has today announced an additional £150 for the warm home discount, but that, as I understand it, is a one-off payment for next winter. A £150 one-off payment will not resolve the underlying problem—today, the regulator has increased the cap by £111 or £108, depending on how it is calculated, per year on an ongoing basis. I welcome the Government’s announcement and recognise the Minister’s commitment to changing the way that things work. However, will my hon. Friend confirm to the House that the Government intend to end this rigged market, which works in favour of the profiteers, and tackle the scourge of fuel poverty, while at the same time securing a just transition to clean energy?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have an energy market that does not work sufficiently in the interest of consumers, and we are committed to turning that around. That is why we are reforming the electricity market, why we are trying to drive forward a shift from fossil fuels to clean power, and why we are putting in place the review of Ofgem, to ensure that customers and consumers are at the very heart of everything we do in the energy market. This is an important step to supporting households in the short term. We took action this winter, with up to £1 billion of support through Government and industry to help the most vulnerable customers, and the measures announced today will ensure that we will provide support next winter. However, it is not the end of our ambition; it is the start of our ambition to reform the energy market.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. It is deeply troubling that we remain so reliant on the foreign gas markets and that, as a result, vulnerable people in this country will see an increase in their bills.
I completely welcome the proposals to expand the warm home discount. No one should have to choose between heating and eating—we all know that. However, the reality is that we have to get beyond that issue and reduce consumption, instead of just handing public money to our energy giants. The Lib Dems have been calling for a 10-year emergency home insulation plan for a long time, and it was disappointing that the amendment tabled to the Great British Energy Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Pippa Heylings) was not taken up, so I would be grateful if that could be looked at again in any other scope.
What timeline can we expect for the upgrade of building standards for new homes and the decent homes standard for existing properties, so that people are not having to consume as much electricity and gas? Until all homes are properly insulated, what progress has been made on requiring all energy companies to sign up to a single social tariff, paying particular attention to the pensioners left cold after the removal of the winter fuel allowance?
I was contacted by Michael from H2-ecO, a company that does lots of retrofitting, who told me about the home upgrade grant, affectionately known as HUG, which is ending in March, when it is due to be replaced immediately, with continuity, by the warm homes local grant. The company was told on Friday that it will not be continued, and that there will be a pause—five weeks before the scheme ends. People have been told that they would be able to pre-register, but now they are told that there will be a pause. They asked me to tell you that they are concerned that they will lose their contractors [Interruption.] Sorry—not you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but the Minister. I apologise.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. You have two minutes for your contribution, and you are just over that. If you could come to a conclusion, that would be great.
Vikki Slade
I absolutely will, Madam Deputy Speaker. They asked me to ask you—sorry, they asked me to ask the Minister what guarantee can be offered that the scheme will open immediately, and not be slowed by reviews, and when will you set out your long-term plans before 2026?
Madam Deputy Speaker
When will you set those out, Minister, since I will not be responding at the Dispatch Box?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
The hon. Lady is right that insulating and upgrading people’s homes is the route by which we will reduce bills and deliver homes that are warmer and cheaper to run. That is why we are absolutely committed to the warm homes plan. Rather than there being a pause, we are running at this.
Next financial year, 300,000 homes will be upgraded, which is double the number in the previous financial year, and that is just the start for our warm homes plan. We are working with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to bring forward the future homes and buildings standards. Critically, we have spoken to industry, installers and local government, and we are acutely aware that there should and cannot be a hiatus. We are moving forward with the local grant and the warm homes social housing scheme to ensure that there is not one. I ask the hon. Lady to write with the specifics of that scheme, because we are trying to design it to stop that.
Critically, on the social tariff, we are clear that clean power is the route by which we will bear down on energy costs in the long term, but that we will need to support the most vulnerable customers as we get there. There are different ways to design a social tariff, and we are looking at options for how to support the most vulnerable at the moment, and the warm home discount is a key part of delivering that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Luke Murphy, a member of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
Many of my constituents, like others across the country, will be concerned about the increase in their energy bills announced today. I therefore welcome the Government’s extension of the warm home discount, as well as the measures to tackle unsustainable debt and push the regulator to do more to support consumers.
I must say that the shadow Minister talks as if his Government left a legacy of low energy prices, when it was his Government who left an appalling legacy of high energy prices. I have stood in both this Chamber and Westminster Hall and heard shadow Ministers attack renewables and electric vehicles—do they not realise that they are attacking the very means of bringing down the cost of energy? Does the Minister agree that our clean energy mission and renewables is the fastest way to ensure we end our dependence on volatile fossil fuels, which also leaves us at the mercy of Vladimir Putin?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank my hon. Friend—that was well said.
The Conservative party left us with the highest energy prices that we have seen in a generation. That is a legacy that, quite frankly, should see them hang their heads in shame. Rather than criticising us for trying to unpick and deal with their legacies, I would strongly caution them to support our action. [Interruption.] It is their legacy!
My hon. Friend is right: the way that we get out of this bind, left by and inherited from the Conservative party, is through clean power, delivering renewables that we know are cheaper and clean power by 2030. My hon. Friend is right; the Conservative party continues to be misguided. Thankfully, we are in the driving seat.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call a member of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, Bradley Thomas.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Rising energy costs affect not just households but industry. Sir Jim Ratcliffe has said that deindustrialising Britain is a false economy because it “shifts production and emissions elsewhere”. Can the Minister tell the House what is more important: chasing an arbitrary target or protecting industry and jobs?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Businesses are under pressure from high energy prices. We know that. Again, I remind Conservative party Members that given their legacy, they should perhaps be a bit more humble about that. We are working with industry and it recognises that the way to drive down energy bills is through clean power. The Confederation of British Industry came out this week saying that our energy revolution is good for business. It is the route to lower energy costs for business and to creating jobs across the country. We have a plan, not just for energy bills but for jobs and the economy, which is rooted in clean energy, and that is much better than the legacy that we have inherited.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
Thousands of my constituents are still dealing with the cost of living crisis, finding themselves in debt because energy prices hit record levels under the previous Government. Energy prices continuing to go up makes those constituents’ lives more difficult, so I welcome the Minister’s statement. Will she, however, provide further reassurance about the immediate action the Government can take to regulate energy companies who are taking their customers for a ride, such as the thousands of my constituents who still do not have meters in their homes and who are being billed unlawfully for backdated energy and, in some cases, energy that they have not used? Will the Minister give the House further reassurance that there needs to be immediate action, as well as a long-term plan from the Government to see the transition to clean energy?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the cost of living crisis that blights constituencies across the country, with many people facing energy debt totalling £3.8 billion. She is also right, however, to point out that there are things that must be done to ensure that customers are served by the energy market. That is why we are ensuring that the regulator has the power—we are also instructing it to use the ones it has—to ensure that things such as back billing, which we know is an issue, do not happen. The rules are very clear and we need them to be enforced to ensure that when customers do not receive the best customer service from their suppliers, there are consequences. Our review of Ofgem is to ensure that it has the powers it needs to be that champion for consumers. In the end, the energy market must work in the interest of people. We agree that that is not happening at the moment and it must happen after we reform it.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
In the UK, electricity prices are linked to the global fossil fuel market, which is at the bottom of UK households’ paying the highest energy costs in Europe. To fix that, the use of a single levy-controlled system has been suggested, with two simple rates—one for electricity and one for gas—set by Ministers. That would allow the Government to manage the cost for households and lower prices, especially for clean energy. Will the Minister look into that suggestion? I am happy to meet her to go through those details further.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Our reform of the energy market arrangements looks at all the aspects of our electricity market that are not working. The Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen (Michael Shanks) is looking at that question and the Department is willing to work across the House to ensure we get to the right arrangements. As long as gas continues to drive the cost of energy, that will create a problem and have an impact on consumers. We are alive to that question and will report on that in due course.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her statement. I hear from many constituents who suffer with energy debt as a result of the previous Government’s failure to protect billpayers during the energy crisis. Many of them are petrified, unable to move or change providers. I welcome the proposed acceleration of a debt relief scheme, but can the Minister provide more details on how that will help families in my constituency of Portsmouth North?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We know that energy debt is a big problem. I have spoken to people across the country who are suffering with accumulated debt that they have no way of paying, with many having to forfeit energy as a consequence. Ofgem is consulting on a range of options, but at the heart of that is the principle that there needs to be a debt relief scheme. Whether we write off some of the energy debt that cannot be paid, or put in place payment plans, we want to ensure that those 1.8 million households have the opportunity to drive that debt in a way that means their energy will be sustainable. That is absolutely critical. It deals with the legacy of the energy crisis and the fact that many households have had to accumulate debt because they just could not pay £2,500. It is an important step and one that we are keen to support the regulator to deliver.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I entirely agree with the Government that, as the Minister said in her statement, we should not be “paying the price of our country being exposed to fossil fuel markets controlled by petrostates and dictators.” Given that we cannot move completely to clean energy tomorrow, why do the Government insist on closing down and, indeed, concreting over our potential fossil fuel gas reserves until such time as we can move completely to clean energy? Why should we import it from other states while piously saying that we will not extract it from beneath our own country?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
There will be a role for gas in our energy mix, but we are very clear that the route and the quickest way to getting ourselves off that dependence is through clean power. We have made a decision that we will put our energy into driving clean power by 2030. In the end, that is the quickest and best route to delivering for consumers and businesses and ensuring that we can deliver energy security, which we all, across the House, agree will deliver financial security for families across the country.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I thoroughly welcome the statement, particularly on the reform of Ofgem and back billing. It is a key plank in the just transition as we move away from a rigged energy market that is totally reliant on imports of gas from dictators such as Putin. It is not, however, just about the transition to renewables. Does the Minister agree that in that transition we will also create hundreds of thousands of new green jobs right across the UK, including in Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, covering onshore wind, offshore wind, geothermal, tidal and solar?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. At the heart of this is the opportunity to create jobs and boost local economies across the country. That is good not just for our energy independence and family finances, but for every single part of our economy. That is why, rather than slowing down, we are committed to accelerating to deliver clean power by 2030.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Families and businesses obviously operate in an environment with lots of different costs. When they see increases in their tax bills, the burdens of potential new regulation and additional energy costs, they are bound to challenge themselves on what they can afford to invest. The Minister is clear on the Government’s strategic direction, but does she not accept that in the short and medium term the burdens during the journey to change are enormous for business and will have a massive effect on the level of investment in this country? Does that not concern her?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I challenge the right hon. Member on this matter. Businesses are completely behind us because they can see that clean power is the route by which we reduce energy costs and, critically, create jobs and invest in our industry. That is good not just for people’s pockets, and for dealing with the energy problem, which we know we have to deal with, and the affordability problem, but, ultimately, for the economy. It is good for business. This is a win-win situation. It is a shame that the Conservative party cannot see it, because it is obvious to us, obvious to industry, and obvious to businesses across the country. That is why we will continue to power forward with our plans.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
The previous Conservative Government abjectly failed to insulate our leaky homes and get our home heating systems ready to take advantage of the cheaper, clean energy that Labour is now creating. In addition to the very welcome discount that the Minister has announced today, does she agree that Labour’s plan to upgrade hundreds of thousands of homes with heat pumps and better insulation next year is a vital part of this Government’s commitment to lowering household bills?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is completely right: the previous Government failed to insulate and upgrade enough homes to protect people from energy price hikes. Conservative Members are hanging their heads in shame and rightly so. She is also right that we are committed to upgrading hundreds of thousands of homes. That is critical. The way that we ensure that households are insulated from price rises and the way that we drive down prices is to upgrade those homes. That is a central part of our plan. We are already running at it with 300,000 homes in the coming year, but we will build on that, because we want to ensure that homes across the country benefit.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call a member of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Chopping and changing home upgrade schemes, as we saw under the previous Conservative Government, causes uncertainty and confusion, which is damaging for both consumers and installers alike. Will this Government avoid that mistake by setting out long-term plans for energy efficiency schemes that go beyond 2026?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
One hundred per cent. We need a long-term plan, so that every part of the system can respond to that. Our warm homes plan will try to set a long-term trajectory, so that we can marshal every part of the system necessary to deliver hundreds of thousands of upgrades, year in, year out.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
May I welcome the Minister’s announcement around the expansion of the warm home discount scheme? About 160,000 homes in my region will get £150 more help with their energy bills, but, clearly, the root cause of higher prices is higher natural gas prices, which have doubled since the election in July 2024. We know that natural gas is 50% to 75% more expensive than wind and solar, because the sun and the wind are free, and natural gas is not. Can the Minister assure me that we will get into clean energy by 2030, so that we can get our energy bills down for good?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I thank my hon. Friend for making the point so well. He is absolutely right that this is the route by which we can deliver cheaper energy. I can assure him that we are committed to driving this for the reasons that he said. This is the way that we break the stranglehold that we are in. This is the way that we get off this rollercoaster of price rises and price falls that is impacting households across the country. The commitment is there, and we are running with that commitment.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
Yet again, an Energy Minister comes to the House to tell us that they are moving at pace. The only thing moving at pace is the last shred of credibility from that Department as it talks about protecting consumers from higher energy prices. Let us not forget that this is the Labour party that stripped 900,000 Scottish pensioners of their winter fuel payment, and that told us that fuel prices would go down £300, when they are now £600 higher than the level it promised they would be ahead of the election. Can the Minister explain three things to me? Did the Labour party profoundly misunderstand how energy in the United Kingdom works, or was it misleading the electorate? Why is it that the Minister is making such a big deal about Ofgem doing its actual job of getting after back billing? Should it not be doing that anyway? Why is that an announcement? Thirdly, when will consumers in GB finally see some response from this Government about higher energy bills?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I remind the hon. Member that the Scottish Government have jurisdiction in this area. We are working in collaboration with them to deliver this, but the Scottish Government do have responsibility in this area and he knows it. We are committed to bearing down on energy bills—of course we are. It is the central driving mission of everything that we are doing as a Government. It has been eight months. I hope that everyone can see from what we have done—whether it is removing the ban on onshore wind, whether it is a record-breaking auction, or whether it is the plans that we have to support the most vulnerable households—that we are running at this. We take our commitment seriously, and we are doing everything in our power to drive it. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reminds his colleagues in Scotland that they should be using the power that they have, including with the warm home discount, to protect their consumers.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. This extra support will make a huge difference to residents in my constituency of Harlow. One of the issues with living in a post-war new town is that all the houses were built at roughly the same time, so the issues of insulation all appear at roughly the same time. At this morning’s crisis summit, which I and the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) attended, there was a strong feeling that cross-departmental communication is key to ensuring that funding gets to the people who need it the most. Does the Minister agree?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. That is why we are working with the Department for Work and Pensions and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and across Government, to target this support at households, so that we are helping people who we know are struggling.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
It was interesting to hear the Minister say how humble we on the Conservative Benches should be. Clearly, the Secretary of State for Energy, Security and Net Zero is so humble that he has not even bothered to turn up for this supposedly important statement. It is no more than a smokescreen, as we are seeing energy bills go up yet again. When will my constituents see the £300 energy cut that was promised by the Government? The Minister talked about international markets. Why on earth are this Government not looking again at drilling in the North sea? It is vital that we do so today; then, rather than just helping out a little bit with means-tested benefits, they could perhaps afford to do more for my constituents who are on £12,000 or £13,000 a year, and for pensioners who are losing their winter fuel payments this very year. Why will they not take a look at that?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
Given the legacy of the right hon. Gentleman’s party, a bit more humility is warranted. We are committed to driving down energy bills. Everything that the Department is doing hinges on the central task of getting clean power. Everyone, including the regulator and industry, recognises that prices are going up because of our reliance on global fossil fuels. We are committed to dealing with that, and to providing support to the most vulnerable. We are taking action. The Conservatives were in power for 14 years and did absolutely nothing. Absolute shame on them.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. Will my hon. Friend join me in praising the work of Citizens Advice teams, such as those that I have seen in my constituency of Rugby, who provide really useful support? They help people to navigate the numerous support schemes that the Government have put in place. They also deal with debt management and income maximisation. They are helping our constituents at a difficult time with the cost of living crisis that we inherited. Does she agree that this is valuable work that deserves our continuing support?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is completely right. Citizens Advice teams, and the network of third-party organisations and charities that they work with, are providing some of the most vital support to our constituents at a really difficult time. Citizens Advice is a key partner. We work with it and engage with it. I am going across the country meeting its teams, because we absolutely need their help to target support at the most vulnerable.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
I thank the Minister for her statement, but not for the madness contained within it. Recently, we have discovered a new gas field in Lincolnshire. We could frack the gas, yet we are still importing fracked gas from the United States, which is creating all sorts of mayhem in the atmosphere. Does the Minister agree that it would be better for the environment if we fracked our own gas, rather than importing it from America?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I am disappointed that the hon. Member did not listen to my statement. If he had listened to it properly, he would not have come up with that statement. Once again, there will be a mix, but we are clear that the quickest route to driving down energy bills is through clean power by 2030. That is sprinting at it. There is no other route to delivering energy security and financial security for our country. The industry is behind us on this, and we are working to deliver it.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the support in this statement, and the fact that 300,000 houses will be insulated in the next year. Does the Minister agree that the only long-term solution that will lead to energy security is our clean power plan? It will be good for areas like mine. The Confederation of British Industry pointed out yesterday that the green economy is growing three times quicker than the wider economy in this country. People want us to speed up, not slow down.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is 100% right. This is the route by which we will deliver for people’s pockets and, critically, deliver the jobs that we need across the country and boost our economy. We are clear-sighted about what needs to be done. It is a shame that the Conservative party is so blinkered.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
We need to produce more energy at home from renewables and oil and gas, as we need a diverse energy mix in the UK. That will help us to deal with the volatile global energy markets. When will the Government change course and support the UK’s oil and gas industry, including the cluster based in north-east Scotland, and issue new oil and gas licences to help bring down bills for residents across the country and in my constituency?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I direct the hon. Member to the clean power plan, and the analysis done on the way to deliver energy security. We are clear that this is the quickest and best route by which to do that. In the end, one thing guides what we do: the need to get lower bills for the long term. We believe that this is the way to do it. The rest of the system agrees with us, from the regulator through to NESO. Our job is to crack on and deliver that.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement, which has practical steps to support people with their bills, and a long-term plan, delivered at speed, to transition to a resilient, sustainable, clean energy system that takes advantage of the incredible advances in renewables in recent years. Offshore wind is providing really low-cost power, underpinned by UK-led innovation in technologies such as hydrogen. The Minister has laid out ambitious plans for supporting households in upgrading their homes, and has made excellent early progress on those upgrades. Will she continue working in partnership with UK innovators and manufacturers to make it not just possible but easy for homeowners to keep their homes warm with dependable, clean and affordable energy?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
My hon. Friend is completely right. We are committed to working with industry on upgrading our homes. We believe that that is the way to drive down bills, but we need to make this as easy as possible for consumers across the country. We are working with industry and across the piece to deliver at pace.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I welcome many of the measures in the statement, although I echo the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) that we consider decoupling electricity and gas prices; that would make such a difference. In 2023, Sutton council was blocked by the opposition Conservative group from partaking of an EU grant to help upgrade some of our council houses to energy performance certificate rating C. I welcome the warm homes social housing fund, but I encourage the Minister and the rest of the Government to increase the amounts available in these funds, so that we reward as often as possible councils that are ambitious to provide better, warmer homes for their residents.
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are committed to working with local and regional government. We are increasing the support provided and are ensuring that it is long-term support, because we agree that the route to insulating lots of homes is through partnerships with local and regional governments, to deliver homes that are warmer and cheaper to run.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Northern Ireland is the only region of this United Kingdom where the warm home discount scheme is not available. Since 2011, the UK Government have failed to grasp this issue. The reason given is that fuel poverty is a devolved issue, but the same can be said of Scotland and Wales. When the price increase in Northern Ireland is announced next week, the assistance will not be available. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this matter? Furthermore, will she open conversations with the Northern Ireland Executive about righting this wrong?
Miatta Fahnbulleh
We are reaching out to and working with the Northern Ireland Executive. I would be happy to meet on this issue.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
Extending the warm home discount to all households that receive means-tested benefits could make a difference to many, especially those who have not received their winter fuel payment this winter. However, £150 off will not go far enough to help the 56% of adults in Wales likely to ration their energy over the next three months, according to National Energy Action Cymru. With the energy price cap rising again in April, will the Minister admit that we need long-term solutions that ensure energy affordability, such as the social energy tariff, which I have asked for since I came to this House last July, in order to support—
Miatta Fahnbulleh
I agree that we need long-term solutions. That is why we have talked constantly about the clean power mission, and why we are clear that while we make the transition to clean power, we will support the most vulnerable households. As an important first step, we are extending support next winter to over 6 million people who we know are struggling. We will continue to build on that in the weeks and months ahead.
Points of Order
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the statement on defence and security, the leader of the Scottish National party, the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), described Reform UK MPs as Putin’s puppets and said that they were missing from the Chamber during the statement. That is not true. I was present for the Prime Minister’s statement, left for a comfort break and returned for the rest of the session. In fact, I have been in this Chamber for nearly four hours today. Funnily enough, when I returned to the Chamber, the leader of the SNP and his MPs were not actually present. The leader of the SNP has misled the House and should apologise, if you can find him.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order, although it was slightly longer than what he provided notice of. I have no doubt that he let the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) know that he would be speaking about him. The hon. Member should know that it is not appropriate to accuse other Members of misleading the House. As ever, it is vital that Members in all parts of the House maintain good temper and moderation in debate.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Many people will have become aware of the recent controversy regarding the BBC’s decision to broadcast on its iPlayer service the documentary “Gaza: How to Survive a Warzone”. It only withdraw it after public outcry. It featured the son of a Hamas deputy Minister, and there has been the further revelation in the past 24 hours that the cameraman on the film put up a celebratory tweet after the 7 October massacre. The Culture Secretary has already indicated publicly that she wants to speak to the director general of the BBC about this outrageous lack of due diligence, but has she indicated to the Speaker’s Office that she intends to make a statement to the House, to allow right hon. and hon. Members to seek further clarification and get answers for the wider public?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. I have not received any indication that a Minister intends to make a statement to the House on this matter, but Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions will be on Thursday, and I am sure that the Table Office can advise him on how to pursue this matter further.
BILL PRESENTED
Crime and Policing Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Yvette Cooper, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Shabana Mahmood, Secretary Steve Reed, the Solicitor General and Dame Diana Johnson, presented a Bill to make provision about anti-social behaviour, offensive weapons, offences against people (including sexual offences), property offences, the criminal exploitation of persons, sex offenders, stalking and public order; to make provision about powers of the police, the Border Force and other similar persons; to make provision about confiscation; to make provision about the police; to make provision about terrorism and national security, and about international agreements relating to crime; to make provision about the criminal liability of bodies; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 187) with explanatory notes (Bill 187-EN).
River Wye (Cleaning)
Tuesday 25th February 2025
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRiver Wye (Cleaning) Bill 2024-26 View all River Wye (Cleaning) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish and implement a plan for cleaning and improving the water quality of the River Wye; and for connected purposes.
As shadow Leader of the House, I am rarely allowed to speak on behalf of my constituents from the Back Benches, so this ten-minute rule motion is a priceless opportunity for me to highlight a vital issue of both local and national significance—the plight of the River Wye. The Wye is one of the most beautiful and ecologically significant rivers in the UK. Rising from the slopes of Plynlimon in mid-Wales, it winds its way via Hay-on-Wye and Hereford on to Ross-on-Wye before heading down to Symonds Yat, Monmouth, Tintern and the Severn estuary.
The Wye valley, too, is renowned for its beauty. It is a special area of conservation with two sites of special scientific interest. The river is thus a vital part not only of the local economy in Herefordshire but of our landscape, our culture and our heritage as a nation. Admired since Roman times, the river is one of the birthplaces of British tourism, the origin of the movement known as the picturesque and the inspiration for some of the finest poetry in the English language, yet in recent years it has faced huge environmental pressures, particularly from high phosphate levels, which have harmed water quality and aquatic life.
The rapid growth of certain farming sectors, including poultry, has brought economic benefits but also placed additional strain on the river. As well as agricultural run-off, sewage and waste water discharges and changes in land management have contributed to the problem. Those pressures have been compounded by rises in water temperature and changes to seasonal water flow. Many of those specific problems and their interactions are still not fully understood, so there is a real need for proper research.
Building on the work of Councillor Elissa Swinglehurst and the Wye and Usk Foundation among many others, I first highlighted this issue in September 2020. From the start I pressed the agencies—the Environment Agency, Natural England and Natural Resources Wales—for a collective response and called on them to produce a cross-border, all-catchment long-term action plan.
In June 2021, working with other catchment MPs at the time, I invited the national agencies and the local councils on both sides of the border to a special meeting devoted to the issue. In October 2021, I co-ordinated a letter from Wye catchment MPs to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury calling for a specific spending package devoted to the Wye in the 2021 three-year spending review. The result, notwithstanding lockdowns and other pandemic delays, was the Hereford Shell Store meeting of July 2022 and the setting up of the Wye phosphates working group, whose terms of reference were then adopted—very much with my support—by a phosphates commission established by the four local authorities. All those things helped to bring people and groups together.
In the course of that work, I am pleased to say we also had one major win of substance. I had called for the proceeds of fines on water companies to be ringfenced and devoted to a new national rivers recovery fund. In November 2022, the Government accepted that ringfencing.
In relation to the Wye, it is important to be aware that much good work has been done on the ground. The cross-border nutrient management board has carefully assessed and assembled a range of potentially useful measures. Thanks to detailed assessment work with Welsh Water, it now looks as though local sewage and waste water discharges will be brought within national standards—though only by the early 2030s, which is still far too slow. The community response on both sides of the border has been magnificent, with hundreds of volunteer citizen scientists actively taking weekly water readings under the aegis of the Friends of the Wye and other organisations.
At the national level, I am sorry to say that progress in addressing these issues has been painfully slow. For years, the creation of a high-level catchment-wide plan, essential to managing this cross-border issue, was impeded by political differences between the Welsh and UK Governments. Meanwhile, the regulatory agencies struggled to enforce existing environmental protections effectively. Finally, after three ministerial visits, including one by the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to Hereford in June 2023, we managed to secure publication of the River Wye action plan last year. That at least covered the English part of the river, and £35 million was reallocated from within existing DEFRA budgets to fund mitigations and the development of an integrated long-term recovery strategy.
The then Government also announced that they had appointed a new river champion, whose job it was to lead the detailed planning work in collaboration with key stakeholders on both sides of the border. The plan for the Wye was by no means perfect, but for the first time it provided a framework, badly needed money to support projects and research, and a named person to help drive things forward on the ground. It was therefore deeply disappointing when the plan was dropped by the new Government after the general election, alongside the idea of the river champion.
It is still more disappointing that the Treasury is also now rowing back on the previous Government’s commitment to ringfence money from fines on water companies and use them for a river restoration fund. That is a massive step backwards. Water companies have paid many tens of millions of pounds in fines since 2022 alone. That money should go back into saving our rivers.
What is to be done? Protecting and restoring the Wye requires a long-term, collaborative approach, as I have highlighted. The UK and Welsh Governments, the agencies, farmers, businesses, local authorities, environmental groups and local people all have a role to play in developing a strategy that balances economic sustainability with environmental responsibility. While I am very glad that my colleague the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) is sponsoring the Bill, it is a great pity that other Wye catchment MPs have chosen not to. Indeed, I do not notice a single Wye catchment MP in the Chamber; a great sadness.
The Bill is clear and simple in its intent. It would for the first time require the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in law to publish and implement a plan for cleaning and improving the water quality of the River Wye. That is a measure that every MP of every constituency inside or outside the Wye catchment should be enthusiastic to support. Solutions must include better land management, improved water treatment, effective incentives for sustainable farming and stronger oversight and enforcement.
The Wye catchment 2025 management plan is designed to cover not just water quality but biodiversity loss and flood and drought vulnerability. The nutrient management board provides an important framework of public accountability in relation to measures affecting nutrients and water quality. In other words, many of the key clean-up measures and mitigations are well understood. What we need now is action. We need an end to delay. We need political leadership from Ministers on both sides of the border, a shared determination to address this vital national issue with the seriousness it deserves, and the funding—the £35 million cut from the plan for the Wye—to make it happen.
The River Wye is a true national treasure. It requires not just short-term measures but a sustained, collective effort led by the UK and Welsh Governments to ensure that this magnificent river is fully restored to health as swiftly as that can be achieved.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Jesse Norman and Ellie Chowns present the Bill.
Jesse Norman accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 July, and to be printed (Bill 186).
Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords]
Tuesday 25th February 2025
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberInstitute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 38-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (3 Feb 2025)
18:58 - The House divided: - Ayes: 70 / Noes: 312 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:12 - The House divided: - Ayes: 317 / Noes: 55 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The reasoned amendment in the name of Ian Sollom has been selected.
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
We are a country of incredible talent and enterprise; a country of industry and invention. Our universities lead the world. Our colleges deliver excellence to hundreds of thousands up and down the country. British companies founded on great ideas export their products across the globe. Our strengths range from research to manufacturing and from professional services to creative industries, yet there remains a wide and growing gap between where we are now and what I know our great country is capable of, because, despite our many strengths, there are skills missing from our workforce.
There are skills missed by people who want to get on in life, get better training to land that great job and earn a decent living; skills missed by our employers, with businesses, hospitals, labs and factories held back; skills missed by so many of our communities, with towns and cities left behind as industry has moved on; and skills missed by our country. Those skills are vital to the security and growth that this Labour Government are so determined to deliver.
Our latest data shows us that half a million vacancies sit empty simply because employers struggle to find the right staff with the right skills: the most since we started collecting the data in 2011. That is half a million jobs not filled, half a million careers not boosted and half a million opportunities not taken—a tragic waste that this country simply cannot afford. But I am sorry to say that this is not surprising. We have fallen behind our neighbours on higher technical qualifications—the ones that sit just below degree level, but which can lead to well-paid, fulfilling careers for software developers, civil engineering technicians or construction site supervisors.
Over 90% of employers value basic digital skills in their job candidates, but more than 7 million adults lack them. Our skills gaps deal our people and our country a double blow. They hold back the economic growth we need to invest in our public services and drive national prosperity, and they hold back the ambitions of working people who deserve the chance not just to get by but to get on. They deny them the opportunity, the power and the freedom to choose the life they want to live.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Would the Secretary of State agree that one of the difficulties is that employers cannot spend the money from the apprenticeship levy easily, and that too much of that money is retained by the Treasury? Will she undertake to speak to the Chancellor to see whether she could make it easier for employers to spend that money on training?
Bridget Phillipson
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Chancellor is as committed as I am to ensuring that we have the right skills within the economy, because without them we will not be able to deliver the economic growth that is the No. 1 mission of this Labour Government. But we are committed to reforming the failing apprenticeship levy, reforming the system and converting it into a growth and skills levy with more flexibility for employers. As a first step, this will include shorter-duration and foundation apprenticeships in targeted sectors, making sure that we are working more effectively with employers in order for our economy to grow.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I welcome the commitment to skills that the Secretary of State is articulating, but will she recognise that too often the advice given to young people, particularly from schools, is to pursue an academic career—I use the word “academic” in the loosest possible sense—rather than to engage in practical learning? That means that while the shortages she describes are profound, there are also many people who are graduates in non-graduate jobs owing a lot of money and with pretty useless degrees.
Bridget Phillipson
I was almost on the point of saying that I agreed with much of what the right hon. Gentleman had to say, but unfortunately he went and ruined it at the end with that comment about the value of university education and of having the chance to gain a degree. Where I do share common cause with him is that I want to make sure that all young people have a range of pathways available to them, including fantastic technical training routes, including through apprenticeships, but I also want to make sure that young people with talent and ability are able to take up a university course if that is the right path and the right choice for them.
As we were recently celebrating National Apprenticeship Week, I took the opportunity to see across the country some of the fantastic routes that are available in areas such as construction and nuclear, with really wonderful job opportunities and careers where young people are able to make fantastic progress.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I had the opportunity to visit Harlow College during National Apprenticeship Week, and I really agree with the points that my right hon. Friend is making. Does she agree that if we are to achieve the new homes targets that we really want to achieve and get people off the streets and into those homes, we need to train those apprentices now and that Skills England can be part of that future?
Bridget Phillipson
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I know how much he champions, in his constituency and in the House, opportunities for young people to have the chance to take on new skills, including through apprenticeship routes. Where it comes to construction, he is right to say that there are fantastic opportunities out there. It was heartening, during some of my visits during National Apprenticeship Week, to see the fantastic contribution that women play in construction, breaking down some of the stereotypes that exist about the right opportunities, and to meet some amazing engineering apprentices and bricklaying apprentices. Those women are really trailblazing in an industry that is often very male-dominated.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
On the subject of construction, does my right hon. Friend agree that a huge amount of the construction industry is made up of small employers and that one of the biggest failings of the apprenticeship levy approach has been that small and medium-sized enterprises have been shut out? We have had a 50% reduction in the number of SMEs offering apprenticeships since the introduction of the levy. How will she increase the number of SMEs that are able to offer apprenticeships? If the major employers are the ones that have all the budget, how do we ensure that we increase the number of SME apprenticeships?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend has a long-standing interest in this area and has consistently raised not only the challenges faced by small businesses but the opportunities to create more apprenticeship starts and more training routes for people across our country. One of the changes that we set out during National Apprenticeship Week was to the maths and English requirements for adult apprentices, which will make a big difference to employers large and small and was welcomed by business, but he is right to say that much more is needed to help smaller employers and small contractors to take on apprentices. That is the work that Skills England will drive forward and that is why this Bill is such a crucial development.
The skills gaps that we face in our country deny people the opportunity, the power and the freedom to choose the life that they want to live. But it is not just today that we count the cost; those gaps limit our power to shape the careers, the economy and the society of tomorrow as well. Only with the right skills can people take control of their future, and only with the right skills system can we drive the growth that this country needs. It is time this country took skills seriously again: no longer an afterthought, but now at the centre of change; no longer a nice to have, but now a driving force for opportunity; no longer neglected, but now a national strength.
There is much to celebrate. Plenty of colleges go above and beyond, plenty of employers are ready to contribute and plenty of people are eager to upskill, but our system needs reform. Too many people have been sidelined and left without the skills to seize opportunity. One in eight young people are not in employment, education or training. We can, and we must, do more to break down the barriers to learning that too many people still face. We need a system that is firing on all cylinders.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The figure in Stoke-on-Trent is even more stark, with 22% of young people not in education, employment or training. We have a wonderful ecosystem of colleges, with Stoke sixth form college, Stoke-on-Trent college and the University of Staffordshire, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) said, we also have small and medium-sized organisations. Can the Secretary of State set out how this Bill will help an organisation such as the Spark Group, run by Dan Canavan, to tap into opportunities in order to spread his ability to help those young people into well-paid jobs in my community?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend names a fantastic business in his constituency and the contribution that it makes. There is a lot more that we need to do to support smaller employers to be in a stronger position to benefit from apprenticeships.
This Bill will bring together the many disparate parts of a very fragmented system, which employers, particularly smaller employers, often find hard to navigate the right way through, and are not always clear about the best training and qualification routes in order to find the people that they need. Also, the changes we have made to English and maths in particular will support employers to create 10,000 additional apprenticeships every single year. This was a call that we heard loud and clear from employers, and it is a simple, straightforward change that will open up opportunities for people across our country. They will still have the English and maths standards as part of their apprenticeship, but they will no longer be held back by some of the red tape that has denied them the chance to get on in life.
The skills system that we have right now is too fragmented, too confusing and too tangled up across too many organisations. There is no single source of truth, no single organisation able to zoom out and see the big problems and no single authority able to bring the sector together to solve them. The result is a system that amounts to less than the sum of its parts. For young people, it can be hard to know where the opportunities lie. Adults looking to upskill or reskill and working people hoping for a fresh start are too often met with confusion, not clarity. They are presented with a muddling mix of options when they need clear pathways to great careers.
It is no better for employers. They tell us that the system is difficult to navigate and slow to respond. They tell us that they are too often shut out of course design and that their voices are too often not heard. The result is frustration. Learners and employers are frustrated, and they are right to be frustrated. Many businesses do a good job of investing in the skills of their workforce, but others simply are not spending enough.
Investment is at its lowest since 2011 at just half the EU average. We must empower businesses to reverse the trend by investing in their employees, and for that, we need to move forward. There will always remain a strong and galvanising role for competition, but where it is harmful, adds complexity, duplicates efforts or twists incentives, we will balance it with supportive co-ordination to ensure that all parts of the system are pulling in the right direction.
Here is our vision and the change we need. From sidelined to supported, we need a system that helps everyone so that businesses can secure the skilled workforce they need. From fragmented to coherent, we need a system defined by clear and powerful pathways to success and towards effective co-ordination. We also need a system of partnership with everyone pulling together towards the same goals. That is the change that Skills England will oversee.
This Labour Government are a mission-led Government with a plan for change, and skills are essential to Labour’s missions to drive economic growth and break down the barriers to opportunity. In fact, skills go way beyond that. Skills training contributes across our society, and great skills training driven by Skills England, supported by my Department, guided by the wisdom of colleges, universities, businesses, mayors and trade unions, and directed by national priorities and local communities is the skills system we need. It is a system that will drive forward all our missions. It will help us fix our NHS, create clean energy and deliver safer streets.
Skills are the fuel that will drive a decade of national renewal, which is vital for our plan for change. That is why earlier this month we unveiled our plans to help thousands more apprentices to qualify every year. That means more people with the right skills in high-demand sectors from social care to construction and beyond. We have listened to what businesses have told us. We will shorten the minimum length of apprenticeships and put employers in charge of decisions on English and maths requirements for adults.
Last November, the Government announced £140 million of investment in homebuilding skills hubs. Once fully up to speed, the hubs will deliver more than 5,000 fast-track apprenticeships a year, helping to build the extra homes that the people of this country desperately need. We are driving change for our skills system, and Skills England is leading the charge. It will assess the skills needed on the ground regionally and nationally now and in the years to come. Where skills evolve rapidly and where new and exciting technologies are accelerating from AI to clean energy, Skills England will be ready to give employers the fast and flexible support they need.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
I represent a coastal community. Coastal communities have been forgotten over the past 14 years almost as much as the skills agenda. In my constituency, Bournemouth and Poole college led by Phil Sayles, who is doing incredible work, is about to open the green energy construction campus in April, which will enable solar, heat pump and rainwater capture skills to be taught to apprentices and trainees. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the college, and does she agree that colleges like that one are critical to achieving clean power by 2030?
Bridget Phillipson
I am delighted to hear my hon. Friend’s experience from Bournemouth. Our colleges are a crucial part of how we ensure that we have the skills we need in our economy, but also how we will drive forward our agenda on clean energy. He is also right to identify the enormous opportunities for jobs, growth and training, as well as, crucially, the imperative of ensuring that we have stability and security in our energy supply, so that never again are we so exposed to the fluctuations of energy markets that happened because of the invasion of Ukraine.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I want to amplify the valuable skills that our colleges are teaching in renewable technologies. I recently visited South Thames college in Wandsworth, where I saw the labs it has set up to teach the installation of heat pumps and other renewable technologies. The main challenge that the college faces is finding staff to teach the classes and to take on the apprentices and all the other learners. What support will the Government give to colleges to ensure that they can recruit experienced individuals to pass on those skills to the apprentices, so that we can provide the workforces that we dearly need?
Bridget Phillipson
The hon. Gentleman is right about the challenges across the further education sector. Sadly, we know those challenges all too well after 14 years of failure under the Conservatives. We recognise the enormous opportunity that comes from investing in our fantastic colleges. That is why at the Budget we announced an extra £300 million of additional revenue for further education and £300 million of new capital investment. That also builds on our investment to extend targeted retention incentive payments of up to £6,000 after tax to eligible early career FE teachers in key subject areas. Our FE sector will have a crucial role to play in our mission for growth and opportunity, and he is right to draw attention to that.
Skills England will be ready to give employers the fast and flexible support they need. While updates to courses in the past have been sluggish and left behind by new technology, the Bill will help us keep up with the pace of change. Skills England will draw on high-quality data. It will design courses that are demand-led and shaped from the ground up by employers. Employers should be in no doubt that they will have a critical role in course design and delivery. That is why I have appointed Phil Smith to chair Skills England. Phil brings a wealth of business expertise from his two decades leading Cisco and will ensure that employers are at the heart of Skills England. I have appointed Sir David Bell as vice-chair, drawing on his wealth of experience across education and Whitehall. I have also appointed Tessa Griffiths and Sarah Maclean as chief executive on a job-share basis, with Gemma Marsh as deputy chief executive. They will provide strong, independent leadership to move the skills system forward. Skills England will be held accountable by an independent board, and the Bill requires a report to be published and laid before Parliament, setting out the impact on technical education and apprenticeships of the exercise of the functions in the measure.
The clear relationship between the Department and Skills England is governed by a public framework document, which will be published for all to see. It will be a core constitutional document produced in line with guidance from the Treasury, making clear the different roles of my Department and Skills England. Skills England will reach across the country. It will not be trapped in Whitehall but spread to every town and city, because growth and employment must benefit every part of the country, not just where it is easy to drive growth. That means being ambitious, especially in areas that have been overlooked for decades, because talent and aspiration are no less present in those places.
Skills England will drive co-ordinated action to meet regional and national skills needs at all levels and in all places. It will work closely with mayoral strategic authorities and local and regional organisations, and it will connect with counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Skills England will simplify the system by combining functions within one powerful body and pulling together the disparate strands of Departments, local leaders, colleges, universities and training providers and weaving them into a coherent offer for businesses and learners alike.
To see why the skills revolution is so important for growth and why we must take skills seriously again, we should look no further than the UK’s stalling productivity over the last decade and a half, dragging down our economy and cutting off hopes of higher incomes for workers. The skills system is central because, despite all its problems, the expansion of workforce skills drove a third of average annual productivity growth between 2001 and 2019. Here we have a chance. Here we see what is at stake. If we get this right by investing in our people and backing Skills England, we can drive productivity and get economic growth back on track. At the same time, we can give working people power and choice because that is what good skills can offer: the chance for them to take control of their careers and take advantage of the opportunities that our economy will create. That is why Skills England will work to support the forthcoming industrial strategy unveiled by the Chancellor last November. The next phase of its work will provide further evidence on the strategy’s eight growth-driving sectors: advanced manufacturing, clean energy, the creative industries, defence, digital, financial services, life sciences, and professional and business services. Added to those are two more: construction and healthcare.
Skills England will work closely with the Industrial Strategy Council, which will monitor the strategy’s progress against clear objectives.
Mr Perkins
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way again. She is speaking incredibly powerfully and passionately about the role of Skills England, and I share her commitment and excitement about it, but as she knows, this IfATE Bill abolishes IfATE rather than creating Skills England. There were those who believed that putting Skills England on a statutory footing as an independent body, rather than keeping it in the Department, might have been the way to go. Will she explain to the House why she has taken this approach, and why she believes that Skills England will, as a body in her Department rather than as a truly independent body, have the strength and respect in the sector that it so badly needs?
Bridget Phillipson
I will set out the reason primarily and then say a little about the way in which Skills England will operate. First, the need to do it in this way is one of time and speed. As I hope I have set out to the House, the need to act is urgent; we must get on with this and ensure that we tackle the chronic skills shortages right across our country—there is no time to waste. The Government are determined to drive opportunity and growth in every corner of our country. Further delays to that will hold back not just growth but opportunities.
When it comes to the function of Skills England and how it will operate, it will be an Executive agency of the Department for Education. It will have the independence that it needs to perform its role effectively, with a robust governance and accountability framework and a chair who brings an enormous wealth of experience from business. A strong, independent board, chaired by Phil Smith, will balance operational independence with proximity to Government. It will operate in the same way that many Executive agencies, such as the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, already operate.
As with any new arm’s length body, in the next 18 to 24 months we will review how Skills England is functioning, to consider whether it still exists within the best model. [Interruption.] That is entirely in keeping with the way in which arm’s length bodies are routinely considered by the Government. I am surprised that Conservative Members are surprised, because that is simply how these things are done, as they know all too well. If they are content to allow drift and delay, they will hold back opportunity for people across our country; they will hold back the demand that businesses rightly lay at our door to get on with the job of creating the conditions in which they can deliver more apprenticeship starts, more opportunities, and more chances to learn and upskill.
Skills England will work closely with the Industrial Strategy Council, which will monitor the strategy’s progress against clear objectives. The Skills England chair will have a permanent seat on the council—that really matters. By 2035 there will be at least 1.4 million new jobs. Our clean energy mission will rely on talented people with the expertise to power our greener future. The pace of technological change, including artificial intelligence, is accelerating, and it brings huge opportunities for our economy. However, to seize those opportunities, firms need a ready supply of people with the right skills. We will nurture home-grown talent in all regions so that people have the skills they need for those exciting jobs of the future.
Skills England will work with the Migration Advisory Committee to ensure that training in England accounts for the overall need of the labour market and to reduce the reliance of some sectors on labour from abroad.
Gareth Snell
I thank the Secretary of State for being so generous with her time. I absolutely support her ambition of ensuring that we have the skills for the jobs of the future. Will she say a little about how Skills England will support foundational manufacturing industries, such as ceramics in Stoke-on-Trent, which will not be prioritised in the industrial strategy but still have a lot to offer our economy and are crying out for skills from local people? If we can get that right, we can grow our own economy, and that is true levelling up in my opinion.
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend always champions the ceramics industry in his constituency. We have had many conversations on that topic, and he is absolutely right to put it into context. Skills England will benefit the ceramics industry and his constituents because we will be able to move much more rapidly to make changes to qualifications and training requirements in order to meet the needs of employers, with further flexibility, shorter courses, and foundation apprenticeships for young people for the chance to get on, including in long-standing traditional industries as well as in future jobs and opportunities.
The Bill is a crucial leap forward, bringing the different parts of the skills system closer together, and it paves the way for Skills England. It transfers the current functions of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education to the Secretary of State, not to exercise power from Westminster, but to empower the expert leadership of Skills England to drive the change we need. Bringing those functions to Skills England will place the content and design of technical qualifications at the heart of our skills system, where they belong.
Skills England has existed in shadow form since Labour took power and began the work of change in July. It set out its first “state of the nation” report into skills gaps in our economy in September. Skills England is moving ahead. The leadership is in place, and by laying the groundwork for a swift transition to Skills England, we are moving a step closer towards a joined-up skills system.
At its heart, this Bill is about growth and opportunity—growth for our economy, and opportunity for our people—and there is no time to waste. We need action, not delay. The people of this country need better jobs, higher wages and brighter futures; no more vacancies unfilled due to a lack of skills, no more chances missed and no more growth lost. We need change now, not change pushed back to some foggy future, so we are pushing ahead.
This is legislation that builds on what has come before but demands more—more cohesion, more dynamism and more ambition. That is how we break down the barriers to opportunity, that is how we fire up the engines of economic growth, and that is how we deliver the future that this country deserves—the bright hope that our best days lie ahead of us. I commend this Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I rise to speak on a piece of legislation that poses more risks than benefits and proves that there is not parity of esteem for technical and academic qualifications within the Government. The Secretary of State is putting forward a Bill that allows her personally to write each apprenticeship assessment. Just in case you think I am exaggerating, Madam Deputy Speaker, we can see it in the explanatory notes. The Bill provides
“the option for each standard and apprenticeship assessment plan to be prepared by the Secretary of State”.
Madam Deputy Speaker, can you imagine the outcry if this was done with history GCSEs? If it were a Conservative Government taking these powers, there would be howls of outrage from the Labour party. It is extraordinary that the Government are, contrary to the words of the Secretary of State today, cutting out employers and giving sole discretion to the Secretary of State. They would not allow it with academic qualifications; we must not allow it with vocational ones.
I acknowledge the statement made in the other place about clarifying the situations when the Government envisage the Secretary of State intervening, but the specific criteria for using this power should be on the face of the Bill. At the moment, the Secretary of State has carte blanche to do whatever she likes, and we know from the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that that is a very bad idea. Can the Minister confirm that there will be some restrictions, and will the Government put those on the face of the Bill?
The Bill is another manifestation of the Department for Education’s centralisation spree. As with the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, everything must be controlled by the Secretary of State, and no innovation is allowed. The Bill abolishes the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education—shortened to IfATE—and transfers its functions to the Secretary of State, in effect absorbing them into the Department for Education. The Government say that they will set up Skills England, but there are no details on the plans for Skills England in the Bill, or on how the Government’s proposed changes to the funding of skills-based qualifications will work in practice.
Simply creating a new agency will not address any of the issues that we need to address within the skills system. Even putting aside my severe doubts about the wisdom of progressing down this road in the first place, the very least the Government could provide the House with is some information on Skills England itself in the Bill. The only thing we know from debates in the other place—the Secretary of State has confirmed it today—is that Skills England will not be on a statutory footing and therefore will unquestionably be less independent than IfATE. Can the Secretary of State explain why this is an improvement?
This matters because the framework document published in the autumn is, at best, vague and, at worst, silent on the role of employers. There are some statements in the section on aims saying that employers will be engaged in the preparation of occupational standards, but it does not say how. Does the Secretary of State think that she knows better than employers? I urge her to explain why employers are so much less visible in the framework document, or to agree to amend the Bill. Reducing the role of employers will harm the apprenticeship system.
The change will also create unnecessary turmoil in the skills system. A cross-party amendment was passed in the other place to try to minimise the impact that this uncertain upheaval will have. The amendment will delay the provisions of the Bill to ensure that Skills England has time to set up before taking on its role and to ensure that the administrative duties do not get in the way of providing quality apprenticeships. That seems the bare minimum of what we would expect, and I hope the Government will not oppose that amendment, because to do so would be absurd.
The skills system needs a stable landscape, but the Bill presents real risks with no obvious benefits: risks that the Government will erode standards in our skills system by removing the relationship with the employer and replacing it with diktat from the Secretary of State; risks of poor leadership by replacing a good organisation, which is liked by employers and apprentices, with an unknown and undefined body.
Mr Perkins
I am listening carefully to the right hon. Lady. She seems to be evangelising the role of IfATE, but I have heard far stronger criticisms of it than she appears to make. Is her position that IfATE does not have many faults and should carry on the way it is, or does she think that the organisation’s remit has grown and is vague, and most employers feel that it is a block to getting the standards they need, rather than the vehicle for that, as she seems to suggest?
Laura Trott
I have huge respect for the hon. Gentleman and thought his earlier question was spot on. There is much that needs to be improved, but that is much less vague than Skills England, which is what we have in front of us at the moment. There are risks of distraction, with the time and cost involved in creating a new agency in the Department for Education. If the Government were serious about progressing quickly with the urgent strategic issues that I accept are needed in skills reform, the most effective step would be to build on the success of IfATE, rather than dismantling it. Instead, the Bill threatens to undo much of the progress made under successive Conservative Governments in building a world-class apprenticeships and technical education system. It is fiddling for no reason, change for no purpose and, as is so often the case with this Government, the opposite of what is required.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Education Committee.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The further education and skills sector is of strategic importance, and equipping our workforce with the skills that employers need is critical for economic growth. Ensuring that there are opportunities for young people and those mid-career to access high-quality training in order to enhance and develop their skills is vital for breaking down the barriers to opportunity that hold back far too many people. For far too long, the further education and skills sector has been the Cinderella service of our education system, patronised with lip service about how important it is, always regarded as second best, and never allocated the level of funding needed to really deliver.
Despite the fact that at the very peak only around one third of 18-year-olds go on to university, our school system is overwhelmingly orientated to communicate to young people that university is the option they should all aim for, rather than supporting a plurality of education options post-18, all of which can equip them well for a successful career. That has created a postcode lottery in which the high-quality further education and training opportunities that are available in some parts of the country are not available everywhere.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Lady is making a profoundly important point that reinforces what I said earlier about careers advice and guidance. When I was skills Minister, I introduced a statutory duty on providers to make available free and independent advice. The problem is that that is often done by means of the internet. Schools will refer students to the internet, rather than bring people such as independent advisers into the school to guide them. She is right that the best solution to the problem she sets out is exactly that kind of involvement from careers advisers with students.
Helen Hayes
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. I was delighted recently to visit a school in my constituency, and a careers fair that gave young people the opportunity to meet many employers and providers of further education face to face, in order to give real meaning and reality to what such opportunities might provide in the future. It is important that young people have those opportunities.
Recently, I was delighted to visit the Lambeth college campus in Vauxhall, which is part of the Southbank University group, with my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). We met young people engaged in cutting-edge training in robotics, renewable energy installation, dental technology and game design and production. They were being equipped with valuable skills to help them to access high-quality jobs, with the possibility, in some cases, of progressing their training all the way to degree level at the university.
The college is a good example of a strategic vision being applied to skills at a local level to ensure that employers’ needs are being met, and that the best possible opportunities are made available to young people, but not everywhere can benefit from such a strategic approach at present. I therefore welcome the Bill, which will formally establish Skills England. It is encouraging that this Government are giving further education and skills the strategic prominence they need, and seeking to establish an effective national agency to deliver a step change in the strategy that underpins our approach to skills and the quality and availability of training opportunities.
Skills England has been operating in shadow form within the Department for Education since July last year. Following the passage of the Bill, it will become an executive agency. This important Bill will work to underpin many of the strategic aims of the Government, including the delivery of economic growth, the skills to provide the additional 1.5 million homes that need to be built, and the skills to drive the urgently needed transition of our energy sector to achieve net zero, and the much-needed improvements in our national health service and in social care.
As the first Skills England report highlights, we currently have a fragmented and confusing landscape that lets down learners, frustrates businesses and holds back growth. The current system that the Government inherited has been badly neglected and urgent action is needed to deliver the change and scale of ambition required.
While I welcome the Bill, there are a number of issues on which I would be grateful for further clarity from the Government. The Bill does not provide a statutory underpinning for Skills England, meaning that the Secretary of State and future Secretaries of State can make fundamental changes to Skills England or close it down without the consent of Parliament. That calls into question the ability of Skills England to deliver a stable long-term underpinning of the skills system over a period of time. I understand the Government’s urgency, but it is important that in delivering this change Skills England is placed on a really solid foundation.
In order to be effective in delivering the skills system that our country needs, Skills England will need to have leverage with a number of different Government Departments beyond the Department for Education, yet the chief executive of Skills England is the equivalent of a director-level post in the civil service, not a director general, calling into question the extent to which appropriately senior people from across Government will be required to act on its recommendations and work in effective partnership. As the Bill progresses, the Government should consider the seniority of the CEO in that light.
Partnership working with key stakeholders outside Government, including training providers, trade unions, employers and devolved authorities will also be critical to the success of Skills England, but none of that is written into the Bill, and the ways in which Skills England will be held accountable for effective partnership working are unclear. Will the Secretary of State take further action to address that?
The impact statement for the Bill states that there may be a drop in apprenticeship starts while the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education’s functions are transferred to the Secretary of State and then to Skills England, with a disproportionate impact on adult apprenticeships, disadvantaged learners and disadvantaged regions. Will the Secretary of State explain what steps she will take to minimise and mitigate that potential short-term drop?
The success of Skills England will depend on a series of wider factors that should be considered at the point at which it is being established. There is a significant issue with the funding of sixth form colleges, particularly around inequities in pay between teachers in schools and colleges, exacerbated by the failure to extend the recent pay increase to teachers to those employed by colleges. It cannot be right that a teacher in a college can be paid less than a teacher in a school sixth form for teaching exactly the same subject.
To drive parity of esteem between pupils following an academic route and those following a vocational route, it is important that sixth form colleges are able to both recruit and retain teachers. That means addressing the lower pay in sixth form colleges compared with schools, and the gap between teacher salaries and the salaries that teachers could receive in industry. It is a real problem for colleges seeking to recruit teachers of vocational subjects that those who have the skills to teach trade can often earn far more by practising that trade in the private sector. There is currently very little obligation on industry to release staff to deliver vocational education or to help to secure the pipeline of vocational teachers, including through post-retirement options. The Government should give further consideration to the recruitment and retention of high-quality teachers in the further education sector.
For some students in the further education sector, their school days have not been the happiest days of their lives. College or an apprenticeship should be the place where they start to find the things that they can excel at and where their confidence is built because they start to succeed. The importance of a functional level of English and maths is universally accepted and understood, so something is badly wrong in our education system when 38% of students do not achieve a grade 3 or above in English and maths at GCSE. The cycle of failure ends up continuing in the FE sector, which requires them to resit again and again. There must be a better way to ensure the functional skills in these subjects that employers need within further education, while enabling young people genuinely to succeed, build their confidence and thrive.
Finally, I will raise the issue of the huge differential in the information provided to sixth form students as they decide on their next steps after school or college—a point made by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) earlier in the debate. When meeting with skills providers and school leaders in my constituency recently, many participants highlighted how a move to university was often presented as a natural, secure step, with multiple options and a well-trodden path through the UCAS process, while vocational options, including apprenticeships and degree apprenticeships, were not presented with the same clarity or coherence, or even within the same timeframe. That makes it harder for teachers to advise their students and for parents to have confidence in pathways that may appear less predictable and secure. If we want to see true parity of esteem between academic and vocational routes, that needs to change, and I hope that it will be a priority for the newly established Skills England.
The Education Committee recognises the strategic importance of further education and skills, and we have recently launched a substantial inquiry that aims to understand how the further education system can better equip young people with skills and qualifications for a range of sectors experiencing labour shortages while opening up a wider range of opportunities to young people and mid-career switchers. We will make our recommendations to the Government in due course, and we look forward to playing our part in scrutinising the work of Skills England.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill because, while acknowledging the importance of reforming the delivery of skills and technical education, it fails to establish Skills England as a statutory independent body; because it centralises decision-making power in the hands of the Secretary of State; because it provides for the abolition of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education without ensuring a legally defined replacement; and because it lacks provisions to ensure that Skills England is directly accountable to Parliament.”
The Government are right that our skills system needs reform. The Liberal Democrats agree with the Secretary of State that our current fragmented and confusing skills landscape lets down learners, frustrates businesses and holds back growth, as she made clear in her foreword to Skills England’s first report in the autumn.
I and my hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches share the ambition to build a high-skill, high-productivity workforce that can meet our economy’s needs, and reform is essential for that ambition to be realised. Like many in the sector, we were encouraged to hear the Government prioritising that last July in the King’s Speech, with the statement:
“My Government will establish Skills England which will have a new partnership with employers at its heart”,
but the Bill before us does not establish Skills England at all; it simply abolishes the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education and transfers the functions directly to the Secretary of State. We need a strong, independent skills body with proper parliamentary oversight and genuine employer engagement, but this Bill delivers a centralisation of power in the hands of Ministers.
There are examples of bodies that combine independence and strong democratic accountability for the most critical policy areas. The Office for Budget Responsibility has statutory independence while being directly accountable to Parliament through the Treasury Committee. Its leadership is subject to parliamentary approval, its reports must be laid before Parliament and it has clear statutory duties to ensure transparency. The Climate Change Committee similarly has a clear statutory basis that ensures it can provide independent advice while being properly scrutinised by Parliament, yet the framework proposed for Skills England—or at least the draft framework for illustrative purposes, which is all that we have seen so far—falls far short of those models. Despite promises about working across Government, its governance structure is heavily Department for Education-centric. There are no formal mechanisms for co-ordination with other key Departments; there is no cross-departmental board representation; and there is no clear structure for aligning with bodies such as the Migration Advisory Committee, just aspiration. Are we to assume that the Government think that skills policy is not so critical to their mission that it warrants a stronger framework than the one we have seen?
This matters profoundly when we consider the scale of cross-Government co-ordination required. Skills England must work with the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council on future workforce needs; with the Migration Advisory Committee on reducing reliance on overseas workers; with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on green skills; with the Department for Work and Pensions on employment programmes; with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology on priority sectors; and with the Department of Health and Social Care on workforce planning. Particularly in light of recent developments, Skills England must also support the Government’s strategy for defence and the critical industries and skills that we will need for our defence. As proposed, though, it will lack even director general status, meaning that it will struggle to drive the co-ordination of skills that the system so desperately needs.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case for the independence of Skills England. He will know that Government Departments resist independence like most people resist disease, but his point is important because to get the kind of lateral action he describes in respect of the nuclear industry or other industries, it will be necessary for the body created to have a reach that Government Departments do not tend to have.
Ian Sollom
I agree. That cross-departmental and cross-industry working is a critical reason for the need for a truly independent body.
The implication for standards development is also concerning. Where we have had employer-led trailblazer groups setting standards, the Secretary of State can now bypass employers entirely. In limited circumstances and for minor changes, that will have the benefit of speeding up the review process, which has been frustrating for employers. There are, however, no safeguards to prevent ministerial control becoming the default approach. Instead of giving businesses a structural role, maximising responsiveness, the Bill makes engagement merely consultative. That speaks to a broader point: Skills England’s credibility with employers will be key if those employers are to buy into the Government’s skills vision for the country. Has the Secretary of State not at least considered the possibility that the proposed structure, whereby programmes can be driven at her whim or those of her successors, undermines that much-needed credibility from the start?
The Government’s own impact assessment worries that there will be a
“slowdown in the growth rate of new apprenticeships and technical education courses due to potential delays in the approvals process”
caused by this new approach, and it reveals who will pay the price. It is adult learners, who make up 48% of apprentices and often face the greatest barriers to retraining; learners from our most deprived communities, whose achievement rates are already eight percentage points lower than those from affluent areas; and learners in regions such as the north-east, where apprenticeship starts are already lower and where every reduction in opportunity has a disproportionate effect.
Mr Perkins
I see that the hon. Gentleman has received the briefing from the Association of Employment and Learning Providers. He appears to be reading it virtually word for word; I do not know whether he contributed anything to the speech, but it has been very interesting to hear what he has said.
With the Bill having been through the House of Lords, the hon. Gentleman is proposing a wrecking amendment that would kill it. Although I sympathise with some of the points in his amendment, does he not think that with the reassurances that we have heard from the Secretary of State—which can be scrutinised over the course of this Bill’s progress—we can at least get Skills England set up at speed, so that it can take on the shape he is suggesting in future? The hon. Gentleman’s proposed approach would cancel all this reform. It would go right back to square one and stop reform dead in its tracks.
Ian Sollom
I have looked beyond the AELP briefing, thank you very much. This is a critical area of Government policy, and it is important to get it right from the start. That is just a difference of approach.
As my noble Friend Baroness Garden said in the other place, this looks like an innocuous little Bill, but there is so much more to it than meets the eye. It represents a fundamental shift away from employer leadership in our skills system towards ministerial whim, a shift away from statutory independence towards departmental convenience, and a shift away from proper parliamentary accountability towards rule by regulation. The Government may argue that this is just an enabling Bill to pave the way for Skills England, but that is precisely the problem. It enables the wrong thing—it enables centralisation when we need independence, it enables ministerial control when we need employer leadership, and it enables opacity when we need accountability.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
The hon. Member and I share a county, and he will be aware that in a place such as mine, we have seen the decimation of level 2 and 3 apprenticeships. Does he not recognise that the biggest concern I hear from employers is that the current system is centralised and letting down working-class families in seats like mine? What they want is Skills England. No employer has been to see me to speak against Skills England, but many have been to speak to me against the current system, because it does not give us flexibility. What might be all right for academic policy in Cambridge will not be all right in Peterborough. We need the change delivered now.
Ian Sollom
I point out that I represent St Neots, which is not Cambridge, and many employers have spoken to me about their concerns about Skills England and the lack of clarity on its future.
We cannot support this Bill. That is not because we oppose reform—we desperately need it—but because centralising power in the hands of Ministers, removing proper scrutiny and weakening employer involvement in our skills system will make things worse, ultimately. Learners, employers and our economy deserve better than this overcentralisation of power.
Ian Sollom
I am going to finish now.
Learners and employers deserve a properly independent Skills England with the authority and accountability to drive real change. I urge the Government to think again and bring forward legislation that delivers the genuine reform that our skills system needs.
Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)
I speak today in support of this much-needed Bill, and I ask Members to do the same. This Bill is not just a piece of legislation, but the foundation for an English skills revolution. It will give our workforce the right tools to boost our economy, fix the skills shortages and provide real opportunities for millions across the country.
I started off as an apprentice when I left school at 16. The academic school did not work for me as far as my education was concerned, but the apprenticeship gave me opportunities that I could not have otherwise reached. It got me into the world of work. It got me active and away from a desk, and it led me on to a path that, frankly, the classroom could not provide. For too long—this has already been said today—vocational qualifications have been looked down on and seen as second-rate, but they allow people to reach their full potential in a way that fits in with them.
This Bill is a crucial step in delivering the Government’s manifesto promise to set up Skills England, which will take a smart, joined-up approach to ensuring our workforce has the skills our economy needs. By bringing businesses, training providers, unions and local leaders together under one roof, we can finally build a system that works for everybody. Skills England will map out where we are falling short, make sure training fits with what businesses actually need, and oversee the new growth and skills levy, which will replace the existing apprenticeship levy. This means that businesses can put money into the right training at the right time, leaving both workers and employers with more.
Let us be honest: we are in a skills crisis. In construction, health and social care, engineering and digital industries, we simply do not have enough trained workers, which is why we have to move so speedily. According to the 2022 employer skills survey, more than a third of job vacancies are a result of people not having the right skills—the skills that we need—and that is not acceptable. We cannot allow a lack of training to hold our economy back, which is exactly what is happening at the moment. The Bill will ensure that apprenticeships, T-levels and technical qualifications match what employers need. Whether those involved are young people starting out or adults reskilling, they will know that they are on the path to a stable, well-paid job.
We must not ignore the damage done by those who look down on vocational training. We need to change the way in which we talk about skills, apprenticeships and lifelong learning, because those careers are not a back-up plan but a first-class route to success. The Bill represents a move to challenge the idea that the only way to get ahead is through university. It shows that we are serious about supporting technical skills so that no matter what path people choose, they have what they need to thrive in life and in work. I say to Members, “Ask yourselves this: do you want a skills system that actually works? Do you want to help build a workforce that is properly trained, valued and paid?” This Bill is our chance to fix skills training in England. It will give apprenticeships and technical education the attention, funding, and respect that they deserve. It will bring order, clarity and proper co-ordination, elements that our system has been lacking for too long.
In September I visited Corby technical school in my constituency, which is led by Shona Lomas. I was told about its approved partners scheme, a leading scheme in the area, which brings in business partners who support children through school, offer work experience and provide apprenticeships. When that school opened, it was looked down upon. It was talked down. People talked as though the kids who were not bright enough went to that school. That is wrong, because the kids who go to that school are well supported, getting on with partnerships and getting on in life through apprenticeships. The CTS scheme has now grown to 119 partners, including local schools, colleges and major local employers, and it has seen a rise in awareness and interest since the recent National Apprenticeship Week. Opportunities such as those give young people the skills and confidence that they need to get on in life.
We have more brilliant apprenticeships schemes throughout my constituency—some of which I visited recently—including those at 7formation, Asda, Carmack Engineering, Weetabix and RS Components, which was ranked 82nd in last year’s list of the top apprenticeship employers in the country. Those businesses are delivering what they can, but the Bill gives them the freedom and flexibility to deliver more. Most important, it provides the links that will enable us to build the future and the growth that our economy needs. These are the kinds of opportunities that we can grow and spread through Skills England and the powers in the Bill. Let us get our system in step with an industrial strategy, joined with local economies, to bring the skills revolution that our country so desperately needs. We can do that with the Bill.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
This Bill is important for the future of technical education and apprenticeships in our country, and I accept that the Government’s intention is to streamline the governance and management of skills. However, I believe that, in its current form, the Bill threatens to centralise the system to such an extent that it may undermine the independence and effectiveness of our skills system.
The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education was established with the clear purpose of ensuring that apprenticeship standards and assessments were determined with the input of employers, education providers and industry experts. I fear that by abolishing this body in favour of a group of civil servants appointed by the Secretary of State, the Government will make technical education less responsive to the needs of the labour market. The Bill removes the requirement to publish regular reviews of occupational standards and apprenticeship assessment plans. The Government say that removing this duty allows for much greater flexibility, but they are doing so without ensuring that the views of employers, educators and other relevant bodies will continue to be heard and considered.
The Bill grants the Secretary of State power to determine the standards and assessments that will be used to measure progress in technical education. No longer will these decisions be made by a broad group of stakeholders, including employers and sector specialists. What does all this mean for our workforce, and what does it mean for learners? It means that we are at risk of creating a system that is more distant, less responsive and potentially less effective. When decisions are made by civil servants without the input of those on the ground—those directly impacted by these decisions—we risk losing touch with the realities of the skills landscape.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
I am afraid the hon. Member and the shadow Secretary of State speak as if the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education was an unblemished success. Between 2018-19 and 2023-24, apprenticeship starts in England per capita dropped by 16%, so how is it a responsive system? I think the House would be better served if Opposition Members acknowledged that. I understand why he is focused on structures, because that is in part what the Bill focuses on, but surely we should also be focused on outcomes, on which the previous Government were not delivering.
Sir Ashley Fox
The pandemic clearly had something to do with that reduction. I would not say the system is perfect, but I fear that replacing it with a committee of civil servants appointed by the Secretary of State is likely to be less successful still.
Amendments have been made in the other place to address some of these concerns. Specifically, a one-year delay was added between the establishment of Skills England and the commencement of the Bill, which would allow for a more effective transition and give Skills England a better chance of getting up and running. It is crucial that we do not damage the very real progress that was made on technical education under the last Government. During the general election, my party pledged to raise the number of people in high-skilled apprenticeships by 100,000 per year, representing a 30% rise. This was to recognise that, for many young people, apprenticeships represent a better way to enter the workplace than some university degrees.
Bridgwater and Taunton College, based in my constituency, is the UK’s largest provider of apprenticeships, supporting thousands of learners in achieving their career ambitions. With over 120 apprenticeship programmes, the college offers exceptional opportunities for individuals to gain hands-on experience and develop the skills needed for today’s competitive job market. BTC’s success is reflected in its recent achievements, such as its registered nurse degree apprenticeship, which recruited 53 apprentices in the 2023-24 academic year alone. The college’s commitment to employer engagement and industry-aligned training is at the heart of its success. It has strong partnerships with employers of all sizes, ensuring that its apprenticeship programmes meet local and national skill needs.
While BTC welcomes the streamlining of the management of apprenticeships, it is clear that these changes must not reduce the quality of education and support provided to apprentices. As it rightly points out, it is crucial that these changes do not compromise the wellbeing of students or the high standards of education they have come to expect. I hope that the new framework will continue to uphold these standards and ensure that the needs of both students and employers are met effectively. It is this type of local, industry-focused and employer-engaged approach to skills training that we should be fostering.
In conclusion, while I understand the desire to create a streamlined, more efficient system, the Government must be careful not to sacrifice the effectiveness and independence that have been the hallmark of our apprenticeship and technical education system. This Bill, in its current form, grants perhaps too much power to the Secretary of State with too little accountability. It risks diminishing the role of employers and learners, and weakening the checks and balances that have served us well, so I will continue to scrutinise this Bill as it proceeds through Parliament.
Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)
I am pleased to speak on Second Reading of this Bill, which I welcome for its focus on overhauling the skills system in England, particularly in relation to apprenticeships and technical education.
The creation of the Institute for Apprenticeships in 2017, with the subsequent addition of oversight for technical education, undoubtedly helped to create a system that increasingly includes higher-quality apprenticeships and increases the accessibility of these pathways to all. However, there are still too many in our country for whom unlocking their full potential remains a distant dream, which is fundamental to everything this Government have set out to achieve and to the future of our country.
The missions driving this Government—the incredible plan for change, the drive to become self-sufficient as a nation on energy, defence and security, the need to increase growth in our economy, and the drive to improve the lives of all our citizens—all require a comprehensive plan for improving skills. The basic provisions of the Bill will abolish the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education and transfer its functions ultimately to Skills England; there are also proposed changes to the functions undertaken by Skills England. I believe these changes are important and will help to ensure a more simplified system with built-in flexibility, which will enable the skills system to take account of changing circumstances.
Conservative Members have spoken about the powers being taken up by the Secretary of State and the Department. I think building in accountability is important, so that we know that this Parliament can come back to Ministers and hold them to account on that. All this, I think, will help to ensure that our skills system is truly responsive to the needs of users, employers and our economy.
This matter is incredibly important to my constituents. Smethwick has a rich industrial heritage, and, while there have been significant changes over the years, the need for high-quality skills, education and training remains key. In Smethwick, significantly more people than the national average have no qualifications, significantly fewer have a level 4 qualification, and fewer than the national average take part in apprenticeships. Too often, structural inconsistencies hold back our businesses and our people from flourishing. The lack of skills essential for work, the lack of specific skills required by employers in the place they are needed and the lack of options available to many for achieving these skills are just some of those issues. The Bill will help to streamline the skills system and ensure it is able to identify gaps, respond to changing circumstances and provide the skills needed for our businesses to flourish.
Last week, I met Robert Powell, the head of resource development at Keltruck Limited, which is the largest independently owned Scania distributor globally involved in the sale of new and used trucks, and is based in my constituency. Keltruck is a significant business, with 461 employees, including 51 apprentices—that is more than 10% of its employees. I was also informed that pretty much all the senior staff in the organisation have come up through the apprenticeship route—this is a business that really values apprenticeships. Many of its apprentices go on to great jobs in industry, for example, one went on to become chief mechanic at a top Formula 1 racing team. That is something to aspire to, and a story for somebody from Smethwick that is quite inspirational.
Being more responsive means listening to businesses. While Keltruck welcomes the recent announcement that English and maths qualifications will not be a requirement for apprenticeships, it is concerned that this requirement still applies to 16 to 18-year-olds beginning an apprenticeship. The story that was told to me was that some of their senior staff would not be in that position if they were required to have an English or maths qualification at age 16 or 18. I hope the Government can therefore look at that too to ensure that all our young people have access to the best quality apprenticeships.
In an illustration of the flexibility and freedom that can be brought to bear, I congratulate Richard Parker, the Mayor of the West Midlands, and the West Midlands combined authority on launching a scheme last year to enable bigger businesses with an unspent apprenticeship levy to donate that to the West Midlands combined authority rather than returning it to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. That has allowed the West Midlands combined authority to receive nearly £3 million to support 176 small and medium-sized enterprises and 411 apprentices through fully funded apprenticeships. That is an indication of how the freedoms brought about by the Bill could be utilised.
The two examples I have outlined show what can be achieved through a skills system that is more flexible and responsive, as well as being focused on excellence. That is incredibly important to my constituency and I therefore have no hesitation in supporting the Bill.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
We cannot just wish it into being, we cannot assume it or assert it, and we cannot legislate for it: esteem is in the eye of the esteemer and parity of esteem is earned. In technical and vocational education and training, that requires a clear and understandable set of qualifications with high standards and specifications that people know cannot be fiddled because they have been set independently. It also requires equipping the individual with what they need to know and what they need to be able to do to succeed in a trade, craft or sector because those standards have been set by employers in that trade, craft or sector.
Those things were at the heart of the blueprint set out for technical and vocational education in this country, which has been followed for the last number of years. I say the blueprint, but it was also a red print, because it was the vision of Lord Sainsbury, a Labour peer. In his landmark report, he set out that we needed to reform the system so that we had a streamlined set of qualifications with clear paths to vocations. His recommendations included: a minimum length of time for apprenticeships, along with a minimum length of time off the job; for T-levels, a minimum length, which was much longer than usual for industrial placements; and standards set by employers. There was also the expansion of the remit of what was then the Institute for Apprenticeships to become the broader Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, linking apprenticeships and T-levels. Lord Sainsbury was also absolutely clear that specifying standards was not a job for Ministers in the Department for Education. It was a job for employers in the industries that would employ those apprentices.
We thought that those principles had become a matter of cross-party consensus. I am sorry to say that we were wrong. We have already had from this new Government a rowing back on the streamlining of qualifications. They have said that they will have shorter apprenticeships but still call them apprenticeships. Now, in the Bill, they will abolish—not reform or evolve—the body that is independent of Government, which sets the standards and ensures the integrity of the system.
Over 50 years in this country, we have had industrial training boards, the Manpower Services Commission, the Training Commission, training and enterprise councils—TECs—which were different from another TEC, the Technician Education Council, which existed alongside the Business Education Council, or BEC. BEC and TEC would eventually get together to give us the Business and Technology Education Council, or BTEC. There were national training organisations, the Learning and Skills Council, sector skills councils, the UK Commission for Employment and Skills and the Skills Funding Agency, or SFA, which would later become the Education and Skills Funding Agency, or ESFA. Lately, we have had local skills improvement plans and IfATE.
Now we will have Skills England, which will be the 13th skills agency in 50 years. I say to Ministers that if all it takes to solve our skills challenges is a new body, a machinery of Government change, do they not think that one of the previous 12 would have managed that already? Ministers, especially those in new Governments, like to create something new, and, in this case, they think that they have something new that business wants, which is a quango—except Skills England is not even a quango. I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for indulging me thus far in talking about all these things, because none of them is in the Bill. This Bill is not about Skills England. There are, I think, two mentions of Skills England in the text of the Bill and I think that they were both inserted by the House of Lords.
This Bill is about abolishing the independent institute that sets standards and passing those powers not to Skills England but to the Secretary of State. That is what Skills England is. Ministers are bandying about all these fancy terms about agency this, and agency that, but it is part of the Department for Education. When it comes to working across Government, I have no reason to believe that this new part of the DFE will be any more equipped to work across Government, let alone across the whole economy, in solving some of these issues.
I love the Department for Education deeply, but, honestly, to operate across Government, to exert leverage and to get things done, I am afraid that the new body has to be in the Treasury or possibly in the Cabinet Office—not in the Education Department, the Business and Trade Department, or some of the others that could have been picked. Therefore, far from reflecting what business needs, what this legislation does is remove the requirement for business to set the standards for what their future employees will learn.
Following the vote in the House of Lords, the Government say that they will amend the Bill to be clear that they will still listen to business. I have the amendment here. What it says is that they will be clear about the times when they will listen to business and when they will not, which is not quite the same thing. In any case, if we are to make use of that business voice—if it is really going to mean something—it has to go hand in hand with the independence of the body. As things stand, even if the DFE is listening to business, it will still be the convenor. There will be no other body. Therefore, it will be the Government who are setting the standards for T-levels and for apprenticeships. I have asked the Minister this question twice already. We would not allow the Department for Education to set the standards for A-levels. We would always have that independently done and verified. Therefore if we would not let it happen for A-levels, how can it be right for T-levels? That is a rhetorical question, but it is a rhetorical question that Ministers should try to answer.
Baroness Smith of Malvern set out all the things that were being done to make Skills England something other than just another unit—a mini department—within the DFE. Today, the Secretary of State has set out some of her appointments, which sound like good appointments, to that body. But none of that is in legislation. That was all news to us. News of this set-up and the appointments of these individuals has come out since the announcement of Skills England. We are voting over the course of the next few weeks, as the Bill passes through its stages, on what will be an Act of Parliament. All that Act of Parliament will say is that those powers are coming to the office of the Secretary of State for Education, and it will be for them to decide in the future how to use them. It may well be that this team of Ministers is in power for 25 to 30 years, or it may not. I encourage all colleagues to think about that. When we legislate, we do so not just for the next 12 months, or even for the next four or five years; we legislate the law of the land, which, all other things being equal, stays in place.
I have some good news. I confidently predict that the Government will hit all their targets on the numbers of young people going through technical vocational education and training and attaining. That is because I think back to the 2000s, and the key target of more children getting five or more GCSEs at grade C or above, including in English and maths. Year after year they made that happen, even though, as we knew subsequently, we were tumbling down the international comparison tables. About a dozen different ruses made those figures look better every year, and that was achieved even without having final control over the specification and what counted as passing or getting a particular grade. Let us imagine what the Government could achieve now.
The Government want a new body—fine. But to give it a chance to succeed for our economy and, crucially, for the young people who this ultimately is about, that body must be independent. I call on Ministers to take the opportunity, as this legislation goes through the House, to write that on the face of the Bill. We were encouraged by the Secretary of State saying earlier that, in any case, within two years they will review the status of Skills England with a view to perhaps making it a statutorily independent body. I encourage Ministers to take the opportunity in Committee to write that into the legislation.
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
I welcome the Bill’s commitment to broadening educational opportunities and skills training, which is so urgently needed. As one of those young people who undertook my qualifications in the early 2000s, I assure the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) that they were rigorous and got me where I am today.
Areas such as South East Cornwall have felt forgotten and left behind, cut off from the opportunities of economic growth in other parts of the UK. Labour understands the link between an individual’s education and training and the wider economic prosperity of our country. The Bill is an example of how we are rebuilding the country from the ground up, focusing on our young people. Where university or academic routes are not the right fit, apprenticeships offer vital, valuable alternatives not only for those enrolled, but for training providers, local businesses and the economy.
Where someone is born and the circumstances in which they grow up should not limit where they go or what they achieve. This mission-driven Labour Government are making education a priority. It is a far cry from the previous Government, which saw apprenticeships collapsing, businesses pleading for change and our young people paying the price. In South East Cornwall, local businesses lead by example. Wildanet, a home-grown company from Liskeard, is doing fantastic work to improve digital connectivity across Cornwall. It is investing in more than just cables and infrastructure. It is investing in our local people through training schemes that create meaningful opportunities for local residents and build the skills that directly benefit my community.
During National Apprenticeship Week last week, I had the privilege of attending Wildanet’s apprenticeship graduation ceremony. Celebrating the achievements of our young people was a reminder of what is possible when we support them through businesses such as Wildanet and through the Bill. Working in partnership with Truro and Penwith College, Wildanet’s ground-breaking apprenticeship scheme is a key part of the company’s DNA, creating new jobs and training people locally. It is vital that such opportunities in rural communities continue to build momentum, and that is what the Bill will deliver.
The Bill is a step in the right direction. I want to highlight the brilliant work of Truro and Penwith College, Cornwall’s only expert apprenticeship provider and one of just five further education colleges in the UK that have been awarded this status by the Department for Education. The college’s staff, many of whom are resident in South East Cornwall, play a crucial role in shaping our local workforce and improving opportunities. Apprenticeship courses aligned with the Government’s mission and key industries will help people secure reliable, high-quality employment after completing their training.
In Cornwall, where incomes remain about 20% below the national average, this investment in skills and future-proofed jobs is essential. By strengthening our apprenticeships system, we can equip the next generation while also supporting local businesses such as Wildanet.
Cornwall was a driving force in Britain’s first industrial revolution. With the right foundations, we can once again lead the industries of the future, whether in renewable energy, marine technology or digital infrastructure. The first step is building those foundations.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Much of this debate has been about the purpose of learning—the Secretary of State began in that spirit—and I think we can all agree that the purpose of learning is both to deliver personal fulfilment, through the acquisition of understanding and competencies, and to fulfil a social purpose by providing for economic needs. John Ruskin said:
“The first condition of education is being able to put someone to wholesome and meaningful work.”
Apprenticeships embody—indeed, they epitomise—that purpose. A trainee learns from a mentor a skill that has use in a workplace.
The value of apprenticeships is why, when I was shadow Minister for universities, further education and skills, and subsequently the Minister in 2010, I set about revitalising the apprenticeships system. I knew that apprenticeships were well understood by employers, were widely recognised by the public and could be attractive to trainees.
I will make a point on adult learning, provoked by the excellent contribution by the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom). It is vitally important to understand that in order to skill our workforce and provide it with the necessary competencies to meet the Government’s economic ambitions, we really do have to reskill existing workers as well as making practical and vocational education attractive to new entrants to the workplace. Simply as a matter of numbers, if we train more young people but do not retrain the existing workforce, we will never deliver the capacity needed to fill the skills gaps and deal with the skills shortages that, as has been said repeatedly, inhibit our ability to drive the economy forward.
The Bill is about the management and maintenance of standards of apprenticeships. I understood why that mattered so much, which is why I set about elevating the practical, the vocational and the technical. I believe that practical, vocational and technical learning is as important as academic accomplishment. It has been a myth perpetuated by the establishment—I am inclined to say “the liberal establishment,” but I do not want to damn the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, having praised him so nicely—that the only form of prowess that counts comes through academic learning. That myth has been so pervasive that a former Prime Minister, Tony Blair, set out the extraordinary, bizarre ambition that 50% of people should go to university.
The number of people who go to university should be about their tastes, talents, aptitudes and abilities. We should not set a target and then shoehorn people into a system in order to meet it; we should allow a system to reflect those aptitudes, tastes and talents. Many people’s abilities rightly lead them not to an academic education but to a practical one, yet we have underpowered and undervalued practical learning for so long in this country, and we continue to do so.
Deep at the heart of that fault has been the careers service. As hon. Members have mentioned, the careers advice and guidance that people have got has guided them—even when it did not suit them—into an academic route that has ill-served them. Even though it has landed them with immense debts, it has rendered them unable to get the job that would allow them to pay off those debts readily. So it is really important that we look again at that advice and guidance.
As I have mentioned, when I was the Minister I created a statutory duty on schools to offer independent advice and guidance, but I should have insisted that it was to be given face to face, with a careers adviser visiting a careers fair or holding personal interviews with students to set out the various options available. Unfortunately, teachers, who have typically been to university themselves, know that route well, and they are inclined to say to young people, “Why don’t you do what I did, and follow the route that I took?” They are often less well informed about the practical and vocational routes that would lead people to acquire the kinds of skills that, as we have all said, are vitally important.
I should, at the outset of my remarks, have referred Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, because I am associated with universities. Indeed, I ought also to say that my background is entirely academic. I studied at two universities, Nottingham and Cambridge, and I have taught in two as well, so I do not really have any practical skills myself, unlike my dear father, who could turn his hand to almost anything—there was nothing he could not do, practically. I have to send out for a man in the village if I want anything done. So my case is not born of any personal prejudice. Indeed, maybe it is born of a certain envy of those that can make and do things in the way that Ruskin described.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir John Hayes
I will happily give way. The hon. Lady is now going to test me on my practical incompetence.
Mrs Brackenridge
I have a couple of points to make. Does the right hon. Member acknowledge the important role that universities play in supporting technical advanced education? Does he also agree that, under the stewardship of the last Government, we saw a decimation of specialist careers guidance in schools?
Sir John Hayes
Yes, of course I acknowledge that role. It is important to point out that many of the universities do great work. I would not want to disparage that work, and the hon. Lady is right to draw the House’s attention to it.
The point I was really making is that, sadly, many people are driven down a pathway that is just not right for them. That is because of the underestimation of the significance of practical accomplishment, both at an intellectual level—the unwillingness to recognise that practical accomplishment is of a high order—and at a practical level in terms of the advice that people are often given and may later regret. It is not easy for a young person to know quite what path to take, and if the advice they get skews them towards one route or another, it is fairly likely that they will be ill equipped to make a considered judgment. I am simply making the argument for, at the very least, a degree of equality about the advice we give to people.
This Bill is questionable in a number of respects, and in particular, as has been highlighted by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and others, in the way that it presents the future management and control of apprenticeships and the standards associated with them. It is right that employers play a key role in that process, but the Bill is silent on the role of employers.
I am not an unbridled admirer of the Institute for Apprenticeships. I did not create it. In my time as Minister, and indeed as shadow Minister, the standards were guaranteed by sector skills councils. I would have gone for a sector-based approach myself. Had I stayed in office, I would probably have developed that further and emulated the German approach by establishing guilds. I began to lay some of the foundations for that as Minister, and I would have gone for such an approach rather than where we ended up. Having said that, what is critical about either that kind of sectoral approach or the apprenticeship institute being abolished by the Bill is the role of employers in ensuring that what is taught and tested meets a real economic need. We cannot detach that economic need from the structure by which we guarantee the quality of apprenticeships.
So, there is the issue of quality, and again the Bill is unconvincing in that respect. My right hon. Friend drew attention to the fact that if quality is lowered, the numbers can be increased. Indeed, the Labour Government prior to 2010 introduced programme-led apprenticeships, which were taught entirely outside of the workplace. They were still called apprenticeships but were unrelated to any particular employer or sector. That is not the way forward, and any diminution of standards will further undermine the status of practical learning. I simply say to the Minister that if the Secretary of State is going to take back control—to borrow a popular phrase—it is vital that simultaneously we hear more during the passage of the legislation about how standards will be maintained, because at the moment we have few assurances to that effect.
I will say a word on numbers, partly to advertise my own effectiveness in government. When I became the Minister of State for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, I was able, due to the promotion of apprenticeships, to drive their number to the highest level in modern times. I became the Minister in 2010. By 2011/12, we achieved 521,000 apprenticeships. That has never been equalled since, and we are now down to about 340,000. To say a word about previous Labour Governments, I inherited 280,000 apprenticeships, and the average number of apprenticeship completions from 2000 to 2009-10 was less than 100,000 a year.
As we debate these matters going forward, it is vital that the Government commit to the apprenticeship as a key determiner of their skills policy. The number of apprenticeships and their quality will allow the Government to drive up skills levels and, therefore, to meet economic need.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir John Hayes
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has been listening attentively to my speech so far.
Andrew Pakes
I am worried that I might damn the right hon. Gentleman with faint praise because when he cited the numbers from when he was the Minister, one of the determinants of his success was the involvement of trade unions in the sector skills council and the partnership. While we have talked lots about employers, he was an advocate in his party of involving trade unions. Unfortunately, Ministers after him excluded trade unions from that involvement. Is he advocating that trade unions should be involved in the new system?
Sir John Hayes
I am immensely flattered that the hon. Gentleman has followed my career with such assiduity. He is right: I defended Unionlearn and would continue to do so. Trade unions can play a vital part in ensuring the outcomes that the Government say that they seek and that I certainly believe in. Indeed, I went on a delegation to Germany—this is a minor digression, Madam Deputy Speaker—to look at their apprenticeship system with employers and trade unions, because I know that the combination of trade unions and employers was critical to driving the skills agenda. Again, it would be useful to hear from the Government what they think about that. How will they engage with the trade unions? Because trade unions are not mentioned in the Bill at all, we are left to wonder what will happen, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire said in his excellent speech, when the Secretary of State seizes control of apprenticeships from the current structure.
There are a number of other questions to be put. The hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) made a very good point about SMEs. One challenge when I was a Minister, and for subsequent Ministers and this Government, was in engaging more SMEs. I am not sure that we were successful in that. I launched a review of how we might do that; it was typically by making the system regulatory and trying to review some of the paperwork. Again, as the Bill moves forward, what more will we hear about how to engage more SMEs? If we say to someone in my constituency that there are really good engineering apprenticeships in Derby, which I am told is in the same part of the country—or in the same region at least, whatever that means—we might as well be saying that there are apprenticeships on Mars, because they will not be able to get to Derby to study. We really need the spread of apprenticeship accessibility, which SME involvement provides. It is the only way of creating the reach that is necessary to engage more young people and adult learners in acquiring those skills.
I have one or two further questions, with which I hope the Minister can deal. I have already spoken about employers. On the status of the new body, is it the Government’s intention, as the Secretary of State implied— but no more than that—for it to become a non-departmental body in the end, or will it always be an in-house body? Anyone who has been close to government will know the significance of those two options. It needs at the very least to be a non-departmental body if it is to have the necessary freedom and independence to respond to employer need and changing economic circumstances. The Secretary of State hinted that that might be the direction of travel, but we do need to know more when the Minister sums up.
Luke Murphy
Conservative Members are making quite the noise about IfATE’s independence, but I remind the House that this is a precedented move. The Conservative Government established the Standards and Testing Agency, which is currently the Executive agency and was formerly a non-departmental body. That is exactly the same status as IfATE, which performed very similar functions for many other kinds of qualifications and tests. Why was it okay for the right hon. Gentleman’s Government to do that in 2011? It seems that the Conservatives are more focused on the process point—a process similar to that undertaken by their Government—and not on the outcomes that will deliver for working-class kids interested in learning a trade.
Sir John Hayes
As I say, I am not an unbridled advocate of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, which the Bill abolishes. I did not set it up during my stewardship. As I have already described, I would have preferred a different, guild-based model. Guilds would, by their nature, have been independent from Government. If we look at the German model, the guilds are sovereign, and they are closely tied, by the way, to the trade unions of the particular sectors for which they are responsible. I am simply saying to the Government, “Here is the chance to do something better.” One learns from experience and one learns from government experience, to be honest and straightforward about that.
Certainly, there is the issue of standards. How will standards be determined and delivered? Will that be done by an independent body or a series of independent bodies, perhaps in different parts of the business community, or will it be done directly by the Department? What about the figures in the impact assessment, which says that there would be a reduction in the number of apprenticeships? We are already at a pretty pitifully low level. As I described earlier, the number of apprenticeship starts in 2023-34 stood at 340,000. We can do much better than that, but the Government have certainly suggested in their impact assessment that they expect that number to fall, at least in the interim. By how much do we expect it to fall—5%, 10%, or 25%? We really need to know a little more about that.
The Secretary of State spoke about, as the Labour manifesto detailed, work with the Migration Advisory Committee and others. Can we hear a little more about the detail of that? Certainly, it will be required before we vote on Third Reading, because it is inconceivable that the Government would not want to be more straightforward about how those structural links will work and what role those other bodies will play in helping the Government to deliver their objectives.
Practical accomplishment is something dear to my heart. William Morris—rarely quoted in this House except by me, which is a sad indictment of the modern Labour party—said:
“a man at work, making something which he feels will exist because he is working at it and wills it, is exercising the energies of his mind and soul as well as of his body.”
Morris understood what I know many, from their contributions to this debate, understand too: that it is time to again elevate the practical. This is, of course, about our ambitions for the economy, but it is also about the people who acquire those skills—the way their lives are changed because their life chances are changed.
I started by speaking about John Ruskin and his view of these things. Ruskin said:
“The highest reward for a person’s toil is not what they get for it, but what they become by it.”
Yes, this is about the economy, but it is also about the difference we make to individuals who, through gaining new skills, grow and develop and become proud of what they can do for themselves, their family, their community and their nation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I had not been planning to introduce a formal time limit, but Members might reflect on how many are still standing and perhaps restrain themselves to five minutes or so.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
In rising to support the Bill, I want to say, without heaping too much praise on the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), that it is a pleasure to follow him and many of the comments he made. Like him, I have arrived at this place through the academic route, and perhaps precisely because of that, I, like him, am incredibly aware of the value of the vocational, practical and apprenticeship route. It is in that value that the power of what the Bill is seeking to achieve lies, and I hope to return to that point. I thank the Secretary of State, who is no longer in her place, for bringing forward the Bill, because seven months ago this country voted for change, and what we see today is another building block of that very necessary change.
On a recent visit to Southampton college’s marine skills centre in my constituency for National Apprenticeship Week last week, when it seems we were all busy making visits, I met some apprentices learning a whole range of skills, from engineering to electronics, to carpentry and yacht making. It was truly impressive, mostly because I would be entirely useless at all those skills. It reminded me that investing in apprenticeships is one of the most effective ways that we can equip the next generation with the skills they need. I am pleased to see that, with this Bill, the Government are taking action to ensure we get the right framework in place to shape our apprenticeship system. What apprentices want and what employers need is a system that offers routes into those meaningful, secure jobs, full of the dignity of work, that will bring them success as well as grow the economy.
I am not particularly obsessive about the structure of things or the way in which Government Departments organise themselves to implement policy. Like most people, I want what works, and I want what works best. The truth is that what we have at the moment, however much Opposition Members try to dress it up, is simply not working for too many people. I am pleased that the focus of the Bill is on how we create an agency that will reduce the number of hoops to jump through and will, as my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) said, focus on outcomes, what happens at the end of these training courses, and opportunities.
Damian Hinds
Which hoops is the hon. Gentleman looking forward to the removal of?
Darren Paffey
I think the best people to answer that would be the employers who, time and again, have been telling us—and, I am pretty sure, telling the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues—about the pure bureaucracy and complexity of the system that has been set up. They are the best advocates of the need for change. By setting up Skills England we can give apprenticeships the flexibility and durability that we need, and that those training will need. Importantly, we can take the interests of employers and young people into account.
If the years since 2010 have taught us anything, it is that poor policy has consequences. Sadly, the IfATE structure set up by the previous Tory Government has failed to deliver and, alongside a lack of investment, that has left the UK with stubbornly high numbers of vacancies due to skills shortages and too many young people who are not in education, employment or training. I would welcome reflections from the Minister on how, at the same time as setting out the new framework and strategy for skills development, we can deal specifically with those not in education, employment or training, and whether a strategy specifically on that would be another jigsaw piece in resolving this picture.
Employers in Southampton Itchen are crying out for new trainees and employees, especially those with crucial, basic digital skills, but even today in this country about 7.5 million working-age adults lack those skills. Is that the golden Tory legacy that we keep being reminded of by Members on the Opposition Benches? All of that is changing with the structures that the Bill sets up, paving the way for Skills England. That will meet the skills challenges of today and empower all training providers and employers, including the excellent Kiwi Education and the South Coast Institute of Technology, to drive maritime, engineering, hospitality and digital opportunities in and around Southampton. It will also ensure that we reset the prestige of apprentices and the apprenticeship route, and elevate them once again to a place of real value.
I associate myself with comments from Members on both sides of the Chamber about the value of apprenticeship skills. I say that as someone who has paid my bills by being a university lecturer for a number for years, yet throughout my time in politics I have championed apprenticeship routes. A piece of paper at the end of something is pretty incidental, to be frank, because its real power is what it empowers someone to do and which doors it opens up. To return to the point made by the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, it is about what skills enable someone to be, and what they become through those skills. That is where the real value and prestige of apprenticeships lies, and that is why we are resetting the value of them.
If we want growth and a well-trained workforce, the Bill is a route to delivering that. With this Bill, and with action that I know Ministers will be taking in future, this Labour Government are widening options and breaking down barriers to opportunity for people in Southampton and beyond. That is why I will be proud to walk through the Lobby and vote for the Bill later today.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
The Bill is a crucial first step in the reform of the Government’s skills system. This Government are changing the narrative around skills. When I was younger, apprenticeships were often seen as something for working-class kids and a route into traditional trades such as plumbing, bricklaying—like my dad—hairdressing or being an electrician. Although those trades remain vital—indeed, our ambitious house building targets rely on them—skills today can be about so much more. They are the foundations of our economy, our technological progress and our ability to compete on the global stage.
The Bill underpins the Government’s aim for apprenticeships not to be just for 18-year-olds fresh out of college. In my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, many apprentices are over the age of 25. In fact, the majority of apprenticeships being taken up are advanced qualifications. Those people know what they want to do, may already have years of experience and are looking to upskill, retrain and take their career to the next level. We need exactly that kind of dynamic, lifelong learning.
We cannot just talk about improving skills—we need real, structural reforms to make that happen. That is why the Bill is so important. In October last year, the Government carried out a detailed impact assessment, looking at how it will affect learners, training providers, businesses and staff. The conclusion was clear: the Bill is essential to deliver the manifesto commitment to establish Skills England on which I and many of my hon. Friends stood.
We cannot continue to make the same mistakes made by last Government by keeping the fragmented approach of a slow, inefficient skills system. We do not have time for that. We need a joined-up approach that delivers for people who are trying to build their future, and for employers who are trying to build their business. For that reason, I was concerned about amendment 15 tabled to clause 11 in the other place, which introduced a one-year delay between the establishment of Skills England and the commencement of the Bill. I worry that that will delay the establishment of Skills England, and negatively impact employers, learners and the economy. I hope that the Government can minimise the impact of that amendment in Committee.
Hon. Members will often hear me champion Newcastle and Stafford college, based in my constituency, one of a small number of colleges nationally to twice achieve an Ofsted outstanding rating in all areas, including apprenticeships. It was recently praised for its “strong contribution” to meeting local skills needs, which is incredibly impactful on our local economy. The Bill will only help to increase that impact.
More widely, Skills England will work hand in hand with industry, employees and training providers to ensure we are not just reacting to skills shortages, but proactively identifying them. For too long, we have had a sticking-plaster approach to skills—and, let us be honest, to everything else—but that must change. We need to be strategic, focused and ambitious in developing a workforce who are prepared for the future. The Bill recognises those needs and confirms the manifesto commitment that I proudly stood on. I am delighted to see it progress, so that people in Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages can better access training and, ultimately, better jobs. I urge all colleagues to vote for the Bill.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I and all my hon. Friends were elected last year on a simple promise: change. It was a promise to rebuild our country, economy, health service and infrastructure, and to lay the foundations for a brighter future where we will overcome the challenges of climate change, see the benefits of a green economy and lead the world in new technology. It will be a future of prosperity and opportunity for all. All of that—every mission the Government have set out—depends on a skilled workforce.
I have recently seen the diversity of apprenticeships in my local area, from the National Horseracing College in Rossington, to the SSE business in Keadby, to Jack who cuts my hair, who I am sure hon. Members will agree is supremely talented—a phenomenon. I just ruined his career, I think—sorry, Jack! Everything this Government have promised can be created only by having the right people, with the right skills, in the right place, at the right time.
Whether they are in the NHS, energy, house building or security, apprenticeships have been part of the fabric of British society for hundreds of years. They have made us the country that we are today. In the past, modern apprenticeships were met with great enthusiasm by both leaders and businesses. They represented a different way of learning and had great promise, but in recent years that promise has been unfulfilled. Both apprenticeship starts and, crucially, apprenticeship completions have fallen off dramatically. The current system is not working for learners, employers or our country.
We need a targeted and strategic system that works for everyone. The system must work with local leaders and businesses to be relevant to the skills gaps that are holding our economy back. We need partnership, but most importantly we need a system that inspires and empowers our teens and young people.
Both before and since becoming an MP, I have had the privilege to meet many of the young people in schools in my constituency. Their talent and ambition are outstanding. So many of them are raring to change the world to tackle the climate crisis, harness artificial intelligence and be part of a brighter future. All they need is the opportunity to succeed, and they will make us proud. That is what the Government have promised, and the establishment and progression of Skills England is at the heart of that promise.
Creating Skills England was one of this Government’s first acts, and it is already doing important work. This Bill is an important step towards fully empowering Skills England, reshaping the skills landscape and getting our economy growing. This Government’s No. 1 priority is growth and to get the economy working again not just in some places and for some people, but everywhere for everyone—for north and south, urban and rural and all backgrounds and abilities. The fragmented approach we have seen over the last decade has never been so evident in the lack of pipeline for skills that we need right now and in the future.
Skills and apprenticeships must be at the heart of that strategy. Too many industries are held back from their potential because of the skills shortages we see. So many of the challenges that this country faces are rooted in the skills gap. Our housing crisis is built on a huge deficit in skilled construction workers, our hospitals and care homes cannot get the staff they need to do much more than hold together a system on the verge of collapse, and our economic productivity crisis is rooted in far too many people who miss out on the opportunity to fulfil their potential, so they neither thrive themselves nor contribute to our thriving economy.
I have spent my life working with water and the land. Blue-green infrastructure is absolutely vital, and new, smarter ways to work with nature are developing constantly. As we transition to net zero and sustainable development and growth and develop green energy solutions, we open up a whole sector of future jobs. In the coming decades, jobs and the blue-green economy will be as important as factories and coal mines were in the industrial revolution. We must embrace that opportunity now and use Skills England and the apprenticeship system to get our people ready for jobs in an industry in which we lead the world once again.
Britain has never had the biggest population, the most land or the greatest supply of natural resources, but we have been able to lead the world for centuries because of the skill of British people. We lead through technology, innovation and craftsmanship and through our wonderful natural talent. Britain sparked the industrial revolution and became the workshop of the world because of the skill of its workers, and that is why I am really happy to support this Bill.
Tom Collins (Worcester) (Lab)
I am pleased to see that we have some young people observing us today. Before coming to this place, I worked in research and development, leading a team of talented young engineers who were creating and realising new technologies to tackle the climate crisis. Some of those team members were apprentices, and some had been apprentices earlier in their careers. We faced many challenges, not least from a regulatory environment that struggled to move quickly in innovation and in finding relevant qualifications for new and emerging fields. Some of those challenges are inherent in doing something for the first time, but they were also the result of a UK engineering and industrial sector that had been neglected and, in some places, allowed to stagnate by political leaders who simply did not get it.
I am pleased that this new Government have embraced the values of purposeful, mission-led goal setting alongside agility, partnership and a willingness to act and learn fast. Just like our regulatory environment, our education ecosystem, which delivers skills and qualifications, needs to become more agile and responsive, and this Bill is an early step in that transformation and in reviving the symbiosis of academia and industry in our nations.
Anyone who works in engineering knows that there is no employee quite like an apprentice. Apprentices embody some of the most valuable skills needed in the workplace, such as social competencies that fuel teamwork, empathy, excellent communication, shared purpose, critical thinking and problem-solving skills built on perseverance, experimentation and pragmatism and a can-do attitude backed by hard skills honed in the real world. I have had numerous meetings with our local colleges in Worcester, and they are champing at the bit to deliver the technical and vocational skills needed for the big transformations that our country faces in digital, clean energy and public services. They welcome our changes to reduce bureaucracy and lift demotivating and burdensome requirements for English and maths GCSEs, as well as the changes that we are beginning to make regarding shorter placements and funding bands. They want us to keep going; I have been asked whether we could look at industry-specific flexibility around English and maths for 16 to 18-year-olds, with requirements integrated into standards. I have also been asked about further reviews of apprenticeship standards and funding bands in a wider range of areas, such as hospitality and customer service, and they would like us to keep building on our partnership with the sector, providing clarity about future levy changes and level 7 so that they can plan more effectively.
I am pleased that this Government are making changes that provide the agility and freedom to act quickly and responsively. Innovations in our economy will be founded on innovations in our ecosystem of education and skills. We can see a creative, industrial and innovative renaissance in the UK, and I believe that apprentices will be in the thick of it, delivering the true power of a thriving economy: skills and passionate people. As such, I urge the Secretary of State and our Ministers in the Department for Education to continue this work at pace, and I would like to express the appetite and ambition that is present in Worcester to play our part in delivering the technical and vocational skills of tomorrow through apprenticeships. The people of Worcester are ready to back the Secretary of State’s mission and work in partnership with the Government to break down the barriers to opportunity and see our country—and every single person who makes it—thrive.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
It is an honour to follow such a passionate speech about apprenticeships from my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Tom Collins). I was going to thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for raising John Ruskin and William Morris in the Chamber—I certainly think they should be mentioned more often—but I will amend my comments to say that it would be nice to have some Opposition Members in the Chamber for this important debate.
Andrew Pakes
It is nice to have some—to have some more would be quite good.
Whereas we have had William Morris and John Ruskin, some colleagues seem to have been getting speechwriting advice from Lewis Carroll, because some of the speeches from Opposition Members have been through the looking glass in their description of the problems and what is happening. We are lost in a debate where people are stuck on the function of a body, rather than the purpose we are trying to achieve, which is to change and enhance people’s lives.
Before I continue, I must declare my interest. Alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on apprenticeships. Apprenticeships are my passion in this House and in life, so I certainly believe that the transfer of functions and assets from the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education to the new Skills England body is an overwhelmingly positive move. It was a proposal made in our manifesto—another promise made and kept by this Government.
The rationale underpinning this Bill is simple enough: the scope of the institute was too limited, and it is letting too many people down. Vitally, Skills England will work with young workers on their learning journey, signposting them through the maze of qualifications and apprenticeship opportunities. More than that, it will identify the skills gaps in our economy and work with the Industrial Strategy Council and the Migration Advisory Committee to plug those gaps. This matters to me, because in Peterborough, we have some of the highest levels of youth unemployment in the country. Apprenticeship starts are down, and unemployment is up.
It is clear to me that the work of Skills England must be aligned with the new industrial strategy, something we heard too little about from Opposition Members in their discussions of this issue. It does not matter what structure we have if we do not have industrial purpose, which this Government will bring to our growth mission, but also to our mission to remove barriers and transform lives. We must have cross-departmental, cross-agency, joined-up working to deliver the skills revolution and take us out of the old silos. When the Minister replies to the debate, I encourage her to detail how the industrial strategy and new Skills England bodies will work together to create those transformational opportunities. I also invite her to talk about how the growth and skills levy will fit together with Skills England, enabling us to deliver on those ambitions.
Our No. 1 mission is economic growth, spread to every part of the UK and built on a diverse base of industries and services. That mission will be hamstrung unless we unleash a skills revolution. The first report of Skills England made that clear, and it shows the scale of the challenge. Employer investment in training has been in steady decline over the past decade, with training expenditure at its lowest level since records began in 2011. Investment per employee is down 19% in real terms. I know from talking to business leaders in my constituency that they find the qualifications landscape and the institute bewildering. They tell me that skills supply is often mismatched against demand and that there are insufficient ways to encourage employers to invest in skills. I know from talking to learners in my constituency that the journeys into careers are poorly signposted and often blocked. Learners too often lack the essential literacy, numeracy and digital skills they need prior to apprenticeships to get the jobs they need.
In short, we do not have the skilled workers to do the future jobs that will drive growth. This Bill goes a long way to addressing that by setting up the institution and the purpose to get us there. Apprenticeships are the golden thread that run through this Government’s ambitions for growth. The new Skills England must recognise the centrality of apprenticeships to that and bring them centre stage into our economy.
As so many others in the Chamber have discussed today, the breadth, talent and determination of the apprentices I have met has been humbling, whether that is the butchers’ apprentices in Newborough, construction apprentices at Laing O’Rourke building a new Olympia or creative learners at the Fashion Retail Academy. Recently, I was delighted to welcome engineering apprentices from Caterpillar in my constituency to talk to us.
These apprenticeships will give young people a clearer route into careers where the nation has skills gaps. The new levy we are talking about will fund short apprenticeships, giving learners and employers greater flexibility. Overall, we must elevate the status of apprenticeships in our society and culture. I am not decrying our universities, but we must end the snobbery that says an apprenticeship is second-best to a degree. We must tackle the outmoded idea that learning and earning is a lesser option for young people. We do not hear that lazy trope in Sweden or Germany, and we should never hear it here in the UK. My third question to the Minister is: how will Skills England work through this legislation to elevate the role of apprenticeships in our society?
Skills and apprenticeships are not only the engine of growth, but the ladder of opportunity. The Minister will have seen the excellent briefings on this Bill from the Co-operative Group, of which I am a member, and one of its central challenges is that we should not just be creating more apprenticeships, but ensuring that Skills England has a responsibility to improve outcomes for those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, including working-class kids in my constituency. That will ensure that the new body has social mobility baked into it from its inception. That will not only deliver better outcomes for those from working-class backgrounds, but will encourage Skills England to thoroughly measure the impact. When the Minister responds to the debate, will she talk about how we will measure the impact in cities such as mine, as well as the country as a whole?
This is a wonderful Bill, and I am pleased to support it. I am pleased to put on record my support to the ministerial team, particularly Baroness Smith of Malvern in the other House, who has been kind with her time and brilliant with this Bill.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
My driving focus as the MP for Hertford and Stortford is to make our community an even better place to live, work and learn. I am delighted to speak in this debate today, and I have no doubt that the Bill will allow us to harness the talents of our young people through ambitious skills reform that will drive growth and unlock opportunity.
Our young people in Hertford and Stortford are keen to take advantage of these opportunities, and the confidence that apprenticeships instil in our young people cannot be overstated. Earlier this month, I had the pleasure of visiting the Hertford regional college’s Ware campus to mark National Apprenticeship Week. It was great to meet some of its talented hairdressing apprentices and hear how they are starting to fill jobs at small and medium-sized businesses in our local area and to learn more about HRC’s apprenticeship offer for my constituents.
In our community, we can see how apprenticeships are helping young people to find the path that is right for them, develop skills for life and drive the local economy, but for too long, those opportunities have been out of reach for too many young people in our area, leaving those for whom traditional education does not work, who want to pursue an apprenticeship or another form of education, to slip through the cracks. Apprenticeship starts crashed under the watch of the previous Government. A broken apprenticeships levy let down businesses and young people alike, and both are now crying out for change.
I am pleased that this Government will introduce a new growth and skills levy, enabling employers to access a broader range of higher quality training offers, providing them with more flexibility and helping learners to access opportunities that will improve their lives.
The Department for Education’s employer skills survey showed that about 36% of all UK vacancies in 2022 were skills shortage vacancies—a huge increase from 22% in 2017, and a clear indicator of the damage done to the economy by the lack of a strong skills offer. This Labour Government will tackle the critical skills shortages that have hamstrung our economy, and apprenticeships will power this mission-driven Government and our Plan for Change.
We know that the skills needed for economic growth come from the community up. The Bill will pave the way for Skills England to find and fill skills gaps, ensuring that our skills and apprenticeship offer can harness the talent of young people in communities such as mine and deliver the growth that our country needs. It will allow us to build a skills system that empowers our young people, caters to their diverse talents, and once again restores skills as a national priority. Most important, it will provide the tools for young people in Hertford and Stortford to break down the barriers to opportunity, find the path that is right for them, and reach their full potential. I will proudly vote for it this evening.
Dan Aldridge (Weston-super-Mare) (Lab)
The Bill constitutes a significant step towards streamlining and strengthening our technical education and apprenticeship system, and, as someone who worked in the apprenticeships sector in different roles, I am a big fan. So many of us have seen at first hand how apprenticeships transform lives—how they build dignity in young people’s work, and help them to establish fulfilling careers. Joy at all this unlocked potential has, however, been continually frustrated by the decline in apprenticeships that we have seen over the past decade. This decline must be reversed, and that, surely, is an aim that can unite the House. It is what this Bill is about: delivering the step change in skills that we so desperately need if we are to rebuild our communities and our country.
My constituents must be able to earn, learn and thrive because of what we do in this place, not in spite of it. In towns such as Weston-super-Mare and Worle, technical education and apprenticeships are fundamental to enterprise, prosperity and economic independence for our young people. Sadly, however, towns like mine have never been able to take full advantage of those benefits, because of red tape and because of the hoops that providers and small and medium-sized enterprises have had to jump through. For too long we have seen a fragmented technical education system plagued by that red tape and by inefficiencies.
Given the huge responsibility and expectation on this Government to deliver significantly improved life chances for communities, we must break down barriers and blocks to progress everywhere, and we must be bold in the way in which we restructure the state to make it deliver. Our employers, our training providers and, most important, our apprentices deserve a system that is responsive, transparent, and aligned with the needs of our economy and our society. The young people of Weston-super-Mare are bursting with potential and ambition, but they have often been let down by needless bureaucracy and a lack of the right opportunities and resources—and the right information, advice and guidance—to enable them to develop the skills that are needed by today’s employers. Communities like mine have been left behind by successive skills strategies that have overlooked the nuances in our local economies, especially when it comes to supporting the needs of the SMEs that provide the overwhelming majority of private sector employment in towns such as mine—whether we are talking about Weston-super-Mare association football club, the Ascot Group or our beloved grand pier.
This Bill removes bureaucracy, and will make the system work better. It allows the Secretary of State to act swiftly when necessary, to respond to industry’s needs and to deliver the flexibility that is crucial in a job market where skills requirements are constantly evolving and moving on at an unprecedented pace. If we are serious about providing high-quality technical education, closing the skills gap and developing our workforce, we must structure our institutions to achieve those goals. We must also ensure that towns up and down the country that sit outside cities and, currently, outside combined authority areas—such as Weston-super-Mare—are fully considered, are not left behind in any reforms of skills and apprenticeships, and have a seat at the table when it comes to skills and growth plans. The Bill is a huge step in the right direction, and I urge all my colleagues on both sides of the House to support it.
Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)
For too long, our skills system has not delivered due to policies that simply have not worked. Businesses have struggled to recruit the skilled workers they need, young people do not have the opportunities they deserve and investment in training has gone backwards. The previous Government talked a good game and introduced measures such as the apprenticeship levy with big promises, but in reality their approach was slow, bureaucratic and failed to deliver.
It is worth noting, as I said in my interventions on Conservative Members, that I feel their criticism of the Bill today has focused far too much on structures, not outcomes, but since they have done that, I think it is worth reiterating this point. The Standards and Testing Agency sets the statutory assessments for school pupils, and it develops professional skills tests for trainee teachers. It is an Executive agency, just as Skills England will be, and it was formally a non-departmental public body, just as IfATE was. However, the Standards and Testing Agency was set up in October 2011, so I am not sure that criticisms of structures actually hold any merit; rather, they are a distraction from the record of the Conservative party. On its watch, investment in skills fell and apprenticeship starts dropped. Critical sectors are still facing chronic skills shortages, and employers up and down the country have been left navigating a system that just does not work for them. That is why this Bill is so important. It is about fixing what is broken and making sure that our skills system actually works for workers, businesses and the wider economy.
To celebrate National Apprenticeship Week, I visited Basingstoke College of Technology to talk to its current class of carpentry and joinery apprentices, and to speak to college leaders. It was a particular privilege for me because my dad was a carpenter. He left school at 15 with no qualifications, but in the trade that he learned on the job he had skill and pride in his craft. He did not have the opportunity that many young people I met last week in Basingstoke have, with the fantastic support structures around apprentices today and more that we are going to build, as well as all the brilliant ways in which apprenticeships can help turbocharge the careers of so many talented and skilled young people.
One thing that was made very clear to me from my visit to BCOT alone is that it is massively oversubscribed for many of the apprenticeships it offers. That worries me, because it shows that too many young people are not getting access to the resources they need to learn a trade and are being left behind by more than a decade of failure to deliver. So I am pleased that this Government, through this Bill, are working harder and faster—with their very first education Bill to be introduced—to cut red tape and give people greater opportunities to start apprenticeships.
With 1,250 apprentices currently training in Basingstoke, 310 just starting and 110 having just completed their courses, the Labour Government are already making progress, but there is much more to do. I want Basingstoke to be the best place for someone to learn a trade, start a career and build a life for themselves, and I believe this Bill will help to deliver just that, laying the groundwork to establish Skills England and taking a step towards a more joined-up and responsive approach.
Skills England will replace the current fragmented system with one that properly assesses national and regional skills needs, which will be absolutely crucial if we are to meet the challenges of the future. That will ensure we are training people for the jobs that actually exist in the places where they are actually needed. This is not just about cutting red tape; it is about making sure that our approach to apprenticeships and technical education is fit for the modern economy. For years, the system has been tied up in rigid, outdated rules that make it harder to respond to the fast-changing needs of industries such as digital, green energy and advanced manufacturing. The changes in this Bill will allow for a more flexible, forward-thinking approach that actually meets the needs of employers and workers alike. A big part of that is replacing the old apprenticeship levy, which has been too restrictive, with a new growth and skills levy, which will give employers the freedom to invest in a wider range of training opportunities.
As other Members have said, we must put an end to the snobbery around skills and apprenticeships. For too long, highly skilled and essential trades have not been given the recognition they deserve. Too often they have been seen as somehow less valuable than the careers that require a university degree, despite being just as vital, just as skilled and just as valuable to our economy and society. I am proud that this Government are changing that narrative. We need these skills to drive growth, build the homes and infrastructure that we need and deliver energy security. We have the opportunity here to fix the mistakes of the past and to build something better. I urge colleagues to support the Bill, because a strong skills system is not just good for business and the economy, but good for everyone.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on apprenticeships, alongside my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes), I welcome the Government’s focus on this crucial aspect of skills policy. They have inherited a wildly diverse and dysfunctional skills landscape. I would not go so far as to describe what we have as a skills system, which would seem to suggest something far more considered and structured than what currently exists. This Bill is the Government’s first very small legislative step towards addressing the skills crisis that is one of our nation’s biggest barriers to growth and productivity.
It is almost impossible to have a meeting with an employer—private or public sector—without the issue of the UK’s skills deficit arising. Apprenticeships are a crucial but criminally underutilised dimension of providing Britain’s learners with an opportunity to earn while they learn, and provide our employers with skilled and qualified workers who contribute in the workplace as they develop the skills they will need. Indeed, the Government’s ambitious aspirations for growth will remain purely aspirations if the current failure in our skills approach is not rectified.
The right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) suggested that the previous Conservative Government’s record on apprenticeships was world class, but I beg to differ. In discussing apprenticeships, it is worth first identifying what is wrong with the current system before considering the extent to which the Bill moves us towards resolution of those issues.
First, it is estimated that around £480 million will be left unspent in the major employers’ apprenticeship levy pot this year. FE News reported in February 2024 that SME apprenticeship starts had fallen by 49% since the introduction of the apprenticeship levy, with the cost, rigidity and bureaucracy of the current system all cited as reasons why SMEs do not take on apprentices. Level 2 and 3 apprenticeships, in particular, have suffered, with a 53% reduction since the introduction of the levy, while a growing portion of the levy pot is being spent on degree-level courses.
Degree-level apprenticeships should be a huge social mobility tool, with learners from poorer backgrounds who might be dissuaded from attending university relishing the opportunity to secure a degree while working and without accruing debt. However, recent research has shown, shockingly, that degree apprenticeships are being swept up by the wealthier students, with free school meals pupils less likely to get a degree apprenticeship than to get a place at Oxbridge.
Finally, the completion rate of apprenticeships is worryingly low, at just 54.3% of all students, compared with 97% of A-level students passing across all subjects. This is due to many causes; the Government have set about addressing one by removing the need to pass functional maths and English in order to complete an apprenticeship for under-19s. However, there also needs to be a much greater link between the completion of the apprenticeship and the fitness-to-practise requirements. Many learners do not complete the apprenticeship, but not because they have failed—they may well have secured the skills they needed to start work, and do not see the apprenticeship as being relevant once the job has been secured. There is, therefore, a great deal for the noble Baroness Smith, in the other place, to sink her teeth into.
This Bill is the Skills England Bill that dare not speak its name. By abolishing IfATE, it lays the groundwork for the creation of Skills England. There are important questions for the Government to answer, and I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister responds to the debate, she will be able to enlighten us on a number of them. First, is she concerned that Skills England will have the necessary weight and independence to bring about the scale of change that its own report acknowledged was necessary? What will the extended scope of Skills England be, beyond the identification of standards and the potential alternative use of the Government’s new growth and skills levy?
If the Minister is not clear about what shape Skills England will take post IfATE, is she concerned about abolishing IfATE without being clear on what will replace it and where the responsibility for those functions will fall? Can she say any more about how the voice of employers will be heard when the powers are centralised with the Secretary of State? There may be huge enthusiasm for the Secretary of State taking a more streamlined approach, on occasions, to the process of creating new standards, as IfATE is seen as too cumbersome. However, does she agree that that must be the exception rather than the rule? How will she ensure that employers’ voices are still heard? Can she also confirm that the powers to approve standards will indeed pass to Skills England once that has been created, and can she say any more about the role of Skills England with regard to the growth and skills levy?
I very much welcome Baroness Smith’s announcement about removing the need for passing maths and English for students who are over 19, but has the Minister done any assessment of the merits of that for students under the age of 19? I am interested in understanding the arguments in favour of that change for over 19s that do not apply to students who are under 19.
I hugely welcome the Government’s commitment to this area of policy and the positive initial steps. I suspect that it will not be news to my hon. Friend that I think that far greater systemic change is needed if we are to deliver the more transformational change that our employers, our learners and, indeed, our nation desperately need.
Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)
I do not support the amendment but will speak in favour of the Bill.
As many have highlighted, there is a gap between the skills needed by employers and the skills held by the UK workforce. Skills shortage vacancies have been on the rise year after year, and the latest data shows that a third of all vacancies are due to skills shortages. It is holding our country back and, therefore, the system needs to change. The immediate skills gaps need to be addressed urgently, but just as pressing is the need to have a single body that considers the skills that our businesses will need 10, 20 or 30 years from now, with 1.4 million new jobs predicted by 2035 alone. Many of those new jobs will need technical green skills, digital skills and understanding of artificial intelligence.
If our Government are to achieve the changes in this country that so many people voted for—more homes, green energy and economic growth that puts money back into people’s pockets—skills are the key ingredient. The importance of apprenticeships and technical qualifications to that mission cannot be underestimated. Indeed, I was immensely proud when the Prime Minister and the Education Secretary visited MidKent College in my constituency before the election to set out their ambition to put vocational education on the same footing as academic university education.
If Skills England is to achieve its aims and help us to meet the skills challenges our country faces, it must cover all areas. I therefore welcome the Bill, which folds IfATE into Skills England to enable that integrated approach to support our labour market and economy.
As others have mentioned, the Bill will make Skills England an Executive agency of the Department for Education. I am pleased that Ministers amended the Bill in the other place to require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament detailing the exercise of functions conferred on her by the Bill. I understand that will also make clear the functions that Skills England will take on and the expected effects of those functions. I likewise welcome the commitment to publishing details of the framework that will be used to hold Skills England to account for its delivery and its relationship with employers. The clarity those documents will provide is most welcome.
I will also take this opportunity briefly to welcome the reforms announced by the Government during National Apprenticeship Week. The apprenticeship levy under the former Government, well meaning though it was, was too cumbersome and restrictive for too many employers and learners. As a result, apprenticeship starts fell off a cliff, and the latest data on apprenticeship completion shows a rate of just 55% in England. I am therefore pleased that the Government have listened to employers and training providers and committed to making the new growth and skills levy, which will replace the apprenticeship levy, simpler, more flexible and employer-led. I note that Skills England will be tasked with carrying out analysis of the broader types of training that will be eligible under the new levy and I look forward to seeing the outcome of that work, which will be hugely beneficial to employers and apprentices.
A common issue with the current apprenticeship schemes in this country, as others have mentioned, is that it does not work for small and medium-sized enterprises, which do not have large human resources departments to help navigate the often complex skills landscape. Nowhere is this more apparent than in my local authority area of Medway where 90% of all businesses are SMEs. Can the Minister set out how the Government will ensure that the voices of SMEs will be heard, so that we get an apprenticeship framework that works for all types of businesses? That is particularly important if we are to drive growth across all parts of the country. I know, for instance, that there are some larger businesses looking at how they can provide practical apprenticeship support to SMEs in their supply chain, so it would be good to know whether the Government are considering how they can best incentivise approaches such as this, which will help hugely by “de-risking” apprenticeships for SMEs.
Likewise, I know that there are some amazing smaller training providers. I have a fantastic women-led one in my constituency called Umbrella Training. It is equally important that these providers’ experiences and needs are reflected in the new apprenticeship system.
There are always risks associated with change; that is unavoidable. There is obviously some concern that the transfer of IfATE to Skills England may lead to a level of disruption, so it would be helpful if the Minister provided details of the main risks identified by her Department for the transition and how they will be managed and mitigated. Doing so would help to provide assurance to those currently undertaking apprenticeships and other technical qualifications, as well as to employers. It will be particularly important to ensure that the knowledge and expertise of staff at IfATE—no doubt built up over many years—is not lost during this process.
It will also be helpful for Skills England to set out a number of other issues in due course, such as what changes may be proposed to the local skills improvement plan framework, and assurance that local areas will be able to prioritise sectors or industries that are key to driving their local economy that may not feature in the Government’s industrial strategy, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) earlier in the debate. Anything further that the Minister can say on these points at this stage would be welcome.
Finally, clause 6 removes the requirement to review technical educational qualifications at regular intervals. Instead, the Secretary of State will have the flexibility to focus on reviews based on need. It would be helpful if, in her response, the Minister outlined what steps will be taken to ensure that the quality and relevance of qualifications is maintained under the new framework.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Before I call the next speaker, may I gently remind Members that their speeches should be no longer than five minutes?
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
Like many of my colleagues, I found that this year’s National Apprenticeship Week really brought to life the amazing work being done by businesses, organisations and students across my constituency. Listening to many of the comments from across the House about how we need to improve the culture and perception around technical education, I am minded to reflect on the experience that I had when I was in year 9 and getting quite high results in my electronics exams. I had an amazing teacher, Miss Robinson, who asked me one day whether I would consider doing a BTEC in engineering. I did not end up following that technical route, but I do wonder what our productivity would be today if, back then, our culture had promoted it more prominently, particularly for people who were very academic.
I am really excited at the prospect of the Bill laying the groundwork for the new body, Skills England, to realise our ambitious missions for opportunity and growth. One of the best commitments in this Government’s manifesto was to link immigration and skills policy in an effort to tackle the UK’s reliance on international recruitment. Indeed, during the general election campaign, I was on a panel with fellow candidates in Lancashire and explained our commitment, and a fellow candidate standing for Reform remarked that he actually really liked that idea. I will be interested to see whether his colleagues agree today.
Skills England will work closely with the Migration Advisory Committee and Industrial Strategy Council to develop an evidence-based approach to the labour market, with the committee set to monitor sectors where skill shortages are leading to increases in overseas recruitment. Importantly, this will mean that there will be a focus on sectors reliant on overseas workers to ensure that they are addressing their failure to invest in skills in the UK. To support British workers as best we can, it is promising to hear that international recruitment will not be the standard choice for employers filling skill shortages. Although migration can play a strategic role in supporting our economy, it must not be utilised as a means to address skills or training shortages in the UK over supporting British workers here. In general, we are far too familiar with pressing skills gaps negatively affecting our economy. Some 20% of our UK workforce may be significantly under-skilled for their jobs by 2030, and 1.5 million jobs in England are at risk of at least some of their tasks being automated in future.
There are businesses and organisations leading the charge in tackling this. In my previous life away from this place, I was privileged to work alongside the Lancashire skills and employment hub and the Lancashire digital skills partnership, which have long been pioneers for developing our skills landscape in this country. I would like to put on record my thanks to Michele Lawty-Jones and Kerry Harrison, who lead those services, piloting programmes such as the skills bootcamps, which they made such a success of in Lancashire that the previous Government rolled them out nationally.
Their hard work also secured the Lancashire and Cumbria institute of technology, which I was delighted to visit last week at the Preston college base in my constituency. Its principal, Simon Nixon, and many students spoke to me about the technical training that they receive in health and social care, construction, counselling and engineering. Vitally, Preston college collaborates closely with industry experts and businesses to ensure that its curriculum is up to date and reflects the needs of the economy. It is working with around 950 employers who help design the curriculum, support assessments and offer mentoring and industry placements for its IoT students. A great example of that is its work with Leyland Trucks, which reported a need for electric vehicle training for its apprentices. The college embedded a new module into its institute of technology course.
A key need that Preston college meets is providing increased adult education opportunities. The upcoming devolution deal in Lancashire will undoubtedly allow organisations to have an increased say in adult education budgets, to boost local productivity and foster the right opportunities for the north-west. However, the college is concerned about the reported 2% to 3% reduction in adult skills budgets. For colleges that have little adult work or that have struggled to deliver against contract, that might be less of a problem, but Preston college gets around 20% of its income from adult provision and has been able to over-deliver for the past few years. Any reduction applied across the board would hit Preston college’s delivery, particularly in key areas such as construction and English for speakers of other languages, and is likely to add to cost pressures already felt.
Undoubtedly, we are under severe financial pressure at the moment, but we need to be careful that short-term savings do not impact the long-term skills development that we desperately need to lead us to a better financial outlook. I welcome the Minister’s comments on that. What really blew me away at Preston college was the feel of the place. It felt inspiring, modern and a place to really grow. I heard from students who had had negative experiences elsewhere but felt truly at home there. That is what Government investment can do for the wellbeing of areas in need of growth. That is the opportunity we have with this Bill.
BAE Systems is another business operating in my constituency that offers fantastic training and skills opportunities, particularly through apprenticeships. I was moved on a recent visit, on which I was delighted to be joined by the Minister for Skills, Baroness Smith, by a young person who had tried a few times to get a role at BAE Systems. Because of the multitude of inclusive routes that BAE provides young people to end up on one of its apprenticeships, he eventually found a route that allowed his strengths and potential to shine, enabling him to secure a role.
I know from having worked in economic development in Lancashire that many local SMEs have benefited from BAE Systems over-training on its apprenticeship programmes, so that there is a supply of apprentices who can flow into the surrounding SME chain. As many Members have noted, a big challenge is how we encourage SMEs to support apprenticeships when they may need only one or two apprentices. The route that BAE went down came from targeted Government funding. I would welcome the Government’s considering something similar. BAE had the training infrastructure to provide the support much more efficiently than most SMEs would be able to do themselves. We should maximise our productivity in how we train people by making the most of the successful structures that we already have.
I am delighted that almost half of people starting apprenticeships in Ribble Valley in the past year were aged over 25, showing that people in my constituency are ambitious and committed to lifelong learning. I fully support the Bill and I cannot wait to see Skills England established, to support those looking to improve their skills by bringing about a more data-driven and joined-up skills system for all of us.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
It is often said that the UK is increasingly a knowledge economy; a place where our growth and jobs come both from trading ideas and information as well as physical goods. This Government’s plan for growth clearly recognises that and plays to our strengths, which is why we are now the second most attractive country to invest in globally, according to a recent PWC report. However, it is vital that the benefits are felt equally across our country.
Areas with a proud industrial heritage like my constituency of Mansfield did not get the investment and training programmes they needed under previous Governments, and our young people have suffered the consequences of that. Many of them face an unenviable choice between staying trapped in unstable and low-quality employment or leaving their home towns to seek opportunity elsewhere in the country. My election in July was a resounding vote for change in Mansfield, and my first mission for the constituency was to fight for a growing economy with good-quality jobs for everyone. For that reason, I will be pleased to vote for the Bill, which is a major step of progress in the Government’s reform of the skills and apprenticeships system.
Apprenticeships are a critical component for high-quality jobs in Mansfield. On my visits to businesses around my constituency, I have been fortunate enough to see the great work already being done by some of our employers, working in partnership with West Notts college and Nottingham Trent University. That includes: local aerospace and nuclear electronics company Glenair, which recently took on 60 apprentices; Power Saving Solutions in Warsop; and Capita in Mansfield, which is doing particularly good work to support people with disabilities to access and sustain employment through apprenticeships. They are providing opportunities not just for school leavers but for those who are retraining and getting back into the world of work. We must not underestimate the importance of that for those individuals, the local economy or for productivity and growth nationally. We need to be doing more to encourage that type of opportunity in my constituency and across the country.
I therefore welcome the changes that we will vote on today. In particular, the transfer of powers from the old Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education to the new Skills England body and the reform of the apprenticeship levy are two measures that will help bring together under one roof the patchwork of schemes and organisations that currently exists and result in a more flexible system that will give our local training pioneers the support they need.
Britain needs to begin the process of reskilling workers. I draw attention to the work that Nottingham Trent is doing with West Notts to encourage adult learners, facilitating direct entry into the renewables workforce, which is another great example. I expect the impacts to be transformative for Mansfield in the long term. For that reason, I end by inviting the Minister to visit my constituency, where she will be able to see for herself the start made in upskilling our young people and adults as well as how far these changes will go in delivering secure, fulfilling, well-paid employment.
Mansfield is a place with significant latent potential. I believe that a keen-eyed collaboration between local businesses, further and higher education and the Government will support our formerly neglected area to realise the potential that we have.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
Too many young people are being let down by a skills and training system that does not work for them. For too long, Britain has been a country where technical education has been treated as second class, skills shortages stifled success and talent went untapped. Let us be clear: the Conservatives’ legacy has failed our young people and they cannot keep using the pandemic as an excuse. Between October 2023 and September 2024, 41% of people aged 16 to 24 were economically inactive in the north-west; nationally, that number was 11.4%. I would be really interested to hear what Conservative Members have to say to young people in the north-west.
In the last two years, skills shortages have left more than a third of UK vacancies unfilled while the number of 16 to 24-year-olds looking for work has doubled. That is over 420,000 young people wanting to work and to contribute to our economy, but, without the right training, they cannot get those jobs that need filling—jobs that they could thrive in if we had the right skills system.
Our young people are not lazy. Rather, it is the system the Conservatives left behind that has failed them. Visiting businesses in Bolton, I know that employers are desperate for skilled workers and that they recognise skills training and apprenticeships as a way forward. The young apprentices I have met in Bolton are thriving. They have security, skills and a clear path ahead, and that confidence is transforming lives and livelihoods. That is why am proud that, through this Bill, this Labour Government are establishing Skills England. Skills are not second class; they are the backbone of Britain. Skills England will break barriers that have left entire regions such as mine behind.
In Bolton, have already seen what works. Bolton Lads and Girls Club, part of the outstanding youth charity OnSide, has achieved remarkable success with its On Track initiative. This programme provides one-to-one support for young people who are not in education, employment or training, offering practical help with CV building, interview preparation and visits to businesses. But more than that, it broadens their horizons, showing them the many promising alternatives to the traditional university route and pathways that may better suit their skills and ambitions.
I recently visited Bolton college during National Apprenticeship Week. Its apprenticeship programme is another shining example of how investment in skills transforms lives. From health and early years education to engineering, digital skills and low-carbon construction, Bolton college is equipping young people with the expertise that businesses urgently need. During my visit, it was clear that the apprenticeship levy’s rigid restrictions —allowing funds to cover training but not wages—were directly preventing businesses from hiring more apprentices, so I sincerely hope that Skills England will review the levy so that more young people can earn while they learn and employers can fill those critical skills gaps.
The successes of OnSide and Bolton college provide proof of what happens when we invest in skills and opportunities. Now we must take those lessons and scale them up nationally. This Bill and Skills England are not just about educational reform; they are an economic necessity and critical for growth, because Britain cannot build, grow or lead without a workforce that is skilled for the future.
But let us also be clear about what Skills England is not. It is not another quango, it is not more red tape, and it is not just another Government agency. Skills England is a promise to young people that their future does not have to follow a single path, a promise to businesses that they will have the workforce that they need to thrive, and a promise to this country that Britain’s best days are ahead, not behind us. We need more builders, engineers, coders, carers and welders—the people who power this country—and I am proud that this Labour Government are ending the snobbery around skills and finally putting apprenticeships on an equal footing with academia. I wholeheartedly support this Bill and the opportunities that Skills England will create for my constituents, not least young people.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I have been proudly championing the very neglected skills and trades sector since arriving in this place because, unfortunately, one of the most toxic legacies of the previous Government is a crisis in education and training, with overwhelming barriers to opportunity for far too many young people and a real downplaying of practical vocational skills in the eyes not only of students but often of their parents and the wider community. This is in stark contrast to what we see across Europe, Australia and the USA.
Apprenticeships offer young people an alternative pathway to success and one that is not only vital for our communities but practical, hands-on and deeply connected to the industries that drive our economy. We must start by ensuring that we value all pathways and people if we are to move towards a productive, highly skilled population and achieve our growth targets. Vocational training is hugely important. However, in 2022, we had nearly 340,000 apprenticeship starts, compared with 520,000 11 years before that. Young people in my city of Portsmouth are not always able to access the well-paid jobs, despite there being many opportunities on our doorstep in the defence, maritime, space, science and trade sectors, to name a few.
We must improve and promote vocational pathways by increasing the number of apprenticeships available, improving apprenticeship completion rates, increasing financial support and increasing the flexibility of courses. This Bill establishing Skills England is the first step to achieving some of the much-need elevation of our skills sector.
Only a third of apprenticeships are completed. That is a shockingly low statistic, and it could be improved by increasing financial support. It is therefore welcome to see the 18% increase in apprenticeship rate pay from April to help make apprenticeships more attractive. It would be good to see more targeted support made available to those who have dependants and other financial responsibilities.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to look again at the levy and the length of apprenticeships. Adopting a modular structure and increasing flexibility could significantly boost competition rates by providing a more adaptable learning experience. Increasing the flexibility of apprenticeships also accommodates diverse learning needs and life circumstances, making it easier for apprentices to balance work and training alongside personal and financial commitments. I look forward to Skills England examining those issues in a new chapter for innovative thinking on apprenticeships.
In my constituency of Portsmouth North, the City of Portsmouth college is a centre of excellence for apprenticeship training, especially in the areas of gas engineering and refrigeration, air conditioning and heat pump engineering. The college plays a vital role in equipping young people with the skills they need and we need as a city and a country. The college’s gas assessment centre is now the leading provider of gas assessment training in Portsmouth, Hampshire and West Sussex, ensuring that our region remains at the forefront of those essential industries. From skilled trades, such as bricklaying, electrical engineering, carpentry and plastering, to professional careers in business administration, accounting and early years education, the range of courses reflects the diverse needs of our local workforce.
Crucially, the programmes are supported by strong partnerships with major employers, including BAE, Airbus, Queen Alexandra hospital, the NHS and of course the Royal Navy. The partnerships not only ensure that apprentices receive a direct link to potential careers, but mean that students can feel the value of training and future opportunities. The success of that approach is evident, and I am particularly proud to mention James Rowland, an apprentice in refrigeration, air conditioning and heat pump engineering who won silver in the WorldSkills UK RACHP competition in December —an incredible achievement that showcases the high calibre of training and people in my city.
We must recognise the importance of sustainability in our skills development. Earlier this year, the City of Portsmouth college facilitated access to green skills funding, enabling local plumbing and heating businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, to train apprentices in sustainability. That is precisely the kind of forward-thinking initiative that ensures our workforce remain prepared for the challenges of the future, and I am proud that my city is embracing those opportunities and looking forward to extending them with Skills England.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
A Government who are ambitious about growth need to be serious about skills, because without the workforce trained to build and insulate the homes we need, to install the next generation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure, to deliver excellent health and social care and to deliver high-quality early years education, none of the Government’s missions are achievable. Better skills mean good, often well-paid jobs. Apprenticeships are a driver of social mobility, and I am determined that my constituents feel the benefit of those opportunities. Skills England will have much to do to pull together a fractured skills landscape and deliver real change, but the Bill will enable it to make a solid start.
My constituency is home to the excellent further education college Bracknell and Wokingham college, which already does so much to offer young people the chance to deliver the skills of the future in everything from social care to sustainable technologies, from pharmaceuticals to construction. The college trains over 100 electrical installation apprentices, providing them with hands-on training in state-of-the-art electrical installation workshops, which were recently renovated with more than £200,000 of investment. The facility ensures that learners gain practical experience with the latest industry-standard equipment, preparing them for high-demand roles in electrical engineering, construction and sustainable technologies.
Last week, I visited the Bracknell Forest skills hub, led by Nikki Burns, a small business owner with years of experience. The hub is proactively identifying with employers where the skills gaps are, working with potential and existing employees to address those gaps, and teaming up with education providers, including my local college, to design bespoke courses to plug the gap, all backed with support from local and national Government. Since launching in September, the skills hub has already engaged with over 40 businesses, offered tailored support for over 50 jobseekers, trained 300 employees and built two bespoke courses. That is a system working as it should, but we need more collaboration, and Skills England will have a huge role to play in identifying skills gaps at both national and local levels, and in ensuring that businesses and Government are talking to each other.
Businesses understand the value of good skills and apprenticeships for their workforce. Waitrose, whose head office is in my constituency, is just one example. It currently has 1,200 partners on live apprenticeships across 30 schemes. When I visited Waitrose last year to meet some of its apprentices, I saw the true range of opportunities available, from people training up to look after Waitrose’s delivery fleet and maintain its bodywork to apprentices studying for a T-level in finance, in partnership with Bracknell and Wokingham college. Smaller-scale schemes also offer routes into employment. Waitrose’s “Building Happier Futures” programme is designed to support care-experienced young people—including those who have been in kinship care—into work.
When I have spoken to Waitrose and other businesses in my constituency, they have told me that among the barriers they face to offering more apprenticeships are the inflexibility of the apprenticeship levy and the overly burdensome requirements needed to run and recruit to an apprenticeship. That is why the reforms to apprenticeships that the Government announced two weeks ago are so very welcome. They will provide more flexibility for employers and those who want to take up these opportunities, shorten the length of some apprenticeships, and scrap the need for adult apprentices to pass English and maths GCSE. Those are common-sense changes backed by business. To be successful, Skills England will also need to get a grip on the lengthy time that it takes to update frameworks, to ensure that apprenticeships always remain at the cutting edge.
It is also vital that opportunities be genuinely open to all, including those with additional needs. Data from the Office for National Statistics shows that only 29% of autistic people are in paid employment—that is not good enough. More targeted support is needed at local and national level to ensure that more autistic people can better access apprenticeships and other skills. Bracknell Forest council is currently looking at how to address that autism employment gap, particularly through more support into apprenticeships and other forms of work experience.
Skills England has a huge job ahead of it. Our country has too often relied on importing skills rather than nurturing our own talent, which is not progressive, and too many young people have missed out on valuable opportunities. Skills gaps are preventing us from building, growing and thriving. Skills England will be at the vanguard of the Government’s work to fix all that—no small task, but one for which the reward is great.
Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)
I am proud to be a Derby MP and to represent a city with incredible engineering, manufacturing and technological expertise and skills. We make things in Derby. Yes, we have industrial giants such as Rolls-Royce, Alstom and Toyota, but we also have the brilliant small and medium-sized companies in their supply chains and more broadly, from a wide range of industries including rail, defence, nuclear energy, food production, aviation and digital technology.
What attracts so many businesses to Derby is our skilled workforce, but I know that even our city feels this country’s skills shortages. Under the previous Government, a third of UK job vacancies were a result of skills shortages, and the uptake of level 4 and 5 technical training in England fell to historically low levels. I warmly welcome the Bill, which lays the groundwork for the establishment of Skills England to assess and help to address our skills shortages.
Larger companies in Derby have been investing in skills and apprenticeships. The Rolls-Royce nuclear skills academy, for example, offers 200 apprenticeships a year, working with the University of Derby and Derby college. The Toyota academy provides skills not just for its own apprentices but for partner companies too. Many of our small and medium-sized employers are investing in their future by investing in skills, such as tech company Barron McCann, which I recently visited, and engineering firm Tidyco, which supports apprentices but also goes into local schools to teach young people the metalwork skills they need to make metal toolboxes. However, I have met many businesses that say that finding skilled workers is one of the greatest challenges they face and that under the last Government, they found apprenticeships too difficult and too inflexible to access.
We are fortunate in Derby to have Derby College, which is one of the largest FE colleges in the UK, and University Technical College Derby, which both work closely with employers to ensure they are providing the skills needed. One of the students told me that what he loved about learning at the UTC was that he felt he was learning something real. We have more than 3,000 apprentices in Derby, but I know that we need many, many more, and it is not just people starting out who need careers; we also need to reskill our workforce and allow those in mid-career to move into new roles and new industries.
I want to raise skills shortages in a sector close to my heart. Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) and I held a meeting organised for us by the Rail Forum with the rail sector about skills. I often meet people in rail who talk about the sector as Britain’s best kept secret, with people sometimes joining by accident but staying because of the range of opportunities it offers, from engineering to customer services, project management to catering, digital roles, technicians and many more.
The Rail Delivery Group identifies that rail adds some £98 billion annually to local economies and £26 billion in environmental and social benefits, but the National Skills Academy for Rail reports that a third of the rail workforce are 50 or over and estimates that some 75,000 people will leave the industry by 2030 through retirement or other forms of attrition. This year is the 200th anniversary of the modern railway, which we as a country pioneered, and its future is crucial for growth and decarbonisation. I invite the Minister to encourage Skills England to work with the National Skills Academy for Rail and Great British Railways, which will have its headquarters in Derby, to address the skills shortages we face in rail.
I am really excited that under this Government, we are going to have a proper industrial strategy, and it is essential that we have the right skills and the right infrastructure to get the people and the goods where they need to be. I echo the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) for Ministers to set out how Skills England will work across Departments to support our industrial strategy. I urge all Members across the House to support this Bill. I look forward to working with Skills England to ensure that we have the skills we need, that we have opportunities for all and that we keep our economy on track.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
I start with a fundamental point, which is that education does not always have to happen in a classroom. That is essentially what the Bill is about. Under the last Government, we saw a failure to tackle deep-rooted skills mismatches, a stubbornly high proportion of working-age people lacking essential skills and a severe shortage of higher technical training. As a result, our workforce struggled to meet the demands of a technology-driven economy, while employers faced persistent skills shortages.
This Bill is different. It abolishes the outdated Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education and transfers its functions to Skills England. This is a monumental shift that creates a unified, agile and responsive skills system. Can the Minister assure us that the Bill will underpin what good government is about—listening to the needs of businesses, workers and learners; that it will allow more people, young and old, to earn while they learn and develop skills that will serve them well for life; and that by improving access to these opportunities up and down the country, we will drive growth, reduce youth unemployment and improve life chances for so many people?
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is eloquent in setting out the skills challenges of the Black Country. My constituency neighbours hers, and locally 40% of jobs need level 4 skills, but only 16% of people have those skills. That is the challenge we face locally. Does she agree that Skills England should be set up and based in an area of the country that desperately needs a skills upgrade, such as the Black Country?
Mrs Brackenridge
I absolutely welcome that intervention and support it wholeheartedly. Communities such as ours have felt and seen the decline, and the Government are laser focused on reversing that to unlock talent and opportunities, and to give our residents a better chance to get their futures back.
In the past few weeks I have been honoured to meet many impressive apprentices, from those at Wolverhampton Homes, who are ensuring that residents’ council housing is safe and well maintained, to Evie and Jake at Collins Aerospace, who are working on the future of flight and defence, as well as apprentices from Jaguar Land Rover, Halfords, BMW, Enterprise Mobility and Caterpillar. We have seen the consequences of a fragmented, outdated skills system, but with the Bill we now have a bold new direction that will empower workers, support businesses and drive economic growth across our country. The Bill will support apprenticeships now and into the future, and I urge the House to support it.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I am pleased to speak in support of the Bill, unamended, which I believe is crucial to delivering growth and ensuring that we have a highly trained workforce that is fit for the future. As some in the Chamber will know, my job before coming to this place was teaching degree-level apprenticeships in electro-mechanical engineering. I saw at first hand the transformative power of apprenticeships in delivering high quality education while providing real world experience.
Like all apprenticeships, degree-level apprenticeships are a tripartite partnership between apprentice, university and employer—a model that has proved highly effective. Our employers frequently reported back to us that apprentices were better prepared for their professional roles than their counterparts with traditional degrees, and degree-level apprenticeship programmes have widened participation, attracting more students from deprived backgrounds, and more students with learning differences who may have struggled within the traditional university system.
As a Member of Parliament, I weave my background in education, advanced manufacturing, and apprenticeships into everything I do in this role. I recently visited WEBS Furniture Training, which trains apprentices in bespoke furniture manufacturing—a proper, old-school, artisan skill that they can carry with them and make a career from all their lives. Long Eaton and Ilkeston, the principal towns in my constituency, have a long and proud history of furniture manufacturing and lace making respectively. Both towns are what they are today firmly as products of the industrial revolution, and although the economy has changed since the Victorian era, bespoke furniture manufacturing, done by highly skilled, irreplaceable artisans, survives.
IKEA, robots, and giant factories in China cannot replicate the product of the honed, learned artistry that remains the backbone of our British manufacturing, and to survive now in this changing world, those are the kinds of skills that Britain must foster. Such skills are also an incredible means of spurring economic growth and resilience outside London and the greater south-east, and indeed outside the great cities of the north and midlands. Ilkeston and Long Eaton are post-industrial towns in the east midlands, and if we get this right, we can protect and enhance their world-beating lace making and furniture manufacturing industries long into the future.
If we are to build the 1.5 million homes that the Government have promised in the next five years, and hopefully many more long after that, and if we are to build the new towns, railway lines, reservoirs, prisons—all the things that this country has failed to invest in for so long—we will need the electricians, carpenters, joiners, builders, welders and plumbers that apprenticeship providers are training across our country.
I would like to present a case study about my good friend and colleague, Councillor Harry Atkinson. Harry was one of the many new young councillors elected in Erewash when Labour took control of the borough council in 2023. Next year, he will be Erewash’s youngest ever mayor, aged 25. Harry is also a highly skilled engineer. Leaving school at a time when about half of his cohort were going to university, Harry instead got an apprenticeship at Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station, which looms across the skyline of my constituency. Until last autumn, it was the last operational coal-fired power station in Britain. Harry has worked at Ratcliffe for nearly a decade. He has become so skilled that he has been promoted to managerial level and he is now a key trouble-shooter when things go wrong. While Ratcliffe is now in its decommissioning phase, Harry can be assured in his future because there is ample demand for the skills he learned in his apprenticeship, both locally and across the country.
Harry’s story represents the power of an apprenticeship —the conversion of hard work into real skills, an assured career and good pay. It is those kinds of jobs that we need to create for our young people. It is on us—this Government—to build a future where this kind of apprenticeship success story is the norm, not the exception, and where an apprenticeship holds every bit as much value as a degree, is every bit as desirable for children and parents, and is every bit as much a cornerstone of our growing economy.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Bill. It clearly demonstrates the Government’s ambitious commitment to training and apprenticeships. I will concentrate on the role that Skills England will play in aligning apprenticeship opportunities with the needs of local economies.
Scarborough and Whitby are beautiful places to live and to visit, but the levels of low-paid employment are not so appealing. According to the latest ONS figures, 26% of all jobs in my constituency were paid below the real living wage. On closer examination, the figures are even more alarming. For example, some 52% of part-time jobs done by women in my constituency were paid below the real living wage, while that figure for England was 32% and for Yorkshire and Humber it was 35%. The disparity between the figures for Scarborough and Whitby and the surrounding region should give us pause when we refer to local economies, because coastal communities can differ markedly from their hinterland.
Skills England’s work in assessing local needs and opportunities must anticipate what those needs and opportunities may be in future, as well as now. Well-paid jobs and careers are the goal for young people in my constituency. It is a crucial time for the green transition that we need to reach net zero and to create the urgently needed skilled jobs in the renewables sector. Scarborough is one of closest harbours to the offshore wind farm sites in the North sea, especially Hornsea Four, making it a prime location for the transportation of equipment and personnel, as well as for service vessels.
The Government rightly see the potential of the creative industries to create growth, but we know that young people from disadvantaged backgrounds or those who do not live in metropolitan areas are often denied such opportunities. In the past year, the Stephen Joseph Theatre in Scarborough has created two full-time trainee posts, with partners at Coventry University. It will deliver a degree course in acting and has a programme for young people pursuing a career in the performing arts. I want us to build on that to provide far more opportunities for talented young people in Scarborough and Whitby to train locally in the creative industries, especially to bridge the skills gap in practical trades, such as lighting, sound and camera operation.
As in so many areas, construction trainees are urgently needed now, and will be in the future. I am excited by the Government’s support for a new development planned south of Scarborough, in Cayton, that will start as soon as possible and provide 2,500 new homes. The people building those homes and that infrastructure should be trained locally as far as possible.
I am pleased to tell the House that the construction skills village in Scarborough is already doing an incredible job of providing training for construction apprentices. It currently has 140 apprentices on its books, providing training in plastering, carpentry, bricklaying and electrical work. It has also just run its first solar panel installation course. Some 60% of its learners come from an area that is among the most deprived in the country, and a high number have additional educational needs, yet the record of its apprentices exceeds national outcomes. I ask the Minister to confirm that existing centres of excellence can be funded to provide more of what they already do so well.
In conclusion, I look forward to a future in which organisations such as the construction skills village are part of the Government’s plan to boost apprenticeships and build a better kind of local economy.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I welcome the introduction of this Bill as a clear indication that we are giving apprenticeships the support and recognition they deserve. I started my professional career at a training and enterprise council—a TEC—and, once upon a time, I used to sign off training contracts for apprenticeships. It was always a pleasure to speak to young people at the start of their future, so I know at first hand how needed the Bill is for the FE sector, employers and young people, and it is incredibly exciting to have this back on the agenda.
For the last 14 years, there has simply been no strategic direction. The partnership between Jobcentre Plus, FE colleges, employers and the workforce has been slowly eroded, and it is clear that we need a reset. The one in eight young people currently not in training, education or employment need that reset, and apprenticeships are a part of that agenda. This Bill paves the way for the establishment of Skills England, giving it the tools to perform its new role and delivering on our commitment to assess and address the existing skills gap and identify where training can be utilised for new growth.
Since the apprenticeship levy was first introduced by the Conservatives in 2017, we have had a decline in the growth of training in all areas where we actually need it. The new growth and skills levy being introduced will replace the old system and include a new foundation apprenticeship that gives young people a route to careers in critical sectors, enabling them to earn a wage while developing their skills. It will also allow funding for shorter apprenticeships, giving learners and employers greater flexibility over their training than under the existing system. I have honestly lost count of the amount of employers who have asked for changes to the apprenticeship levy, and, under Labour, we will deliver.
We are clear about our strategy and that it must be cross-departmental. We are already opening homebuilding skills hubs to deliver fast-track training to apprentices so that we can meet our target of 1.5 million new homes being built. It is clear that Labour has done this before, and we will do it again. More than two decades ago, the regional development agencies understood the challenges in their regions and funded training for sectors where there were skills shortages. I was proud of the very small role I played in setting up a construction academy and providing a boost to HGV driver training in partnership with leaders in FE, the private sector and local authorities, all funded by the East Midlands Development Agency.
Stephenson College in my constituency is a key organisation locally that serves my community. It has a strong role as an anchor organisation, and we should not forget that. It has fantastic facilities for learning and has created an environment for young people to grow and thrive, but it has not been easy. Like so many FE colleges, it has been put under huge financial pressure in recent years. We have to ensure that our colleges are financially sustainable in the long term, and I welcome the recent additional funding for the sector while recognising that there is so much more to do.
There is also a role for Skills England to support constituencies in areas that do not yet have devolved powers. My constituency of North West Leicestershire does not have a devolution deal, but we have just as much potential to grow as everywhere else, and key engagement with local authorities, the chambers of commerce and local employers, as well as the FE and HE sector, will be key in delivering that growth.
Within our approach, we must ensure that we are putting a lot of thought into how regions can work together, so that if we move across boundary lines, we are still met with the same funding and unconditional support. We will drive that ambition as a Government to meet our targets—to go bigger and better than before, ensuring that our legislation has the greatest impact possible. I look forward to the continued conversations on the shaping of Skills England, enabling our young people to develop the skills they need for the future.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
I start by paying tribute to the work of Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers in driving up the number of apprenticeships in this House. Not only is that creating brilliant opportunities, but it is setting a brilliant example, so I pay tribute to them for the work they are doing.
We have heard some brilliant speeches today, and not just from right hon. and hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches. We have heard really important questions from the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes); from the chair of the APPG, the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins); and from the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis). We also heard a great speech from the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom). We do not always agree with the Liberal Democrats about everything, but a strength of the liberal tradition is suspicion of centralisation, which is what is in front of us today.
We have three main concerns about this Bill. First, there were good reasons why standard setting was put at arm’s length and closer to employers. As we have heard from Members across this House and in the Lords, this is centralisation, and alongside the other changes that the Government are making, it will risk directly damaging the status of these qualifications.
Secondly, the Government are doing several things that will make it less likely that businesses will take on apprentices, but rather than fixing those problems, the Government are reorganising. Skills England will be the 13th skills body in 50 years—it is yet more reorganisation, rather than a focus on the real issues, and from the Secretary of State’s comments earlier, it sounded as if there might be a further reorganisation later to boot.
Thirdly, we have real concerns that this reorganisation of the machinery of Government will lead to harmful delays in addressing some of the most important strategic issues that we face. Those concerns are borne out by the Government’s own impact assessment. As with the schools Bill, this Bill is highly centralising and does not address the real issues. There are multiple things in the skills system that we need to address, but I am slightly baffled as to why the Government are starting by creating a new agency within the DFE and abolishing IfATE.
It is worth explaining how we got to IfATE in the first place. For decades, people said that they wanted to make apprenticeships more prestigious, and part of the answer was growing higher apprenticeships. The number of people on higher apprenticeships went up from just over 3,000 in 2010 to over 273,000 last year—a huge increase—and the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) was absolutely right to talk about how good those degree apprenticeships are. They are great routes into good jobs. Indeed, the latest data shows that the median first degree graduate earned £29,900 five years after graduation, whereas a level 4 apprentice earned more—£33,800 on average.
As well as creating and boosting those higher apprenticeships, the other big change was a shift from a frameworks-based approach to a standards-based approach, and those standards meant a shift to a higher quality. They were led by employers, they had a longer duration—at least a year—and they had more off-the-job training and rigorous final assessments. That was much needed. In 2015, an Ofsted report found that even though some apprentices had been on the job for more than a year, they were not even aware that they were on an apprenticeship, such was the problem of quality. Things were being funded that did not ultimately benefit young people, but did allow employers to pay a lower wage, which was obviously concerning.
The apprenticeship levy was designed to give employers much more ownership of the skills system, and making IfATE independent of Government was a big part of that, creating a properly employer-led system. I pay tribute to the work of IfATE—the Secretary of State did not thank it for its work, but I will do so. IfATE has created and maintained around 690 apprenticeships, supporting around 750,000 people on apprenticeships last year. It created 21 T-levels and 174 higher technical qualifications and enabled employer leaders to set a strategic direction for schools in their sector, and its website is an amazing resource.
However, we now see the Government completely reversing the direction of policy. While we lengthened apprenticeships, they have cut the length of an apprenticeship to eight months. While we grew higher apprenticeships, they are abolishing most level 7 apprenticeships, and by abolishing IfATE and bringing it in-house at the DFE, they are eroding independence and employer ownership. Why are the Government suddenly moving in a reverse direction?
Peter Swallow
Does the hon. Gentleman not see that the Government are doing so because this is precisely what businesses are calling for?
Neil O’Brien
I will come on to what businesses are saying in one second. The Government are doing two things that are going to be very bad for apprenticeship numbers. First, while apprentices are exempt from national insurance, the Budget—particularly its £25 billion increase in national insurance contributions—is cutting hiring and leading to job losses across the board. What employer groups are saying about that is pretty damning; be it the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses or the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, they are warning of serious job losses as a result of the Budget. That tax increase, and the damage it is doing, is focused on exactly the type of jobs that apprentices might traditionally get, so apprenticeships are being hit by the backwash from the Budget.
Secondly, the Government are planning to move funding from apprenticeships to other areas. In opposition, Labour talked about allowing employers to spend 50% of their apprenticeship levy funds on other things. As the election drew nearer, that commitment seemed to be disappearing. On 20 November, the Minister said that the commitment to 15% was “currently being reviewed”, but just weeks later, on 9 December, the Secretary of State said that the Government were still committed to “50% flexibility for employers”. It would be interesting to hear from Ministers whether that 50% still stands now.
Given that the levy funds £2.5 billion of spending, 50% is a lot of money to potentially move out of apprenticeships. We can argue about whether that is desirable, but all things being equal, it will certainly cut funding for apprenticeships. We might also be wary that it will undercut the purposes of the levy and have high dead-weight. In fact, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out:
“In principle, this could help employers to pay for other forms of training that they and their employees would find valuable. But the history of these wider training subsidies, such as the former Train to Gain programme”—
a programme under the last Labour Government—
“suggests that the result is often that much of the spending goes on training that firms would have provided—and paid for—even without the subsidy.”
The apprenticeship levy, whatever its flaws, did at least attempt to address this problem of dead-weight and discouraged freeriding by large firms, so that firms that invested in their workers did not lose out to those that did not. Since the levy was introduced in 2017, real-terms spending on apprenticeships and work-based training has increased in real terms by about a quarter, from £2 billion to £2.5 billion.
In a written answer to me, Ministers have confirmed that the Department has a forecast for the number of apprenticeship starts, but they have also said that they will not publish it. If it was published, it would surely show that removing possibly half of the funding would lead to a substantial drop in the number of apprenticeships. Perhaps that is why we are not allowed to see it. Those same reasons are why the Government are going back to shorter apprenticeships and away from the higher level, reducing quality and cutting length to try to offset the hit to numbers from other Government policies.
There are bits of this agenda where we share the same goals. We all want to see more SMEs offering apprenticeships and more young people getting apprenticeships. Although on average twice as many people started apprenticeships each year under the last Government as under the previous Labour Government, we still wanted that to be much higher. Although we are interested in the same questions, we have quite different ideas for how we address them. Part of the Government’s answer is to abolish the highest level of apprenticeships in order to redistribute the money.
The level 7 apprenticeships that the Government are axing currently account for just 9% of apprenticeship spending, but a lot of good things will potentially be lost by abolishing them. I have been contacted by firms worried about the abolition of the solicitors apprenticeship, which is a great way into the law for people from less privileged backgrounds. One firm worried about that is Bolt Burdon Kemp, which told me:
“This will really impact social mobility into sectors like law, accountancy, and consulting. The traditional route into law is expensive and therefore without the apprenticeship scheme many would not be able to afford to do so. We also believe it will have a wider detrimental impact on the reputation of apprenticeships.”
It has taken such a lot of effort to get that route going, and it would be a huge shame to lose it.
Likewise, level 7 apprenticeships are opening up great jobs and leadership roles in the public sector, too. Some 56,000 people started apprenticeships in the public sector last year. More than half of management apprenticeships at level 7 are in health and education. In fact, they were identified as having a key role in the NHS’s own long-term workforce plan. Public services will lose out, as will ambitious apprentices.
Because level 7 apprenticeships are a small part of funding, I am worried that the Government will now go after level 6 apprenticeships, which is a much bigger share of spending. A lot of employers are worried about that, too. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State sighs as I say that. Presumably when the Minister gets to her feet, she will promise that they will not do to level 6 what they will do to level 7. It sounds like Ministers will be clear when they stand up, will they not, that they definitely will not do that to level 6 apprenticeships.
The last Government moved to make it more attractive for SMEs to take on younger people. From April, 16 to 21-year-olds have had 100% funding, rather than requiring the 5% employer contribution. We need to build on that by cutting bureaucracy and making it easier and more attractive to take on young people. Building on that would be more sensible than reorganisation, centralisation and the defunding of higher apprenticeships. This Bill abolishes IfATE and gives the Secretary of State significant powers as a result, but it says nothing at all about the new body, Skills England, which is intended to be at the centre of the skills landscape under this Government. That has been a pretty unwelcome surprise to some in industry.
In its briefing on the Bill, the Construction Industry Training Board noted that this was
“contrary to the previous characterisation of Skills England that was outlined in the…King’s Speech…and contrary to the vision for Skills England to be an independent body, established in law, with a cross-governmental role”.
The CITB makes an important point. IfATE existed to serve all employers—public and private—and across every Department. In contrast, Skills England will be a part of the DFE. The CEO of Skills England will be a job share between two civil servants who are currently running post-16 skills at the Department. I am told by former Ministers that they are good officials, but this is a recentralisation into the Department—as was pointed out by both the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire.
Luke Murphy
May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question that I asked some of his colleagues earlier? In 2011 the last Government set up the Standards and Testing Agency, whose predecessor was a non-departmental public body that became an Executive agency, like IfATE. It sets statutory assessments for school pupils and develops professional skills tests for trainee teachers. The last Government did something very similar to this. Why was it okay then, but is not okay now?
Neil O’Brien
That is an important question. The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to go into the history of apprenticeship regulation in England, which dates back to 1536. I will not detain the House with all the details, but suffice it to say that that was a move from one arms-length body to another, so it was different from this. None the less, IfATE was better than either of those things, which is why we ended up there.
The very act of a further reorganisation is likely to compound the effects of the Budget and the decision to move apprenticeships money into other projects. Indeed, according to the Government’s own impact assessment, there may be a drop in apprenticeship starts while IfATE’s functions are transferred to the Secretary of State. It says:
“The transfer of function from IfATE to the DfE could potentially cause a temporary slowdown in the growth rate of new apprenticeships and technical education courses due to potential delays in the approvals process resulting from the bill.”
It also says:
“This may disproportionately impact disadvantaged learners, who rely more heavily on these pathways for career advancement.”
So there you have it, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Government are moving money out of apprenticeships, and the Budget will also hit numbers, but instead of focused action to boost numbers for young people, the Government’s response has been to reduce quality, cut length and axe level 7 apprenticeships to try to prop up overall numbers. Now we have yet another reorganisation —one that takes us away from an independent, employer-led system, and one that will risk, in the Government’s own words, cutting apprenticeship numbers and hitting the most disadvantaged. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
It is a pleasure to close the debate. I am grateful for the contributions of Members on both sides of the House; we have heard some excellent speeches. I welcome the points and questions that have been raised, and I will go through as many as time allows.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in her opening speech, skills are essential to our missions to drive economic growth and create opportunity. To achieve that, we need a skills system that is fit for the future. In every region, it should provide training options that lead to skilled work and give businesses the skilled workers whom they need in order to grow. I was pleased to hear from Members about the apprenticeships and vocational courses in their constituencies which have led to jobs, but most Members have also referred to significant challenges in our skills system.
Acute skills shortages are a particular issue in some areas. Skills supply does not match demand, and there is not enough business investment in skills. That, however, is what this Government inherited from the previous Conservative Government. We urgently need larger volumes of higher-quality training that meets employer needs, particularly in key sectors. For example, as we have already heard, there is an urgent need to build more homes, but a third of construction employers report finding suitable skilled staff a key challenge.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance) mentioned levels 4 and 5 qualifications. In the UK, about 10% of adults hold them as their highest qualifications, as opposed to—shockingly—20% in Germany and 34% in Canada. We must, and this Government will, do better. Skills England, which has been delivering in shadow form since last year, is our new national body for meeting skills needs. It will simplify the skills system now and in the future, combining new functions with improvements in existing ones, within one dynamic body. In its first report, “Driving growth, widening opportunities”, Skills England highlighted the critical skills gaps that currently face the country. Across the UK, more than 2.5 million roles—almost one in 10—are in critical demand. The last Conservative Government seemed content with this, but putting it simply, this Government are not. As my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) stated so well, this is about what the Bill will achieve for everyone: it is about growth.
Skills England’s initial assessment of the skills challenges in the economy, together with the “Invest 2035” Green Paper published last year and ahead of the forthcoming industrial strategy, set out how the in-demand occupations of today are also expected to grow in the future. As noted by the Secretary of State, these growth-driving sectors include the life sciences, clean energy, digital and technology, and creative industries. By addressing our skills needs, the UK has a real chance of being a world leader in these fields, but we must do this now: we must not delay. We must build a skills system that looks ahead, and we must anticipate for the future. As was put so eloquently by my hon. Friends the Members for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) and for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), Skills England will enable employers to fill our current skills gaps and the likely ones of the future. Excellently, they recognise the need to anticipate our future skills needs.
To respond directly to the points raised by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), users of apprenticeships, employers, providers and assessment organisations regularly complain about the time it takes to update standards and assessment plans. It will remain the default position that a group of people will prepare standards and assessment plans, but removing the requirement to use a group to prepare standards in every instance will speed up the process and reduce administrative burdens. In line with IfATE’s current processes, all new standards and those that have undergone significant revision following review will, prior to being approved, be published online to give interested parties an opportunity to comment. It will only be in the minority of cases where simple and straightforward changes are proposed that these will not be published online for comment prior to approval. However, there will still be mechanisms for users of the system to challenge where a standard or assessment plan is not working in practice and needs revising.
Sir John Hayes
I appreciate what the hon. Lady is saying about that, but will she in quick order set out how that will be directed either by the Secretary of State or by Skills England? We need to know not just the detail at the point of publication, but the structural needs in advance of that, so how will that be set out? Will it be set out in guidance—statutory guidance perhaps?
Janet Daby
The right hon. Member is absolutely right that these things need to be set out, and they will be set out. This Bill is about transferring the role of IfATE to the Secretary of State and enabling the delivery of Skills England.
Skills England will work with key partners, including employers, training providers, mayoral strategic authorities and unions to form a national picture of where skills gaps exist and how they can be addressed. It will ensure employers have the skills they need to drive economic growth while creating opportunities across the country and building a highly skilled workforce.
During this debate, I have heard Members question the need to close IfATE and establish Skills England. This Government have committed to delivering for the skills sector, and we are listening to the needs of employers. This can be seen in our reformed growth and skills offer, but we must go further to address the fragmentation of our skills system so that we can close the most persistent skills gaps. The Bill paves the way for the full establishment of Skills England by enabling the new body to take on and build out from IfATE’s work to shape apprenticeships and technical qualifications to meet the needs of employers and the economy as a whole.
The scale and urgency of the skills challenge that we face means we are setting Skills England up to have a broader strategic purpose than IfATE, including but stretching beyond the work previously undertaken by IfATE. Skills England will, for instance, provide an ongoing authoritative assessment of local, regional and national skills needs, which is absolutely needed. It will combine the best statistical data with insights from employers and other key stakeholders, and will use these insights to ensure the design of technical education and apprenticeships reflects the skill needs that have been identified, so that we can truly build a workforce fit for the future.
Labour markets and the skills required to increase productivity and economic growth vary considerably by region, and we have already heard from many Members about the different skills that are needed in their regions. Skills England will therefore also have a strong regional footprint, working closely with local skills systems so that they can tap into the comprehensive suite of training offers that it will build across the country. Skills England will also ensure that skills sit at the heart of joined-up decision making across Government. It will work closely with the Industrial Strategy Council, so that we have the skilled workforce needed to deliver a clear, long-term plan for the future economy, and with the Migration Advisory Committee, because growing the domestic skills pipeline will reduce our reliance on overseas workers.
While Skills England will have a broad and ambitious strategic agreement, it will not be able to deliver the scale of change that we need without its taking on IfATE’s important work, so the transfer of functions through the Bill is vital. The Bill does not, however, simply aim to transfer functions. It also includes a number of targeted changes intended to allow the system for designing and approving technical qualifications and apprenticeships to become more agile and responsive; we have been listening to employers, who have told us this is crucial if we are to work together to plug the skills gaps at the pace required. The Bill will provide greater flexibility when designing standards and apprenticeships plans and make processes easier to engage with, allowing experts to invest their time and expertise at the right point.
There is so much I would like to say in response to the many points that Members have made, and I apologise now for not being able to respond to the many excellent points and comments. However, there are a few very pivotal points that I do need to mention.
The Bill was amended in the House of Lords to delay its commencement by a year. It is disappointing that peers voted for a delay to the full establishment of Skills England, despite many Members of the other place supporting its aims. This Government are clear that employers need a fully functional Skills England now—as I have said, they cannot wait. The skills gaps in our economy are holding back growth and opportunity, and we need this Bill to give Skills England the key tools to tackle those gaps without delay. I cannot say that enough.
Skills England is in shadow form, and has already engaged widely, with more than 700 different partners representing thousands of individual organisations through roundtables, cross-section webinars and network events, including the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Institute of Directors, as well as a range of employers and representative bodies from priority sectors, including digital, life sciences, green, construction and healthcare, and we will continue to listen to the voices of experts to shape what we do.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Kendal Post Office
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of 2,830 of my constituents in Kendal and the surrounding communities in favour of retaining and keeping alive the Kendal Crown post office on Stricklandgate in our town.
In 2019, we successfully ran a campaign to save the Kendal Crown post office and, as a community, we are determined to do so again. The Crown post office serves our community wonderfully with fantastic staff, but more than that, it provides the home for the Royal Mail sorting office, and the postal workers there also do a wonderful job. To lose the Crown post office building could mean that we also lose the Royal Mail sorting office, and we are determined to stop that.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Westmorland and Lonsdale,
Declares that Kendal Post Office should not be included in the list of 115 directly operated post offices at risk of closure; further notes Kendal Post Office’s role as a vital community service at the heart of Kendal; further declares that it should remain in its current position or should only be moved to suitable premises.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government and Post Office to reconsider and guarantee the future of Kendal Post Office.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003046]
Doncaster Sheffield Airport
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to make the case for the economic contribution of Doncaster Sheffield airport in the House. Its reopening is the No. 1 priority for the people of Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, as well as residents right across our region.
Reopening our airport is not simply a matter of bringing jobs, though it will bring jobs. It is not just about the wider economy, though it will massively contribute to the economy. It is about our local pride, because our airport is our local pride. When DSA closed two years ago, our community was robbed of a key part of its history and identity. Seeing planes flying once again in the skies above Doncaster is my goal and the reason I address the House tonight.
I will use my time today to speak about the business case for reopening Doncaster Sheffield airport, the clear economic benefits and the importance of the Government’s commitment to finally get this over the line. I will talk first about the inspiring local campaign that has kept DSA high on the agenda since the airport closed its doors 818 long days ago, and that has provided the momentum to get us to where we are today: on the brink of making the dream of reopening a reality.
This is not the first time I have raised Doncaster Sheffield airport in this place.
Lee Pitcher
No. Since being elected, I have asked many questions on the subject. I am sure that hon. Members across the House will be delighted to hear that this will not be the last time either. The fact is that it is important to so many constituents, and nothing demonstrates that better than the Save DSA campaign. I am proud to champion the campaign to save our airport in Parliament, and I hope my efforts in this place serve to highlight the wider efforts of local campaigners at home.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing the debate forward. I spoke to him beforehand, so he knows what I am going to say. Does he agree that Government funding for local industry means that a rising tide lifts all ships and that the support for the airport will have a great add-on benefit to the local economy? Does he further agree that support for all our airports through the reduction of air passenger duty for flights within the UK would greatly increase the economic benefits to airports and the constituencies around them, as well as bringing tourism benefits?
Lee Pitcher
I most certainly agree that the economic benefits of a regional airport opening are huge, not just for local jobs and the local economy but for the tourism trade, which is massively important right now.
When communities suffer the loss of major employers, as ours did, it is easy to slip into doom and gloom. Mark Chadwick—who I am pleased to say is here this evening—and the rest of the Save DSA campaign team refused to sink into negativity. They knew that there was no good business case to close that airport. They knew that there was no good reason to abandon our community, rip out a part of our heritage and end those jobs. The Save DSA campaign and others have fought tirelessly since the airport’s closure to keep it from becoming yet another example of regional decline. I thank them for their efforts and massively commend their work, as well as that of other groups, such as the Friends of DSA, a group of ex-employees and supporters whom I had the fortune of meeting recently. Their dedication shows that it was never just a job for them. I know they will be following progress closely.
Members who are unfamiliar with our airport may ask, “Why is this so important?” When Peel decided to close the airport in November 2022, it was not just a blow to passengers; it was the end of hundreds of good, well-paid jobs in Doncaster and the surrounding area.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I have heard time and again from my constituents about their regret that they no longer have easy access to an airport on their doorstep. Not only was Doncaster airport important for passengers, but it was embedded in the business community in Bassetlaw. Its closure meant job losses and the loss of regular income streams for local businesses. Does he agree that reopening the airport will create new opportunities for residents in my constituency, including in the world-leading STEP—spherical tokamak for energy production—project, which will deliver international investment and high-skilled jobs to the surrounding area?
Lee Pitcher
Most certainly. I have already spoken with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about the importance of a regional airport. My hon. Friend is quite right that it would make all the difference globally and internationally, particularly in Bassetlaw, where she lives.
Despite the best efforts of Doncaster Mayor Ros Jones, South Yorkshire Mayor Oliver Coppard and others, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband), the airport was closed. To say that was a bitter blow for our community is an understatement. The closure of our airport brought home the reality of the previous Government’s levelling-up programme. It felt back then like there was no levelling up for the people of Doncaster. It was not just jobs that we lost; we lost local pride and a connection to our past. Doncaster Sheffield airport is, apart from anything else, a vital link to our community’s aviation heritage.
Before it was the finest international airport in the country, DSA was RAF Finningley, with an aviation history dating back to 1915. During the first world war, planes from Finningley, flown by incredibly brave men, intercepted German zeppelins en route to Sheffield. During the second world war, Finningley served as a bomber base, and was once again at the forefront of protecting British lives and defending our democracy. When Julie Ann Gibson’s plane landed at Finningley in 1991, she trailblazed her way into the history books: for the first time in its 73 years, the Air Force had a female pilot. That heritage remains evident at the site today thanks to the incredible work of the Vulcan to the Sky trust, which is committed to preserving and protecting two of the most iconic aircraft in British history: the Avro Vulcan and the English Electric Canberra. When I visited the trust last year, I was inspired by its work not only to protect those incredible feats of British engineering, but to support and guide Britain’s next generation of engineers through their work, including children and young people in my constituency—a link to our past; a promise for our future. I hope you can tell from my words, Madam Deputy Speaker, how intensely proud we are of our airport, and that you can hear why it is so important to my constituents.
Allow me to move on to the business case for reopening DSA. I have spent much of my time since becoming an MP talking to local business leaders, and I have lost count of the number of times I have been asked the same question: when is the airport reopening? Local businesses are as keen as anyone to see our airport reopen. They understand how strong the business case is. With renewed conversation nationally about airport capacity and the importance of bringing back growth, we need look no further than a regional airport practically ready to go.
A huge amount of work has been done in the background, led by Doncaster Mayor Ros Jones and her team, to make sure all the i’s are dotted and the t’s are crossed when it comes to demonstrating the viability of DSA. Ros knows better than anyone how vital it is to prove beyond doubt that reopening Doncaster Sheffield airport is not just good for local pride but a brilliant business decision.
An independent financial viability assessment has been clear: Doncaster Sheffield airport is absolutely a viable business prospect. The full business case projects more than 5,000 direct and 6,500 indirect jobs from a reopened DSA by 2050; £5 billion in gross value added to the economy; £2 billion in gross welfare benefits; and—the headline that really grabbed my attention—a projected benefit-cost ratio of 9:1. That means for every single pound put in, we get £9 in return. It is no wonder the business community is keen to see the airport back in action. Dan Fell, CEO of Doncaster chamber of commerce, has said:
“In addition to creating thousands of jobs, the airport will also act as a magnet for investment, help businesses trade internationally, further develop the region’s capability as a nationally significant hub for freight and logistics, and support inbound tourism.”
Mark Sewards
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case to underscore his claim to be called Mr Doncaster Airport. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Yorkshire and northern Lincolnshire, I support any move that leads to greater growth across our entire region. Does he agree that we need to not just seize opportunities such as this but accelerate the delivery of them, so that everyone in our region can feel the benefits of economic growth?
Lee Pitcher
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for the work he does on the APPG to promote everything that is great and needed in Yorkshire. I could not agree more about the economic importance of this airport for us all.
This is not just an airport. This is not just Doncaster. A reopened DSA is also a reopened South Yorkshire, opening the door to inward investment from across the globe. Where once there were fighter planes, now there will be freight planes. Doncaster sits at the heart of our great country. It is already one of our major transport hubs. With DSA open again, South Yorkshire will become home to new industry, cutting-edge renewable energy and technological innovation.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
As well as the exciting prospect of planes taking off from Doncaster once again, does my hon. Friend agree that this is a significant opportunity to turn both Doncaster and South Yorkshire into a hub for sustainable aviation fuel, creating high-skill, high-wage jobs for our local economy in that industry, in line with the Government’s growth agenda to ensure that economic prosperity is felt all over the country, including in areas such as Doncaster and South Yorkshire?
Lee Pitcher
I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for that intervention. I wholeheartedly agree about the importance of looking at sustainable aviation fuel and the opportunities it brings in terms of new jobs, aspiration and a future for our children and young adults in the area. People love to fly, and they will always fly. We need that to bring creativity back to our shores and learn from others, so it is massively important that we continue to promote technologies such as sustainable aviation fuel.
If we are looking for growth and reindustrialisation, and if we are looking to decentralise our economy away from London, where better to look than an airport that sits ready and waiting to serve? The promise of apprenticeships and high-paid, good jobs for our young people is another reason that our airport must reopen and one of my major priorities as an MP. Doncaster, like so many towns and cities in the north, has seen many of its brightest young people leave for prospects elsewhere. The promise of regional economic growth is a promise to our young people. It is a promise that says, “Yes, you can chase that brilliant, bright future, and you can chase it right here at home on your doorstep.”
Recently, I was lucky enough to meet the UK’s youngest pilot trainer, and the world’s youngest flight examiner, Kathan Dudhela. We spoke about Doncaster Sheffield airport, and he told me how excited he was that one day he might get to land on that historic runway. I left that conversation inspired by him, and determined to see Doncaster’s young people follow in his great footsteps. I will continue to fight for the apprenticeships and training opportunities that must come alongside a reopened Doncaster Sheffield airport.
So much has been achieved in the last few months. A £20 million investment has been approved, combining funds from Doncaster city council and the South Yorkshire mayoral combined authority, which will go towards supporting the crucial early stage works that are required to mobilise and reopen the airport. An operator, Munich Airport International, has been announced, and before Christmas I was proud, along with many of my hon. Friends, to witness the first flight back since the closure, courtesy of 2Excel, which remained on the site all that time and never lost faith.
Do not get me wrong: things are looking great, but challenges remain. Important practical steps to make Doncaster Sheffield airport operational still need to be taken, and there are still hurdles to jump. However, none of the remaining challenges are impossible. All that is required now is the political will to seize this opportunity and get us over the line. Right now the stars are aligned. The finances are committed, the operator is secured, the Mayor, combined authority and regional MPs are all on the same page. We cannot allow this opportunity to slip through our fingers. This is a moment to show the world that Doncaster and South Yorkshire are once again open for business.
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a characteristically tub-thumping speech about this airport. My constituency, and Maltby in particular, has many people who worked at and used the airport. My hon. Friend spoke about the opportunities for people to remain at home and still get on in life, which really strikes a chord with me when I speak to young people in Maltby. Does he agree that the airport is not just about flights, but about offering young people a future to remain at home, and a bright future to stay in Maltby?
Lee Pitcher
Most certainly. Our young people have aspirations, but we need to provide jobs and opportunities for all. A reopened airport will provide those great opportunities for lots of different jobs, flights, potential future pilots, and superb jobs on the runway and the ground.
Will the Government make their commitment to a reopened Doncaster Sheffield airport clear? Will the Minister explain what concrete steps the Government will take to support the economic benefits of a reopened DSA, and will he commit tonight to supporting the full reopening of our airspace and to avoiding any further delays? We have seen the results across our great nation time and again, when vital regional infrastructure is not nurtured with the political will needed to sustain it. The desire for something different is a big part of the reason that the last election returned so many Labour MPs. Voters had had enough of regional decline, and enough of being told that this was the way it had to be. They wanted hope. This new Government promised to give them that hope, and they must now keep that promise.
My constituency office sits just across the road from the terminal building of Doncaster Sheffield airport. When I head into work, I look across the road and see a building that is beginning to wake back up after a fretful sleep. As Mark Chadwick told me, this transformative initiative is not just about securing a prosperous future for ourselves; it also paves the way for our children, and our children’s children. The reopening of our airport stands as a beacon of hope, offering unparalleled prospects for the community now and for generations to come. I am ready, all of us in Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme are ready. South Yorkshire is ready, the region is ready, and we want to see those planes above Doncaster once again.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mike Kane)
Shakespeare said:
“Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them.”
I think it is all three in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher). As a Lancastrian, I am feeling rather intimidated by the line-up of Members on the Benches behind me, but thank God I have the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on my side, even though he is sitting on the Opposition Benches.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme on securing this important debate about the economic contribution of Doncaster Sheffield airport. I also congratulate him on being appointed as Labour’s utilities business champion. My hon. Friend has a great CV, from working his way up in the water industry to delivering logistics and infrastructure, so he knows what he is talking about when it comes to aviation infrastructure. He may be Mr Doncaster, but our hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) is Mrs Doncaster. As the aviation Minister, I fear the Division Lobby some evenings, as I am rugby tackled day in, day out about getting Doncaster Sheffield airport reopened. My hon. Friends care about the future of the airport, their constituents and the wider South Yorkshire region.
I have listened very carefully to the considered comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, and by all the Members who contributed, and I will try to address most of them, but first I want to say a few words about Doncaster Sheffield airport. I know there was deep disappointment in South Yorkshire and beyond when the previous owners decided to close the airport at the end of 2022. That marked the end of a 17-year operation as a commercial airport, but before that it had a long and illustrious history as RAF Finningley. My hon. Friend mentioned Jean Lennox Bird, the first female RAF pilot in the UK. As we approach International Women’s Day, her contribution should not go unnoticed by the House.
The airport was well regarded by the people and airlines that used it, and it was frequently rated by Which? magazine as the best airport in the UK, with excellent customer service and passenger experience. Passenger numbers were continuing to grow prior to the pandemic, with more than 1.4 million passengers in 2019. From my many discussions with hon. Members from Doncaster and the Doncaster area—quite a few of them are sitting around me tonight—I know that its closure was deeply felt by the local community. I understand that the “Save Doncaster Sheffield airport” petition has had more than 100,000 signatures, which is impressive.
I am pleased to hear about the progress made in the airport’s reopening and the benefits that could bring, which I will come to shortly, but I want to set out the importance of aviation for the growth and prosperity of the nation. Madam Deputy Speaker, you know that I grew up under an aviation runway in my home constituency of Wythenshawe and Sale East. Going to Manchester airport as a child and seeing the BAC One-Elevens, the Tridents and the Concordes, and even the space shuttle doing a low pass on the back of a jumbo jet in the mid-1980s, was inspirational for me, as it is for so many people as a career for the future.
As we keep saying, growth is this Government’s No. 1 priority. In her recent speech, the Chancellor was clear about the importance of the aviation sector in enabling that economic growth. Her speech invited proposals for a third runway at Heathrow and announced a new partnership between Prologis and East Midlands airport to build a new advanced manufacturing park, unlocking £1 billion in investment and jobs. That is a clear demonstration of how aviation can contribute significantly to the economy, through being a key enabler of international trade, investments and connectivity.
Aviation is also a major employer in its own right, as I see in my own constituency. In 2022, the air transport and aerospace sectors alone directly provided around 240,000 jobs across the UK, providing opportunities in every part of the country. Overall, in 2023 the air transport and aerospace sectors directly contributed over £20 billion to UK GDP. That is why aviation is a key component of the Government’s transport strategy, enabling economic growth and connectivity, and investing in sustainability by connecting people, places and business.
Regional airports such as Doncaster Sheffield airport have an important role to play. They serve our local communities—people are proud of them—and they serve business by supporting thousands of jobs in the regions and acting as a gateway to international opportunities, whether that is a family holiday or supporting major investment decisions. They also provide important connectivity, helping to connect communities across the UK and the wider world.
I have been interested in hearing about the South Yorkshire airport city vision, which has the reopened airport at its heart. It is proposed that a reopened Doncaster Sheffield airport could help to raise economic and social wellbeing in Doncaster, delivering employment and facilitating wider development, which could help to unlock growth for South Yorkshire. As my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme said, the council’s business case indicates that the airport’s reopening and wider development has the potential to support more than 5,000 direct jobs, boost the economy by £5 billion and provide wider welfare benefits of £2 billion by 2050.
I welcome the efforts of the council and the Mayors of Doncaster and of South Yorkshire to secure the future of the airport and the economic opportunities for the region. Significant progress has already been made, with the agreement of City of Doncaster council to lease the airport. The return of aviation activities in December last year was an important milestone, as was mentioned, as 2Excel landed the first aircraft there in three years. As the aviation Minister, I add my thanks and congratulations to it for sticking with the airport.
As my hon. Friend said, another important milestone was reached earlier this month, as Munich Airport International was appointed by City of Doncaster council to help to progress the airport’s reopening. There will be many more milestones and many more challenges, but, as the Chancellor set out in her recent speech, this Government will work with City of Doncaster council and the Mayor of South Yorkshire to support their efforts to reopen Doncaster Sheffield airport as a thriving regional airport.
As well as the airport, this Government are committed to supporting all modes of travel in the region to support the local economy. Last November, South Yorkshire was allocated £17 million-worth of bus improvement plans and funding to support bus services. Just last week, the Mayor of South Yorkshire was informed that he would receive more than £5 million in the next financial year to invest in active travel, which is in addition to almost £9 million for South Yorkshire. In January, the Department announced funding for low-emission vehicles as part of the levy funding, as well as funding for zero-emission buses, proving the Government’s commitment to decarbonisation.
The South Yorkshire mayoral combined authority received £8.4 million of funding from the ZEBRA 1 programme for 27 electric buses and charging infrastructure. Furthermore, the Government are progressing planning and design work to support future delivery of our plans for northern rail connectivity, and we will set out details in due course. That will inform the work being undertaken, such as the development of Rotherham mainline station. I am also pleased to support South Yorkshire’s local transport priorities with an investment of £570 million through the city region sustainable transport settlements programme. That is a five-year deal with £5.7 billion of Government investment to improve the transport networks of eight city regions across the UK.
As part of our commitment to local transport, we announced in the autumn Budget that we will uplift funds and funding nationally in this area in 2025-26 by £200 million, helping to improve the local transport in our largest city regions and drive growth and productivity across the country. I mention that because transport is a rich tapestry, and having an airport as a hub is important. We know that the destinations that airports reach are dependent on public transport penetration time of within an hour, so improving public transport and active travel in this area will help Doncaster Sheffield airport to reach the markets it wants to reach in the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme also spoke about airspace at Doncaster Sheffield airport. Airspace modernisation is one of our manifesto commitments, and the Government are committed to its delivery. It remains a key aviation priority for the Department, which aims to deliver quicker, quieter and cleaner journeys to benefit those who use and are affected by UK airspace. We have seen great progress in airspace modernisation in the north, with airports now preparing for their public consultations. I know that officials and the Civil Aviation Authority will be working tirelessly to make sure that we reopen that airspace in the interests of Doncaster Sheffield airport.
Again, I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, which has been an opportunity for hon. Members to highlight the importance of Doncaster Sheffield airport to their constituents and regions. My officials and I look forward to continuing engagement with both South Yorkshire combined authority and City of Doncaster council to support their efforts to reopen this airport.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2025
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2025.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. The draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 13 January 2025, increase planning fees for householder and other applications, with a view to providing much-needed additional resources for hard-pressed local planning authorities. Alongside other steps that the Government are taking to support local planning authorities to build their capacity and capability, the regulations will help to ensure that our planning system is faster and more efficient, and equipped to facilitate our ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament.
Let me start by providing some important context to the regulations. Planning application fees were last increased by 35% for major applications and 25% for all other applications in December 2023, yet when it comes to planning application services in England, we still face a national funding shortfall of £362 million. Moreover, the types of planning application with the greatest gap between the fees that can be charged and the actual costs associated with processing them constitute the majority of applications received by local planning authorities. In short, the arrangement that the Government inherited is simply not sustainable.
By increasing the level of fees charged for making those applications with the greatest funding shortfalls, we will ensure that local planning authorities can cover a greater proportion of the costs associated with processing them. That will provide an immediate boost to local planning authority resources. We estimate in the impact assessment that the changes will generate an additional £56 million annually for local planning authorities across England. I am sure that the Committee will agree that this is a substantial sum that will significantly enhance the capacity, capability and therefore efficiency of planning services in every part of the country, to the benefit of applicants of all kinds.
I will now turn to the detail of the regulations. The regulations increase the fees for householders who want to enlarge, extend or alter their home from £258 to £528 for a single house and from £509 to £1,043 for more than one house. While I acknowledge that this is a large increase, it is necessary to meet the estimated costs to local planning authorities of determining such applications, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would accept, in principle, that it is right that those who seek and will directly benefit from the planning permission cover those costs rather than the taxpayer. The application fee represents a small proportion—less than 1%—of typical overall development costs. As I am sure you know, Ms Jardine, certain householder development can also be undertaken through permitted development rights without the need for a planning application, and so incurs no fee at all.
The regulations also increase fees for a range of other application types that are currently also set too low. They increase the planning fees for prior approval applications from a flat fee of £120 to £240, and from £258 to £516 where they include building operations, and for a change of use of commercial buildings to residential uses from £125 per dwelling to £250 per dwelling. The regulations also increase the fees for discharge of conditions from £43 to £86 for householders, and from £145 to £298 for all other applications, including discharge of biodiversity net gain plans.
Finally, the regulations introduce a new three-tiered fee structure for section 73 applications that are used to vary or remove conditions on extant planning applications. That reflects the higher costs associated with section 73 applications on major developments. The regulations also make corrections to two fees that were erroneously set too low when the fee regulations were last amended in December 2023. Taken together, the fee increases provided for by the regulations will reduce the current funding shortfalls for the various application types to which they apply, and will thereby enable local planning authorities to hire more staff, invest in better technology and streamline their internal processes, all of which will contribute to faster and more efficient decision making.
I want to be very clear that the Government expect local planning authorities to use the income from planning fees on their planning application services, so that they can build up their capability and capacity, and improve their performance. That is what applicants expect in return for paying higher fees. The fee increase is not made in isolation, but is part of our broader efforts to resource and streamline the planning system. As hon. Members will be aware, in the Budget the Chancellor announced a £46 million package of investment in the planning system as a one-year settlement for 2025-26. As part of that investment, we are working with delivery partners to understand how we can scale delivery and fund the recruitment and training of at least an additional 300 planners. That includes expansion of the Pathways to Planning programme, which has had significant interest from prospective graduates wanting to take up roles in local planning authorities and train while they work.
The Government have also announced our intention to introduce a measure in the forthcoming planning and infrastructure Bill that will enable local planning authorities to set their own planning fees to meet their costs. That measure will provide local planning authorities with the flexibility to adjust fees according to local needs and circumstances, ensuring that they can manage their resources sustainably and continue to deliver a high-quality service. As a result of those measures, we will ensure that local planning authorities are not only better funded but better equipped to handle the significant demands placed upon them.
As we progress measures for local fee-setting through the forthcoming planning and infrastructure Bill, today’s regulations will provide local planning authorities with an immediate boost in resourcing and greater financial sustainability. That will ensure that they are better equipped to boost housing supply and deliver economic growth. I hope that hon. Members from across the Committee will join me in supporting the draft regulations.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. As I welcome him to his place, the Minister can be reassured that, although I like a challenge, we will not divide the Committee this morning given the number of Government Members on the other side. However, as he would expect, we have some questions to follow up on some of the points that he made in his concise speech.
We are here because the Government have announced a hike in fees for householder development applications, applications for prior approval, and applications for the approval of details reserved by condition. The increase is a further blow, we would argue, to homeowners, who already face the complexities and red tape of the planning system. I understand that new burdens are also being introduced: applications for prior approval and for the approval of details reserved by condition, to approve details not fully described in planning permission, now face added layers of paperwork, all of which will add to the burden on ordinary people trying to make improvements to their homes.
Let us be clear about the context. When increases in fees were necessary in the past, the last Government always took care to ensure that they were fair and kept as low as possible. That is why, as the Minister outlined, in December 2023 the last Government increased planning application fees by 35% for major developments and 25% for all other applications. We understood that householders already contribute to local authorities’ budgets, primarily through council tax.
Now, fees will jump by 105%—from £258 to £528—for single dwelling house improvements and other alterations. For two or more dwelling houses, the increase is also an eye-watering 105%, from £509 to £1,043. We remain concerned that the measure means that people simply trying to make improvements to their homes, in line with local planning policies and national regulations, are being burdened with ever higher fees. As a result of Labour’s local government finance settlement, councils are already having to raise council tax by 5%—the maximum they can raise without going to a referendum. Those councils represent people already dealing with the tax hikes imposed by this Government; now those people must navigate these increased costs just to make small improvements to their properties.
We are concerned because there is no evidence that the rises will deliver a better service for local people who are going through the planning system for simple changes and low-level planning alterations. Nowhere in the impact assessment is there conclusive proof that the money will go back into restaffing planning departments or helping with the efficiency of planning decisions—as we know, those take far too long for far too many people. Meanwhile, costs increase on people already suffering the brunt of the Government’s fiscal decisions.
The Minister hinted at an expectation that local authorities would keep the extra revenues within planning departments, but I would be grateful if he outlined what monitoring mechanism he will personally put in place to see whether the increases deliver better services and planning decisions for local people. If the improvement in efficiency that we expect does not take place, what mechanisms will he put in place to bring the increases back down?
The Local Government Association has identified a £1.7 billion shortfall, directly resulting from the Government’s national insurance contribution hikes. This is not a hypothetical problem; it is a real issue impacting local services, including planning authorities. As I said, there is no guarantee that that extra burden will result in quicker planning decisions. Furthermore, local authorities across the country are facing cuts that go beyond planning. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner has pointed out, millions of pounds are being cut from crucial funding schemes, such as the new homes bonus and the rural services delivery grant. Those cuts, combined with the national insurance hike and this increase, are pushing councils further into financial crisis.
There is a clear case for treating householders differently from large developers, as the last Government did. Home improvements, however small, are a right of homeowners, in line with local and national planning policies. They are not there to be priced out of reach for ordinary homeowners. Improvements to homes, under schemes as described, free up the market and help to create sustainable communities and local supply chains. I urge the Government to reconsider these fee increases and the impact that they will have on ordinary households across the country. I cannot see that there will be better services at the end of this proposal.
As I mentioned, we will not divide the Committee, but I hope the Minister will take onboard some of these comments and outline to the Committee how he expects efficiencies to improve. We need a fairer, more balanced approach to funding planning authorities—one that does not target hard-working homeowners. It is time for the Government to rethink their approach to planning and local funding, and stand up for the people who matter most: the citizens who contribute to their communities and the local economy.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats are concerned that without planning officers in place we simply will not deliver the homes that we need. Homes are less likely to be the genuinely affordable, nature-positive and zero carbon ones that we all want to see. As has been referred to, there is a £362 million shortfall for planning authorities after the fee is taken into account. The Royal Town Planning Institute has pointed out that there is a lack of robust data on how many officers there are per region, per local area. That is a concern in itself; without that data we cannot have a realistic picture of how the service can be improved.
The Home Builders Federation, through a freedom of information request, pointed out that 80% of local planning authorities are operating below capacity, which is not where we need to be if we are to address the housing crisis. We want to see authorities given more flexibility to set their own fees, determined locally by those communities. We would like to see minimum ringfenced funding for local planning authorities.
In a previous debate, the Minister referred to guidance on ringfencing. I would be grateful if he could say more about how funding and budgets within hard-pressed local authorities can be ringfenced for a planning service that is important to people and their local economies. We welcome the 300 additional planning officers announced by the Government, but fewer than one graduate per council area will not have a massive impact. We need to see more than that in our planning departments.
Taken together, those measures would help to address the need for better services for our local communities and our councils. Planning officers and councils are not blockers; they are the problem-solvers. If we are to have housing that is genuinely affordable and net zero, delivering biodiversity net gain, we need planning officers in place and councils to be supported. That is especially so at a time when the social care crisis is putting pressure on local councils. Funding is rightly being diverted for frontline care operations.
The previous Government took nearly £1 billion out of funding earmarked to reform social care. Unless local government funding is properly reformed, and social care as a key part of that is delivered, councils will continue to struggle and lean on other departments for cuts and savings. Planning departments will continue to suffer, however many statutory instruments are passed. Until those issues are addressed, we suggest that the proposals do not go far enough. However, they are welcome, and we will support them as a small step in the right direction.
Matthew Pennycook
I thank both the Liberal Democrat spokesman and the shadow Minister for their contributions. I note that the shadow Minister does not feel strongly enough about the reforms to formally divide the Committee, but he makes a number of pertinent challenges and asks a number of questions that I will seek to answer.
Both Members outlined the problem we face, which is that local planning authorities are significantly under-resourced and hard pressed. On planning application fees, despite the increases made by the previous Government in December 2023, we have a funding shortfall across the whole of England of £362 million. That is the problem we are attempting to address with the regulations. Fees were consolidated in 2012 by the coalition Government and have been increased only twice since, in 2018 and 2023. Importantly, prior to changes in 2023 that will come into effect on 1 April, they were never index linked, so they have never risen with inflation. As such, the gap between the cost of processing an application and the fees charged has widened over time.
The Government propose, through the regulations, to increase the fees on certain types of applications, which as I said in my opening remarks constitute the bulk of applications to local authorities, where the funding shortfall is most acute. The current fee of £258 on householder applications—just to give the shadow Minister a sense of the shortfall we are talking about—covers less than half the cost of processing the application to the local authority. As I have said, we think it is right in principle that taxpayers should not bear that burden, but the people making the application who will directly benefit from consent once it is processed. The planning application fee represents a small proportion—as I said, less than 1%—of typical overall development costs and, through permitted development rights, certain types of applications incur no fee at all.
The shadow Minister rightly raised ringfencing. The Government are clear that they expect the income from planning fees to be retained and directly invested in the delivery of planning application services. Managing public money principles should ensure that planning fees are effectively ringfenced. We believe that they are in most instances, but I have heard anecdotal accounts of planning fees being used to cross-subsidise other council services. We are therefore considering ringfencing as part of the Government’s longer-term plans for planning fees, which will enable local planning authorities to set their own fees.
On performance, in return for increasing planning fees, we expect local authorities to invest more in their planning service to deliver better performance. We are able to monitor, and will continue to monitor, the performance of local planning authorities through the planning performance dashboard and the quarterly planning statistics seen by the Department. The planning performance regime ensures that underperforming local planning authorities are held to account. The previous Government took action in that respect and we stand ready to do so where necessary.
Both Members raised concerns about general funding for local authorities. The Government are under no illusions about the scale of the financial issues facing councils and the potential for continued instability as we work to fix the foundations of local government. That is why we have a framework in place to support councils in the most difficult positions and why we work on a collaborative basis to help councils to manage their financial challenges.
Lastly, let me say something about local fee-setting. As we have said, it is important that local planning authorities are well resourced so they can deal with planning applications efficiently and do not hold up the development necessary for economic growth.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I draw the Committee’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a local councillor. The Minister proposes to increase fees, but from my understanding they will not go to full cost recovery. Will he set out why they are taking a leapfrog approach and not going to full cost recovery, if that is indeed where the Government want to get to?
Matthew Pennycook
We think we are striking the right balance between increasing fees on the type of applications outlined in the regulations and making it very clear that nationally set planning fees can never be set in a way that covers every local authority’s costs for their planning application service, because costs vary between local authorities. The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware of that in his role. We think the only way to do this is ultimately for local planning authorities to be able to set their own planning fees. As I said, we intend to introduce a power in the proposed planning and infrastructure Bill that will enable local planning authorities to set their own fees, so that they will be able to recover their costs for their planning application services.
The proposed increases in fees are necessary and timely. The changes address the critical funding shortfalls faced by our local planning authorities and will provide them with the resources they need to deliver improved services in the short term. I hope the Committee will welcome them. As I have made clear, they will help to ensure that our planning system is faster and more efficient, and better equipped to facilitate our ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Scottish Adult Disability Living Allowance) (Consequential Modifications) Order 2025
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Kirsty McNeill)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Scottish Adult Disability Living Allowance) (Consequential Modifications) Order 2025.
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Hobhouse. This order, laid on 13 January, is the result of collaborative working between the two Governments of Scotland. It supports the Scottish Government’s decision to introduce the Scottish adult disability living allowance in Scotland next month.
The Scotland Act 2016 devolved significant powers, including responsibility for certain social security benefits and employment support, to the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government’s introduction of Scottish adult disability living allowance under section 31 of the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 exercises that responsibility. Through their executive agency, Social Security Scotland, the Scottish Government will administer the new benefit in Scotland. At introduction, the Scottish adult disability living allowance will operate on broadly the same terms as the disability living allowance that it replaces.
It is the intention of the UK Government that individuals in receipt of Scottish adult disability living allowance should also receive the same treatments in the reserved social security and tax systems as those on disability living allowance, the Scottish recipients of which will transfer from the Department for Work and Pensions to Social Security Scotland.
The order before us today is made under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, which allows for necessary amendments to legislation in consequence of any provision made by or under any Act of the Scottish Parliament. It is therefore the appropriate vehicle for making these technical but important changes to recognise Scottish adult disability living allowance in reserved systems. Scotland Act orders are a demonstration of devolution in action; I am pleased to say that the Scotland Office has taken through over 250 orders since devolution began.
I now turn to the effect that the order will have and the provisions that it will make. The order makes amendments to UK legislation to ensure that Scottish adult disability living allowance is recognised as a qualifying benefit in the same way as disability living allowance is within the reserved social security system with regard to entitlements to additional reserved UK Government benefits and premiums. Those include the Christmas bonus and carer’s allowance. That means that recipients of Scottish adult disability living allowance will be entitled to receive the annual £10 Christmas bonus payment, if it has not already been paid via another benefit. Should all other eligibility criteria be met, it will also ensure that reserved carer’s allowance can be paid to someone caring for someone in receipt of Scottish adult disability living allowance.
The order also prevents dual entitlement to benefits paid because of the same needs: individuals entitled to Scottish adult disability living allowance cannot be entitled to attendance allowance, disability living allowance or the personal independence payment. In the same way, the disability living allowance and personal independence payment are not payable to people in receipt of attendance allowance. The order also amends the taxation of trusts with disabled beneficiaries to treat those with beneficiaries in receipt of Scottish adult disability living allowance in the same way as those with beneficiaries who receive disability living allowance. Without the order, people in Scotland on Scottish adult disability living allowance would not receive the equivalent tax treatments and entitlements to reserved premia and additions as individuals in receipt of disability living allowance in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Scotland Office, the Department for Work and Pensions, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive have worked closely together to ensure that this order can be made, clearly demonstrating cross-Government support for the order.
The Chair
The question is that the Committee has considered the draft Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Scottish Adult Disability Living Allowance) (Consequential Modifications) Order 2025. I call the shadow Minister.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
Thank you, Ms Hobhouse—today’s SI has a pithy title. I am grateful to the Minister for her remarks.
Today should serve as a salutary lesson for the new Government about the law of unintended consequences. In 2014, following the referendum on separation, the Smith commission was convened by the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, resulting in a host of recommendations to increase the power and responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. One of the powers devolved through that process was the ability to deliver elements of social security in Scotland. The devolution of certain powers by the Scotland Act 2016 was eminently sensible.
On income tax, for example, although I passionately believe that it is not in the interests of the Scottish people, businesses or the wider economy to have more tax bands and higher tax rates than the rest of the UK, it is an eminently sensible and, indeed, Conservative belief that those responsible for spending public money should also be responsible for raising it. I just wish that Scotland would blaze a trail by being the lowest taxed part of the United Kingdom—I think of the investment and the economic benefits that would be reaped.
We are gathered here this afternoon to discuss the devolution of certain elements of social security, and thereby the increased complexity of how these benefits are delivered to the people of Scotland and how they interact with other benefits and other delivery bodies across the UK. With hindsight, I wonder whether this was a positive move for Scotland and, indeed, the UK.
Broadly speaking, this is a sensible and technical statutory instrument that has our support. Clearly, those who are entitled to Scottish adult disability living allowance should not also be entitled to the UK Government’s disability living allowance, attendance allowance or personal independence payment. The fact we have to take the time and effort to legislate to make sure that is the case is plainly absurd.
The explanatory notes set out plainly that we are also legislating to ensure that those receiving Scottish adult disability living allowance retain access to the same treatment as those on disability living allowance:
“while Scottish Adult Disability Living Allowance operates in a broadly similar way to Disability Living Allowance, it should interact with reserved social security benefits in the same way as Disability Living Allowance.”
Of course, it should. But that statement never needed to be made, that explanation was not required and this legislation was not needed before the creation of an entirely separate operation to deliver what is, in effect, the exact same benefit. We have created additional barriers, burdens and borders where there were none before, and we have added no benefit whatsoever for those receiving benefit payments either north or south of the border. It has cost more than £650 million to establish Social Security Scotland, which is years late, has resulted in duplication and has added cost and complexity to the process.
The Smith commission, the Scotland Act 2016 and Social Security Scotland were all established, convened, reported and legislated for before any of us on this Committee were elected to this place. They are now a fact, but a lesson must be learned by the Labour Government. Just as many Labour members believed in 1997 that devolution would kill nationalism stone dead, too many UK politicians of all parties—my own included—believe that giving ever more to the Scottish Government will appease the SNP’s desire to break away. Far too often, far too little thought has been given to the impact of devolution on the specific policies or functions on which people rely. Is the complex, expensive, duplicative and bureaucratic quagmire of Social Security Scotland after the 2016 Act really to the benefit of those in receipt of benefits?
We must ensure that we do not have devolution for devolution’s sake. What must be decided is whether the devolution of a certain power or powers to the Scottish Parliament will or will not have a beneficial impact on the lives of the people and businesses of Scotland. If the answer is no, the answer must be no.
I have some practical questions for the Minister about the implementation. Social Security Scotland and the Department for Work and Pensions will need a very sophisticated operating system to ensure that the provisions of this draft order become a reality. Is the Minister confident that the systems are in place to accurately determine who is in scope and to avoid the duplication that this SI seeks to avoid? Given the cost and delays to Social Security Scotland—the IT systems have already cost more than £220 million—does the Minister have any indication of the cost of ensuring that the system is able to cope? On the other side of the coin, will the system be sufficiently agile to ensure that complex situations do not result in people being denied the payments to which they are entitled?
Likewise, in relation to Northern Ireland, article 5(3) may be quite complicated to administer. What work has the Minister undertaken with the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure a properly joined-up system across these islands? Although there has not been a formal consultation on the changes made by this draft order, will she update the Committee on whether she has consulted informally? Is she working with the Scottish Government on an information campaign to ensure that those affected are aware of the changes?
Finally, it is possible that the Scottish and UK rates could diverge over time, with one becoming higher or lower than the other. Has the Minister assessed what this would mean for broader eligibility for UK Government benefits or, indeed, for people living on either side of the border? I note that the draft order will need to be reviewed should there be changes to the Scottish adult disability living allowance or the reserved legislation. Can the Minister outline what circumstances would bring this about?
On a broader point, the devolution of welfare is not straightforward. It may well become much more complex over time as the systems diverge. Why we devolved welfare in the first place remains a complete mystery to me, but I would appreciate answers to my substantive questions.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Hobhouse. I intend to speak very briefly because, although I do not disagree with some of the comments made by the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, it was agreed some time ago that this order should happen. While we may have reservations about how it could develop, we have to recognise the achievement of our two Governments in reaching agreement on introducing this new Scottish benefit. Historically it is something for which Liberal Democrats have advocated, because we believe in policies that promote social equality and support for individuals with disabilities.
This order ensures a smooth transition from DLA to SADLA, maintains the entitlements and legal protections for recipients in Scotland at its heart, and aligns Scottish disability assistance with the social security system, separate from UK-wide benefits like the personal independence payment. If we believe in devolution and that decisions should be made at the point at which they are closest and most relevant to the community, then this is a move forward and it is something we should welcome and support.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Hobhouse. We fully support this order to support the ongoing work of Social Security Scotland and the Scottish Government.
I was not planning to speak for long, but the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, has opened a few doors for me so I might as well take them. Although Scotland may be the highest taxed part of the UK overall, 51% of its workforce pay less tax than they would in the rest of the UK. It is simply a more progressive system than the rest of the UK.
The Scottish social security system is based on dignity and respect. Many Government Members, and some Opposition Members, will probably welcome that. The UK social security system is incredibly complex—benefit advisers and experts within the system struggle to navigate their way around, never mind the claimants. With this order, there is an opportunity to simplify how people apply for benefits from Social Security Scotland, especially if they have conditions that are not going to improve. People who move on to this benefit in Scotland have the opportunity potentially to apply for the Scottish adult disability payment rather than Scottish adult disability living allowance. That is a choice for the individual, but people have that opportunity and there is dignity and respect at the heart of the process—something that needs to progress much further in the social security system.
My final point is that there is one way to resolve the complexity that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, mentioned: to devolve all the powers of the UK Government to Scotland. I reserve the right to continue to campaign for that circumstance.
Kirsty McNeill
I thank all hon. Members who contributed today. The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine noted that the order is a broadly sensible technical change. He intimated that he is slightly worried about the time and effort that it takes to go through these processes. However, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, we have passed 250 of these orders at great pace, largely thanks to the sterling work of officials in both Governments; I put on the record my thanks to them.
The shadow Minister suggested that Labour’s enthusiasm for devolution was perhaps in the service of another political objective. I want to put his mind at rest: it is entirely about bringing decision makers closer to the people of Scotland—something to which the Government remain entirely committed.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we were confident about the implementation plan. The answer is yes, because of the smooth working that there will be between both Governments. He also asked about the promotion of the benefit. That is a matter for the Scottish Government, but we will be speaking to them about that. He asked about provision in Northern Ireland. Equivalent provision is being made in respect of Scottish adult DLA to prevent dual entitlement to Northern Irish social security benefits, as agreed under the previous Government.
I thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh West for her support for this practical and timely change. I also thank the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey for his support for this technical change, although perhaps not for his other advice to the Government, which I assure him we will not be taking.
This statutory instrument demonstrates the UK Government’s continued commitment to working with the Scottish Government to deliver for Scotland.
Question put and agreed to.
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 25th February 2025
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPublic Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill 2024-26 View all Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 February 2025 - (25 Feb 2025)
The Chair
We are now in public session and proceedings are being broadcast. Before I begin, I remind Members to switch their electronic devices off or to silent. Tea and coffee are forbidden. Date Time Witness Tuesday 25 February Until no later than 10.10 am Professor Mark Button, University of Portsmouth; Dr Rasha Kassem, Aston University; Professor Michael Levi, Cardiff University Tuesday 25 February Until no later than 10.30 am Cifas Tuesday 25 February Until no later than 11.00 am Kristin Jones; NHS Counter Fraud Authority Tuesday 25 February Until no later than 11.25 am Money and Pensions Service Tuesday 25 February Until no later than 2.30 pm National Audit Office; HM Revenue & Customs Tuesday 25 February Until no later than 2.50 pm John Smart Tuesday 25 February Until no later than 3.10 pm UK Finance Tuesday 25 February Until no later than 3.30 pm JUSTICE Tuesday 25 February Until no later than 3.50 pm Public Sector Fraud Authority Tuesday 25 February Until no later than 4.10 pm Big Brother Watch Tuesday 25 February Until no later than 4.40 pm Campaign for Disability Justice; Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People Tuesday 25 February Until no later than 5.00 pm Department for Work and Pensions; Cabinet Office
We have three motions to consider: the programme motion on the amendment paper; a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication; and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private. In view of the tight timetable, hon. Members may wish to take those motions formally, without debate.
The Minister will move the programme motion standing in his name, which was discussed by the Programming Sub-Committee yesterday.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 25 February) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 25 February;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 27 February;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 4 March;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 6 March;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 11 March;
(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 13 March;
(g) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 18 March;
(h) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 20 March;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 7; Schedule 1; Clauses 8 to 69; Schedule 2; Clauses 70 to 74; Schedule 3; Clauses 75 to 77; Schedule 4; Clauses 78 to 90; Schedule 5; Clause 91; Schedule 6; Clauses 92 to 98; new Clauses; new Schedules; Clauses 99 to 104; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 20 March.—(Andrew Western.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Andrew Western.)
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Andrew Western.)
The Chair
We are now in public session and proceedings are being broadcast. Before we hear from the witnesses, do any hon. Members wish to declare interests that are pertinent to the Bill?
Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)
I would like to declare an interest as a member of both Nottinghamshire county council and Gedling borough council, which are both responsible for administering benefits.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
Mine is exactly the same: I am a member of Gedling borough council and Nottinghamshire county council, which have responsibility for administering benefits.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
In the same vein, I am a member of Plymouth city council.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I am a trustee/director of Southwark Charities, which provides accommodation for some older people who may be affected by the provisions of the Bill—a cursory reference, really.
Examination of Witnesses
Professor Mark Button, Dr Rasha Kassem and Professor Michael Levi gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Professor Button: Good morning, everybody. My name is Professor Mark Button. I am co-director of the Centre for Cybercrime and Economic Crime at the University of Portsmouth and I have been researching fraud-related issues for nearly 20 years.
Dr Kassem: Good morning, everyone. I am Dr Rasha Kassem, senior lecturer and leader of the fraud research group at Aston University. Like Mark, but probably for fewer years, I have been researching all aspects of fraud.
Professor Levi: I am Michael Levi. I am professor of criminology at Cardiff University and I have been researching fraud for 53 years, so I think I win on that score, although that may mean I am very out of date.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Q
I will start by asking the panel a reasonably general question. What, in your experience, are the main limiting factors in investigating public sector fraud?
Professor Button: There is a number of factors. Obviously, the first challenge with dealing with social security fraud and a lot of the rest of public sector fraud is that you have no choice but to deal with those people. It is not like a bank or a private company, which have the opportunity to decide whether to do business with that particular person. In the case of someone making a claim for a benefit, the public sector body has to deal with that person.
You are obviously dealing with increasingly highly organised fraudsters that often operate across borders. That poses significant challenges, particularly for many public sector fraud agencies, particularly when the police themselves have very limited resources. Fewer than 2,000 officers are dedicated to economic crime. They simply do not have the time to help public sector bodies deal with these things. When you look at those particular challenges, having professional capacity within government to investigate fraud with the appropriate powers is a sound basis for dealing with these problems.
Dr Kassem: The capabilities and skills of public authority staff would be a main challenge for me. Do they have the same understanding about what fraud means, its impact, the methodologies and typologies of fraud and the limitations of each type? I ask that because when you talk about fraud, you are talking about fraud committed against the public sector by individuals as well as organisations. The procedures cannot be the same in each case, and the motivations and the resources will not be the same in each case, so they have to have this understanding.
Equally, there has to be an understanding about the differentiation between fraud and error; the element of intent to deceive is the main differentiating factor. Do we have criteria that tell staff in the public sector how to differentiate between fraud and error? Is that agreed upon criteria to ensure that errors are not happening? Are they trained and do they have the proper skills to enable them to investigate without accusing, for example, innocent people and impacting adversely vulnerable individuals? That would be the main challenge, in my view.
Professor Levi: I have one final, quick point, because I know that there are a lot of questions. At one extreme, there is the point that Mark made about organised crime groups and so on, but it is a question of identifying when something is an organised crime activity, which you can only do easily either by getting intelligence or by correlating claimants’ data to build up a pattern, as in covid-19 fraud schemes. At the other extreme, there is what is probably the majority—failure to notify a change in circumstance. This has always been the most common part of the area covered by the Department for Work and Pensions. As far as the Public Sector Fraud Authority goes, I think it is a question of identifying a lot of internal cases from people that you would not ordinarily suspect.
Mike Wood
Q
Professor Button: One of the key things is always resources. If you look at the size of the PSFA at the moment, in terms of the scale of fraud, and look at some of its estimates, you see that this is substantially more than the estimates of fraud in the DWP, so having a relatively small unit, as proposed, is, I think, a limitation. For me, the key thing is having the appropriate resources within that unit to have a real impact on fraud. That question, “Is there enough there at the moment?”, is a key one.
Dr Kassem: Although I believe that this is a very positive step and definitely will enhance accountability, several things need to be considered. To start with, the definition of fraud can be a bit limiting in the current Bill, because, first, it assumes that fraud is happening for financial reasons when that is not necessarily the case. There are non-financial motives. Let us consider insider fraud—fraud committed by insiders, people working for the public authorities—which is one of the most common threats not just in the public sector, but across other sectors. A disgruntled employee can be as dangerous as someone with a financial motive. So I would stick with the Fraud Act 2006 definition of fraud, because it mentions personal gain full stop. It can be financial and it can be non-financial. That has to be clarified.
There is also the difference between fraud and error. I know that intent is mentioned—rightly so—as the main differentiating factor between fraud and error. Again, however, we have to be very clear about the criteria that would enable public sector staff to differentiate between fraud and error, because you do not want them to make mistakes and accuse innocent individuals of committing fraud, just like what happened in the Post aOffice scandal. That would cause further reputational damage to the Public Sector Fraud Authority and the public sector in general, so they have to be very careful about the criteria, which have to be agreed upon.
This is the second area that I want to talk about: because there is a difference between fraud and error, the recovery and the procedures, in terms of perpetrators committing fraud versus those committing an error, need to be clarified in the Bill. I do not think that that is clear enough at the moment.
The third point is about understanding the very nature of fraud—the fact that fraud can be committed by individuals and organisations. The policies and procedures that will be followed when you deal with fraud committed by individuals should not be the same as those that are followed when you deal with organisations. For example, if you were to take preventive measures, the procedures would be different for organisations versus individuals. With organisations, you are talking about controls, compliance measures and so on. That has to be clarified in the Bill—how fraud committed by organisations will be dealt with versus fraud committed by individuals.
Lastly, I would like to raise the possibility of abuse of power. Again, although the PSFA has greater intentions of preventing fraud, you want it to appear to the public that there is less risk of abuse of position. The oversight board will be very important there as an independent body, and perhaps it could be a board independent from the PSFA staff who oversee the work. For this to work, there have to be proper governance structures, including independent board members who have proper fraud expertise and understand the limitations and the mission of the public authorities. It will be very important for public authorities to report on their operational performance to enable that independent board to oversee properly.
Professor Levi: I do not quite agree with all those comments. Some of those measures do not need to be in the Bill, but they obviously need to be part of the structure. The Bill will hopefully last for a long time, and I am sure that you are all familiar with changes.
I think the point about the resource is important, but you also need to allow time for bedding in. There is the issue of where they will recruit staff from, and how experienced they are in actually dealing with stuff. I remember the Assets Recovery Agency, which was a stand-alone body. It was closed down because it did not recover as much as it cost at that time, as there were so many appeals. This is not quite analogous with that agency, but one needs to remember that it takes years to develop skills in actually handling cases. I do not think that is so much a question of the limitations of the Bill but a warning about not expecting too rapid results. Obviously, the practitioners and policymakers may offer a different view from mine, but I think it takes quite a long time. When I reviewed the Serious Fraud Office for the royal commission in 1992, I saw that gaining expertise in actually dealing with stuff takes quite a while, and some would argue that it has not yet done that.
Mike Wood
Q
Professor Button: With any kind of initiative like this, you will always get a degree of displacement. The clever fraudsters will find new means to get around the rules. Obviously, a lot of these measures are directed at the more opportunistic individuals who are not as well organised and probably do not invest as much time in looking for means to get around some of those measures. For that client group of offenders, the Bill will be quite effective. However, for the more organised offenders, particularly the more organised crime elements, they will find ways to get around some of these measures.
Professor Levi: I am not clear about the provisions for international linkages in the Bill. Perhaps that is something that just needs to be sorted out afterwards, but people need to be able to chase money overseas. The question about who does that, and what they need to do before they are able to do that, is pretty important. This is not so much in covid-19 frauds, because that has already happened, but a lot of these things are time critical. The asset-freezing orders that were granted to the police in 2017 have proven very effective, so we need to think about what processes there are for dealing with stuff rapidly.
Dr Kassem: I have one final point. I raised the issue of differentiating between fraud committed by individuals and by organisations. I think that needs to be sorted in the Bill, not afterwards. For example, from a governance perspective, the Bill says that you can access banks accounts and freeze assets, but whose? Are you going to take the assets from the organisation, the directors running the organisation or the fraud perpetrators inside the organisation? This has to be sorted, because you will face another issue, at least in courts, about who is the controlling mind in the organisation. The organisation has a mind of its own legally, and therefore cannot be treated in the same way as when you deal directly with individuals. If that is sorted, there will hopefully be a higher probability of recovery and fewer loopholes in the Bill.
Professor Levi: There is also the question of legal aid for those suspected or accused who have to take some measures to appeal. I was not clear about that, although it may be my fault.
Neil Coyle
Q
Professor Levi: I am not sure that it needs to be in the Bill. Definitions of what we mean by “organised” are typically vague. An act committed by three or more people for the pursuit of profit is a very low bar for organised crime. A fraud by one person can be perfectly well organised, but they are not part of an organised crime group. In policing, we talk about organised crime activity and people normally think about organised crime groups. That is a definitional problem that may be too much for the Bill in its present form, and indeed for Governments. They certainly need to think about what conditions apply to which people, and I am sure they have. I am not sure whether that constraint needs to be in the Bill, but Dr Rasha may have a different view.
Dr Kassem: For me, when I talk about fraud committed by organisations, it does not have to be organised crime. It could be a legitimate organisation defrauding the public sector. Again, the Bill mentions things around recovery, such as accessing bank accounts and seizing assets—how would they apply in cases of organisation versus individual? That needs to be thought about carefully in the Bill. Again, when you think about the nature of fraud and who is committing it, you are talking about different powers and different motives for individuals versus organisations. There are different assets and different ways of recovery. They are not the same, and therefore that has to be clarified in the Bill.
Neil Coyle
Q
Dr Kassem: It depends on whether they have knowingly done that, because the differentiating factor between fraud and error is the intent.
Neil Coyle
Q
Dr Kassem: Yes, in terms of the intent, because errors could happen. The differentiating factor between fraud and error is the intent to deceive. The example you mentioned could be error or fraud, depending on the intent to deceive. There must be clear criteria in the Bill to at least guide staff in the public sector to differentiate between fraud and error.
Neil Coyle
Q
Dr Kassem: It could be, yes.
Professor Levi: I agree.
Neil Coyle
So does that distinction need to be in there—that there needs to be the flexibility to treat this on an individual basis?
Professor Button: I was just going to say that my son recently reached 18 and went to university, and my wife received a letter saying something like, “Unless you have these circumstances, you have to positively say that they are staying on in further education.”, so there would be a clear misrepresentation there, I think. There would not be any opportunity for an error in that particular example, based on my experience with my son.
Neil Coyle
But what if the 18-year-old went into work? The point is that the onus is on the individual to make clear the change in circumstances to the Department, but the Department also has the opportunity to question. In your case, you are showing that the Department has done that.
Professor Button: They sent a letter, and you had to fill in a form to say that your son was staying on in further education in order to continue receiving payments.
Professor Levi: Yes, to reduce the fudge. It is sometimes difficult to see how there can be a legitimate explanation in the case that you are rightly using, but there must be a possibility of arguing. I am not sure myself that that needs to be in the Bill—that is a matter of criminal law, which the Bill does not seek to change in this case—but, in most departmental behaviour, they will adjust. Mark’s son’s case is a perfect example; the Department has clarified so that, if the family had continued claiming under those circumstances, it would be clear that they had committed an offence.
Neil Coyle
Q
Professor Levi: I am enthusiastic about the extension of the 12-year limitations; I think that is very sensible, particularly in view of the length of time that has elapsed since covid-19. But I am not sure how you would insert something in the Bill that would enable it to be varied. Presumably Parliament would like to see those proposals before they are approved, but there is an issue about parliamentary time—or it could be done through supplemental issues.
But I think it is right. Very few people can envisage the future. Look at the impact of technologies in our time. People will find ways of getting around things that you have not thought of yet, so that is pretty normal.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
Q
Dr Kassem: There are lots of definitions talking about fraud, including lies, cheating and misrepresentation for personal gain, but my point is that personal gain can be financial or non-financial. The Bill specifically mentions financial gain, but what would you do if you had a staff member working for a public authority who, for example, allowed unauthorised access or shared information out of revenge? There is no financial gain in that case. Would you treat that as fraud?
Andrew Western
Q
Dr Kassem: Yes, I have seen that in the literature, but not in practice yet. I think the way to go forward with that is by education and raising awareness about fraud and its impact, because those individuals committing fraud do not see the harm there. They see the Government as having lots of money in a rich country. They see themselves as entitled as well—more than others—and they take their fair share, or they might do it out of revenge, ideology or coercion, perhaps. There are lots of motivations for them to do that. Educating them about why this is wrong and what would be the consequences of committing fraud can help to reduce fraud over the long term and raise awareness about it. Equally important is training staff in public authorities about fraud, what it means and how to detect it. Prevention is better than a cure. Again, those have to go hand in hand. Yes, there has to be an investigation and a deterrent to discourage people from doing it, and this Bill is an excellent step in doing so.
However, if you produce the Bill, with untrained staff members who are not able to identify fraud criminals individually or organisationally, it will not really work. Preventing fraud requires a holistic approach. You cannot focus on prevention alone or on enhancing accountability alone, or on deterrence or investigation. Everything needs to work together, and education plays an important part internally in public sectors and externally across the public.
Professor Button: I have recently done some research where we replicated a study from 10 years ago. We sought a representative sample of the population and their attitudes to various deviant behaviours, including benefits fraud, and we found there was a significant decline in honesty. I think there are changes that are particularly pronounced among younger people. It has been driven by a whole range of factors, not least it is much easier to be dishonest now. If you go back 20 or 30 years, if you wanted to apply for a loan or a credit card you had to go to a bank. Now you just do it online on a computer. It is much easier to engage in dishonest behaviours in those types of ways.
The other thing is that social media and different types of forums provide opportunities for people to discuss how to engage in dishonest behaviour. I am doing some research at the moment about online refund fraud. We have been going into forums where a wide range of individuals discuss how to defraud retailers and get refunds for stuff that they have bought online. I strongly suspect that that kind of thing is probably also going on for benefits fraud. All of those factors are making it much easier, so I think there is a much more significant challenge for not just the public sector, but private sector organisations in dealing with fraud because of that.
Professor Levi: There is a lot of scope for unchallenged behaviour. Who gets challenged by people? If you do not have face-to-face relationships, the opportunities for moral education are much fewer. Personally, I think there needs to be a lot more in schools, but there is a lack of capacity in the schools curriculum for that kind of thing. Also, there should be more about how to avoid being a victim and discussions about money muling and so on. There is a broader spectrum of behaviours where people can get involved in fraud that we need to look at collectively.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)
Q
Professor Button: If you look at this in the broader context of hybrid policing bodies, which is one of my areas of study—non-police bodies that engage in a whole range of enforcement functions—what is being proposed in terms of the accountability of this body compared with, say, the Health and Safety Executive, the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority and some of the many other different types of enforcement bodies is certainly on a par with, if not better, than some of those organisations, with the inspection, the complaints body that people have access to and the additional measures in place.
One of the crucial areas is obviously when you get to prosecutions. With the Post Office scandal, we have seen the challenges if you have too much control over prosecution as well. The Department for Work and Pensions does use the Crown Prosecution Service, but with the lesser sanctions, it might be an issue to have more accountability, where you have that situation, to avoid excessive use of those penalties in a very negative way. That is possibly the only area where I would see an issue. Otherwise, the accountability measures are very similar to the many other hybrid enforcement bodies that central Government have.
Georgia Gould
Q
Professor Button: Yes, I think that does. That is fine.
Professor Levi: His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services has been pretty tough on fraud policing by the police, so I am personally encouraged by the proposal for accountability and review by them. It is reasonably rigorous and scientific, and there is the National Audit Office as well. Following on from Professor Button’s comments, sampling behaviours at all levels is a good methodology for testing. The question that Dr Kassem was raising earlier about the internal stuff and the supervision of that is a more complex example.
Dr Kassem: My suggestion was more about having an independent oversight board—independent from the PSFA—to review the work and also perhaps to support an independent audit of the operation and see whether the Bill is actually working in terms of recovery and of transparency and fairness. Someone might say, “Okay, we need someone from the PSFA on the board to feed back about operational tasks and challenges and so on.” That is fair enough, but that could slightly reduce the independence that we are talking about. It can still produce a report to describe the work, the performance and the challenges that it met, and a completely independent board can then oversee the work and challenge and scrutinise it if needed.
Georgia Gould
Q
Dr Kassem: Yes.
Georgia Gould
It is really reassuring to hear that because oversight is incredibly important to us. I have one more question, but I am happy to give way to others.
Andrew Western
Q
Dr Kassem: Personally, I would recommend a board rather than an individual, because how sustainable could that be, and who is going to audit the individual? You want an unbiased point of view. That happens when you have independent experts discussing the matter and sharing their points of view. You do not want that to be dictated by an individual, who might also take longer to look at the process. The operation is going to be slower. We do not want that from a governance perspective—if you want to oversee things in an effective way, a board would be a much better idea.
Professor Button: The only thing I would add on the DWP is that it is likely to be much more resource-intensive. There are likely to be a lot more cases. Having an appropriate capacity is important for that.
Professor Levi: I agree with that. Historically, in relation to asset forfeiture, say, the problem has been one of excessive caution rather than too much activity. A lot of legal challenges remain. I was on the Cabinet Office Committee that set that up, and there can be too much governance of that, so there is a tension between having a lot of governance in place and saying, “Look, can we get on with it?”
Rebecca Smith
Q
Professor Button: It is important to tackle those areas. I am not sure whether it is something that needs to go in the Bill. I think it is more an issue of giving the body the capacity to go after those types of individuals and to work with other relevant policing agencies— I suspect that that would need to be the case—to deal with it, rather than saying such things in law. We have the Online Safety Act 2023, which covers a lot of areas. Is that useful enough? Are the Fraud Act 2006 and the historical offence of conspiracy to engage in fraud appropriate, or do we need to create a new, specific offence of, say, promoting social security fraud online? I would not like to comment on that; it is probably something that needs more thought. The key thing is more enforcement, and disrupting forums where that kind of discussion is taking place.
Professor Levi: There is also the issue of signalling to people where the boundaries lie. This is an issue not so much for the Bill, but for enforcement practice across the board. We need some condign activities that communicate to people via social media, as well as in the old media that we may read, what is acceptable, and what is and is not legal. The National Crime Agency has been pretty good about that in the cyber-crime area, in trying to educate people and to divert them away from crime. There are some good lessons across that. It is also a question of resource and how many such things people can deal with.
Georgia Gould
Q
Professor Levi: The Americans used to be better at this than may have been the case in the past few weeks. The General Accounting Office and some of the inspectorates general in the US have been pretty active, but the US still had a huge amount of covid-19 fraud. Australia is getting better. Clearly, the head of the Public Sector Fraud Authority is part of this group of people trying to improve things, but I would say we are starting at a pretty modest level, in terms of numbers of people. In terms of the DWP, it is a struggle for everyone. We have to look at it in relation to general welfare. I remember going to a meeting and talking to some French delegates who said to me that it was about—
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of the allotted time for this panel. I thank the witnesses very much for their evidence. We will move to the next panel.
Examination of Witness
Helena Wood gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Helena Wood, director of public policy and strategic engagement at Cifas and a fellow of the Royal United Services Institute.
Mike Wood
Q
Helena Wood: I find it quite difficult to comment on that, given that we are yet to see the code of practice. A lot of burden has been placed on that code of practice as it stands to build in some of that proportionality. I know the Government have committed to consulting on that code of practice forthwith, but without seeing that, a lot hinges on how those powers will be used in practice. Without that being known to me at present, I would quite like to see something pulled up on to the face of the Bill to build in proportionality by design.
Both on the PSFA side and the DWP eligibility verification powers, the Bill is a very blunt instrument, as it stands, and I think the law would do well to pull up those proportionality measures on to the face of the Bill. We have to look at this Bill in its broader context: very much unintentionally, it stands at that ideological debate between the rights of the individual to privacy and the rights of society as a whole to benefit from the funds that are available to fund essential public services. We have to deal with both of those arguments with due caution and due respect. As it stands, the Bill tends to be quite blunt in the way things are proposed on its face, and I would like to see a lot more from that code of practice and how it will be built in.
Beyond that, I would like to see a lot more about the people who will be using these powers. Again, we trust the police to use their coercive and intrusive powers based on their skills, experience and training. At the moment, there is a reasonably low bar set in the legislation, which is merely to be a higher executive officer or senior executive officer—a very entry-grade civil service officer. Other coercive powers that we can see across areas I have studied over the course of a 20-year career, particularly the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, require some professional skills: where one is not a police officer, one must be a trained financial investigator. It is a trained and accredited role that is overseen by statute. Here, the competence of the individuals using that power, and the trust we can thus place in them to use those powers proportionately, is quite limited.
Mike Wood
Q
Helena Wood: It depends which part of the Bill we are talking about. This is a game of two halves: some of the PSFA powers, for example, mirror powers that are used almost as standard across the landscape of counter-financial crime, and I think we can be more comfortable about the use of those powers. The power I have more concerns about is something that is very new and incredibly intrusive, and without limitation to it being a civil or criminal investigation: the DWP eligibility verification powers. There, we need to proceed with more caution about how they are used, given that this is very much at risk of being a blanket, phishing-style power without any recourse to the limitations and the bars that others have to reach to use other powers that would be either a civil or criminal investigation. I think that part of the Bill requires a little more thought and proportionality pulling up front, unless the Government can bring forward that code of practice to allow those of you around the room judging this Bill to see what will be in the code to limit the use of those powers to the highest risk of high-end investigations, rather than making it a blanket power.
Mike Wood
Q
Helena Wood: Absolutely. The concerns I have around those powers are about collateral intrusion. We can all agree that the quality of data both on the DWP side and on the part of financial institutions is not always as good as it could be. I completely agree with the need to minimise the level of information that those institutions give back to the DWP, to caution against unnecessary intrusions upon privacy, but I would like to see a minimum standard of data match that would be required to take action on that data. If the banks are only giving a minimum amount of information back into the DWP, how do we know that that is an absolute specific match on the individuals they have on their system? Without seeing information about how that will be acted upon in the code of practice, I am slightly cautious. We need to see that detail earlier rather than later, for you to be able to make that judgment about the risk of unintended consequences of this legislation.
Let us again look at this in its broader context. This is a very intrusive power, but it sits in a suite of other measures and powers available to investigators across the system. What we do not want to do with this power is to bring those other powers into disrepute. We have to apply it with due caution, making sure that a match is a match. I would like to see which specific data points will be available to the DWP investigator to ensure this is a match and to minimise the risk of collateral intrusion.
Andrew Western
Q
Helena Wood: That is a very good question. It goes back to the balance between individual rights to privacy and society’s rights as a whole. Only you can make the decision about where that balance falls. Going back to the previous question, I would like to see built into the oversight of the use of the power a specific requirement for the independent reviewer to look at instances of collateral intrusion and where mistakes have been made, and to report on those to Parliament. If we can build that into the code of practice—forgive me for keeping on going back to that code, but I think a lot of the use of this power hinges on how it will be used in practice and by whom. We need to build some significant guardrails against that.
The second point I would make is that to my knowledge, this is an unprecedented power internationally, so how can we be sure it is going to be effective in practice? We know, for example, that individuals rarely have one bank account in one institution any more. In fact, numerous pieces of research—forgive me; I do not have the figures in my head, but I can refer those back to the Committee—show that individuals now have masses of bank accounts across five, six, seven and up to 10 or 20 institutions. By targeting one institution, are you really going to get a full picture anyway? If this is to be proportionate, we have to be clear that intrusion is proportionate and is going to be effective in practice. I am yet to see the evidence that it is, if it is used in a scattergun way. That is why it would be great to build into the code of practice something much more targeted around risk. For example, high-risk postcodes coming through in intelligence around organised crime attacks on the benefits system might be one way to look at this.
Andrew Western
Q
My concern is about broadening the scope. We have taken significant steps, when set against previous proposals in this area, to narrow the scope of the Bill. For instance, we are initially looking only at the three benefits where we see the highest levels of fraud and error. Universal credit is obviously principal among those.
Does the work that we have done to narrow the scope reassure you at all when you look at the Bill—for example, the removal of the state pension and the restriction to only one financial institution? Clearly, without that, we would have to look at every single bank account in the country in detail and investigate why every single person in the country has £16,000, if we are unable to see across the full range of bank accounts that they have.
Helena Wood: Absolutely, and I will answer that question in two parts. If we compare this Bill with the predecessor Bill that was put forward by the previous Government, the concerns have been listened to. There is much more significant oversight and much more limited scope. If we look at that in comparison with the predecessor Bill, that is absolutely true.
On the second part of your question, you make a very good point that this is not always organised crime. I would build on the point made by my predecessors in giving evidence that this is absolutely what we would refer to as a first-party fraud-driven approach. At Cifas, we run a fraud behaviours survey every year, questioning individuals about their general attitudes to fraud—individual-level fraud—and we see those numbers ticking up year on year about what individuals deem acceptable. Your point is well made and fully made about the rising levels of first-party fraud. We do have to look at it as both a first-party fraud and an organised fraud response.
Andrew Western
Q
Helena Wood: A really good point was made, and others who follow me in this Committee’s evidence sessions will make it as well: fraudsters rarely simply defraud the public sector or the private sector. It is often the case that those with a propensity towards fraud will look at any channel through which they can gain financial benefits.
This is very much a narrow-facing Bill, but we have to look at it in its broader context. I would question whether DWP could be doing more to share information with the private sector, using existing powers to do so. There are plenty of voluntary information and data-sharing schemes available to which DWP is not plugged in. It would complement this particular power to be able to layer the data picture and the intelligence picture, and not just look at this single piece of information in isolation. There will be a number of data points across the private sector that you could gain through voluntary data-sharing schemes that DWP is currently not engaging with.
Rebecca Smith
Q
Helena Wood: Absolutely; the point was well made in previous evidence that the police simply do not have the resources to look at fraud against consumers, never mind to support DWP, so I think it is entirely necessary to extend those powers of search and seizure to DWP as well. Again, I keep coming back to the broader context: there are other powers. We should not assume that this Bill is the sole answer. It has taken a very civil lens, quite necessarily, on what is a huge-volume crime, which cannot be dealt with simply through a criminal justice response alone. We have to save that criminal justice response for use in a surgical way, for the really high-end cases, particularly in an organised crime sense. We should not be seeing it as an either/or.
What I would not like to see from this is the replacement of the necessary deterrent of a criminal investigation and prosecution with pure use of civil measures. We need to use that full suite of powers beyond this Bill, including those in existing legislation, such as the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and standard issue fraud criminal prosecutions. Something that I would like to see from the independent oversight is that we do not lose that criminal thread. We have to keep prosecuting where necessary, and providing that necessary deterrent through all the available means, not just the ones available in this Bill.
Georgia Gould
Q
Helena Wood: This is a really necessary approach. However, I would caution that we are holding off from establishing the PSFA as a statutory body for now, and I completely understand the reasons for that: we are in a very tight fiscal environment, the cost of setting up a new agency is substantial, and we need to test the competence of the PSFA in doing so. However, I think in due course we need a more fixed timeline to move the PSFA off into a statutory body, to at least remove any perception—if not actual political interference—in investigations. That is really important—we need a stronger timetable. I know that will happen when the time is right, but I would like to see a stronger timetable towards it. I think there will be at least a perceived risk of Executive overreach if the PSFA does not move in that direction more quickly.
Georgia Gould
Q
Helena Wood: There is a question of “Who guards the guards?” in some respect. This Bill has significantly built in oversight; I think at every step we see that. However, it depends who the independent chair is, and a question would be whether that individual could be subject to a parliamentary approval process, as other oversight positions are—particularly if we look at the National Audit Office model, for example. It might be good to build in a parliamentary approval process for the individual who will take that role.
Georgia Gould
Q
Helena Wood: That is a really good question, which deserves more considered thought. These are people who have not gone through the police training process, for example.
I wonder if it is worth considering whether we make use of the powers contingent on being a financial investigator, as accredited under the Proceeds of Crime Act. However, I make that suggestion with some caution, knowing that in a practical sense there is a national shortage of financial investigators across the country. We are haemorrhaging these individuals; we train them up in the public sector and they go straight out to be poached by the financial sector, and probably to respond to some of these measures set out in the Bill. I say this with some caution, however, as that is a properly accredited and overseen process of skills. We need to look carefully about who exercises those powers and whether they need to do an analogous police training programme. I think there is some consideration of the professionalising investigations programme, although they cannot be officially credited over time—they will not be using the powers as frequently as that process would require.
Those are the parts of the Bill I would like to see strengthened in some way. It is perhaps incumbent on the Government to look at what the other routes are beyond a financial investigator to ensure the right level of competence in using what are very intrusive powers.
Andrew Western
Briefly, on the question of efficacy and scale, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has powers at the moment to request information from banks en masse. Given the experience we have within Government of doing that, and from what I can see, the lack of problem with it, I wonder whether you feel—
The Chair
Order. Alas, that brings us to the end of the allotted time for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank Helena Wood for her evidence. We will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Kristin Jones and Alex Rothwell gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Kristin Jones, formerly of the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service, and from Alex Rothwell, chief executive of the NHS Counter Fraud Authority. For this panel, we have until 11 o’clock.
Mike Wood
Q
Kristin Jones: I am sure I have the same answer as Helena. Until we see the codes of practice and the operational guidance, it is difficult to tell. Obviously, I have operated in very regulated situations where there has been accountability, but without that extra information, I cannot really say at the moment. But I think it is important that when you interfere with the rights of the individual, decisions are taken at a sufficiently high level by people with sufficient experience.
Mike Wood
Is that your view as well, Alex?
Alex Rothwell: I would echo Kristin’s thoughts. I suppose there is not necessarily anything novel in the Bill. Those powers exist elsewhere, so we have seen them in operation. The ability to test and learn, which is baked into the proposals, is very helpful. Importantly, it addresses a need.
Mike Wood
Q
Kristin Jones: Not on the face of the legislation necessarily, but I would perhaps expect certain commitments in debate that the code of practice will cover certain areas.
Mike Wood
Q
Kristin Jones: I do have some reservations about dealing with corporate organisations, as was expressed earlier, because a corporate cannot speak itself; it can speak only through its officers. The Bill only talks about notices; it does not talk about answering questions. It is quite difficult if you are not able to ask an officer of a corporate questions and you have just written answers through notices. I wonder whether there are sufficient powers for dealing with the more serious, top end of public sector fraud.
Mike Wood
Q
Alex Rothwell: Perhaps a good example is that although we believe we are losing something in the region of £1.3 billion a year to fraud, the amount of fraud that is actually identified is relatively low, because a lot of the value we get is from future prevention. For example, in 2023-24, the figure was something like £5.2 million, but we only recovered 12% of that figure. There is a lot more value to be had. The Bill will be incredibly helpful for us to recover more money from people who have been suspected of fraud. When it comes to pursuing criminal justice outcomes in relatively low value cases—perhaps individuals who have taken £5,000 or £10,000, who have been exited through human resources processes or who have simply left the organisation—the Bill gives us an incredible opportunity to recover more funds, and I think we would use it extensively.
Mike Wood
Q
Kristin Jones: My career has been dealing with fraud in the public and private sector, and I think it is important that when fraud is investigated and you discover something that is not in your scope, you are able to communicate it so that fraudsters are tackled, whether that is in the private or public sector. That is my only concern.
Alex Rothwell: The Bill seems pretty comprehensive in terms of our requirements. There are things that I have concerns around, including training—not just of individuals who are exercising the powers, but of those who manage them and set the culture and tone of an organisation and how it is built in. I echo Kristin’s comments about private sector providers. For example, we are increasingly seeing private sector providers providing NHS services, so how would that be exercised? From my point of view it is more about the exercise of the powers than the extent of the powers.
Kristin Jones: The other thing I think is missing compared to when other organisations have been established is that we only talk about investigators. I am a great believer in a multidisciplinary team, with early legal advice, accountancy advice as necessary and financial investigators, but we have an organisation at the moment in which we only define the role of the investigators.
Andrew Western
Q
Alex Rothwell: I certainly echo your thoughts in terms of attitude. We have seen that expressed in a number of different ways through surveys and transparency—the international transparency index, for example. In terms of statistics, we have seen our fraud prevalence rate remain fairly steady over the last five to seven years, but it is a complex picture because I think that we have been increasing our fraud protection measures as well. What we have seen across the board are bitter pay disputes and a sense that contracts do not pay enough. We have extensive provider assurance programmes that are recovering funds through what we classify as error. I do not see any change in that climate necessarily. Opportunities to strengthen prevention, for us, are the most important factor to influence people’s decision making before they commit fraud. So it is a huge concern to me, but not necessarily in terms of statistics.
Kristin Jones: During my career, I have seen sentences for fraud increase dramatically and that sends a clear message but, over my career, instead of only a few people being exposed to fraud, when you answer your telephone, there is a good chance you have a scammer at the other end; it could happen once a week, if not several times a day. If you are being targeted, it could be every mealtime, with the scammer hoping that while you are distracted you will fall for some con. The worry is that the public are exposed so much to fraud that its seriousness gets watered down in their mind. You have these forums where you can recommend how to claim various things from the Government and how to hit sweet spots to get that benefit or grant. So it has changed and perhaps people are not as shocked by fraud as they used to be.
Andrew Western
Q
Alex Rothwell: Data sharing is critical to our ability to prevent fraud. We have a particular challenge in the NHS in that medical records are in a particular category, so we are exempt from the Digital Economy Act 2017. Perhaps I would focus in the first instance on the rich data sets that the Government actually hold and our ability to communicate inter-Department. Those data sets are critical, yet it is still challenging to obtain data. In many ways, the data protection legislation already provides the ability to share information, particularly where fraud is concerned, although the application of it is often quite risk averse. I wish it had been called the Data Sharing Act and not the Data Protection Act, quite frankly.
Kristin Jones: I come from a slightly different angle on this. Having prosecuted for many years and had to deal with the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 and the responsibility to gather material and go through it, I think it is important, if you have data, to decide what you are going to do with it. In preparing for this Committee, I looked at the National Audit Office report on carer’s allowance. There you have a lot of data being gathered, passed and, if it is not addressed, discarded. For me it is important, if you gather data, to do something with it. There has been a lot of discussion about error. It is important for the public that, when they apply for something that they may not be entitled to, if that information is held, they can rely on that. If you apply for a passport and you fill the form in wrongly, you do not get your passport. It should be the same in other parts of government. You should be able to rely on the information the state already holds on you. This relates to the point about child benefit.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
Q
Alex Rothwell: In terms of search warrants and physical access?
Siân Berry
Yes. The other powers that you mentioned already exist and are being transferred to a new place where things are conducted. Eligibility verification in the form that it is written is quite novel.
Alex Rothwell: Does His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs not have the ability to conduct those inquiries?
Siân Berry
As inquiries, but the difference is that we are talking about routine use.
Alex Rothwell: More extensive use.
Siân Berry
Yes. Would you care to comment on the eligibility-verification powers more specifically?
Alex Rothwell: I can see why there is concern. People have complex lives—perhaps it is not as straightforward as how much capital is in a bank account at a particular time. I think the powers need to be exercised very carefully. I am reassured by the opportunity to test and learn from the process through oversight, but I do recognise the concerns.
Kristin Jones: I used to be in charge of international assistance when I was at the Serious Fraud Office. One of the difficulties is that whereas other countries have a central bank register or building where you can tackle that and find out all the accounts and individual holes, here we do not. It is more tricky to try to verify financial information because there is no central register.
Alex Rothwell: We were speaking before about whether it is flexible enough to cover future events. The way that we use cash or funds is changing in terms of digital currencies and so on, and the way that people hold value is changing.
Siân Berry
Q
Alex Rothwell: Yes.
Michael Payne
Q
“It is very unlikely that most of the losses due to fraud and corruption”
during the pandemic
“will ever be recovered.”
How far do you agree with that statement? Do you think the new powers for the Public Sector Fraud Authority change the prospects?
Alex Rothwell: I absolutely do think they change those prospects. I was still in law enforcement when covid-19 was happening, and there was an extensive discussion about the police’s ability to support investigations. Frankly, policing had significant challenges with fraud, and still does, in terms of the volume of attacks against individuals and businesses, which made supporting the public sector almost an impossible ask, so I certainly welcome the ability to strengthen the public sector fraud response.
On whether the money will be recovered, there are significant challenges, as I am sure you are aware. It is right to apply a cost-benefit approach as well; although there is a moral imperative, we increasingly look at things in a commercial sense and at whether there is financial value in recovering funds.
Kristin Jones: It is very difficult to get money back from fraudsters, especially where it is organised, because the money disappears into different accounts in different names, and overseas through lots of corporate bodies, so it will be a big challenge. The important thing about this piece of legislation is whether we are future-proofing it so that, looking forward, we can learn from what has happened in the past and not repeat the mistakes.
Rebecca Smith
Q
Alex Rothwell: If we take the view that fraud has already happened—I have spoken about prevention, but once a fraud has happened and we have discovered it—there are increasingly limited opportunities to pursue criminal investigations. Although we maintain a strong investigative capability that deals with more serious types of criminality, we know about the challenges in the criminal justice system—the disclosure burden is high, it is incredibly expensive to run criminal investigations, and often they take eight years or longer to reach fruition—so we are increasingly looking at how else we can deal with fraud when it is presented to us.
In many ways, it is the low-value, high-volume cases that we see that are more challenging, where we are perhaps seeking to recover funds from someone who has taken £5,000, as I mentioned earlier. This is where I have the most interest in the Bill, because I think we would seek to use those powers extensively, and of course every penny that we recover is money that will be well spent in the NHS. I do not necessarily see any gaps in this particular legislation. There are elements of the work that we do in the national health service where we would benefit from some more powers, but the focus here is obviously on the Bill, rather than on our own ability. A lot of that would apply to how we access medical records, for example.
Georgia Gould
Q
Alex Rothwell: If we look across other international jurisdictions, we see that law enforcement agencies often have quite distinctive public sector fraud or crime functions—for example, the FBI has an extensive healthcare fraud capacity. The way policing has evolved over the last 20 or 30 years, particularly with an emphasis on drug supply, knife crime and firearms, has meant there is little capacity in policing to tackle public sector fraud, and of course there is an ever-present terrorism threat, which is changing rapidly. There is also safeguarding, with the National Crime Agency having quoted publicly the figures in terms of people who are a risk to children, for example.
One of the challenges is that even if you invest more in fraud capability, when a crisis happens, whether that is because of public order or some other form of crisis, policing has to flex more than other investigations. Inevitably, crimes like fraud are perhaps easier to put on hold for a time. Certainly since 2018 we have seen a gradual professionalisation and an increasing capability in the public sector, which I endorse. We could invest more in the police, but my concern is that there will continue to be crises that affect policing that will impact the ability of policing to support the public sector in the way that is required.
Kristin Jones: I agree with everything that Alex just said. The same applies to prosecution: if you have specialist prosecutors, where the resource is ringfenced, they do not get dragged away, but if you have them in with other prosecutors, it depends on what the pressure is at any particular time as to what resource is going to be given to fraud prosecutions.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
Q
Alex Rothwell: One thing that we have always struggled to do is put a value on deterrence, because it is quite hard to say categorically that someone has not done something because of a change in approach to something. However, it is my view that, once it is known that there are increased powers in this space and that individuals will be pursued for funds, we will see some behaviour change. We could potentially quantify that, but the challenge is directly relating it to the Bill, particularly if you introduce other measures at the same time. I think there will be a powerful deterrent effect if it is exercised correctly and at scale and the public can see the benefits.
Kristin Jones: I agree. If people know there is an increased likelihood that they will be detected, that will have an effect. It is also important to use similar means to get the right narrative across about what you should and should not be doing.
Georgia Gould
Q
Kristin Jones: We have to plan for emergencies—they will, inevitably, occur—and the work on that should be kept up to date so that you can refer back to one you prepared earlier. That is so important because when there is an emergency, everybody is doing their best to get through it as fast as they can, and that is not the time for slow consideration, whereas having been through that experience, now is the time to reflect and document what we are going to do in future.
Alex Rothwell: Fundamentally it is about the loosening of controls, our understanding of the impact of the loosening of controls, and the friction that is or is not introduced when you are addressing an emergency. We also now have a much better understanding of how that can manifest itself. But I am confident that the Bill would enable an effective response.
Georgia Gould
Q
Alex Rothwell: From my perspective it is the digital footprint that is left and our ability to analyse that at scale. Very few transactions, if any, take place that do not have a digital or electronic footprint of some kind. The data sharing and our capability to analyse that data is the most important factor. The Bill goes some way to addressing that, but obviously elements of the Bill are about responding to fraud once it has happened. That, for me, is the biggest challenge. But on top of that are the safeguards that we put in place to ensure that our interpretation of that analysis is also correct.
Georgia Gould
So the other half—the prevention side—has to accompany this.
Alex Rothwell: Absolutely.
Georgia Gould
I very much agree.
Kristin Jones: Increasingly in society today knowing what the truth is, with the amount of data and false information out there, can be the problem.
Andrew Western
Q
Alex Rothwell: Data analysis has been particularly effective, as has getting better at recording and reporting—for example, we now have a ubiquitous case recording system that exists across the national health service. The greatest value we have seen so far has been in improved data analysis on large datasets that exist on, for example, national contracting. That is where the value lies in future.
Georgia Gould
Q
Alex Rothwell: Yes, it is. As I mentioned, the professionalisation of fraud specialists has made huge inroads in terms of the acceptability of fraud professionals, particularly in a finance environment—we deal with audit committees and so on—and there is also the recognition that the Government are taking fraud seriously. That is not just this Government but the previous one as well. The direction we have had from the Cabinet Office—
The Chair
Order. That brings us to the end of the allotted time for the Committee to ask questions. I thank the witnesses for their evidence. We will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Anna Hall and Christy McAleese gave evidence.
The Chair
For our final session this morning we will hear oral evidence from Anna Hall, corporate director of debt, and Christy McAleese, debt advice strategy and policy lead, both at the Money and Pensions Service.
Rebecca Smith
Q
Anna Hall: A lot of the operational detail of how the powers will work needs to be worked through, and the code of conduct will clearly be extremely important. Already existing in government are the debt management vulnerability toolkit and the public sector economic abuse toolkit, both of which have been set up by the cross-Government and cross-debt advice sector fairness group. We would like to see those existing systems tailored for the Bill and the recovery powers, to make sure that the code is implemented fairly.
There is lots of detail in the debt management vulnerability toolkit. It is about making sure that every individual is treated fairly, no matter how the debt has arisen. Once a debt is owed to Government, we are interested in how someone is able to set up a sustainable repayment plan. How are they able to access free debt advice and get the support they need? Regardless of how the debt has arisen, there is their ongoing expenses, their family, the need to make sure that there are no unintended consequences for wider society and their family, and how that debt is recovered.
Christy McAleese: I agree with Anna. There are possibly also opportunities in the code of conduct to build on some of the good work that the Department for Work and Pensions has already been doing on its ways of working with the debt sector. That includes good and consistent signposting and referrals through to free debt advice if, as seems reasonable, someone who has perhaps been contacted by the Department seeks advice from the sector. There are also some things around the acceptability of the debt sector—the advice worker being able to act on behalf of the person, so third-party forms of authority—and we could look at that. That would streamline the process for the person in debt and make it much easier for the debt sector to work with the Department. There are probably other things in that area.
Rebecca Smith
Q
Anna Hall: We can talk about who should be consulted. Debt advice organisations and consumer groups are important, because they will be the ones that interact with and support individuals in how they set up repayment plans and interact with the debt they owe to Government. At the Money and Pensions Service, we have an adviser panel, whereby we convene the debt advice sector, creditors and everyone who interacts in the ecosystem of debt advice. We can certainly support with that.
We are pleased with how DWP officials have engaged with us so far. They are clearly prioritising the people who are likely to be vulnerable. We work with them on an ongoing basis and expect to continue that through the development of the code of conduct.
Christy McAleese: To add to that briefly, we have a track record of doing consultation exercises in this area, and we have been sharing some of those learnings with colleagues at the DWP. In particular, as Anna mentioned, our debt adviser panel, which is made up of frontline advice workers from right across the sector, has been a valuable forum for us to understand how particular aspects of work that we are doing, and wider Government work, impact on the sector, and particularly on people in debt. Colleagues at DWP have been discussing how they can interact with that panel as part of the process as well, which we would really welcome.
Rebecca Smith
Q
Anna Hall: One thing that we know quite a lot about at the Money and Pensions Service is how people in debt behave. They do not always behave in a particularly rational manner, or in the way that you might expect people to behave, as with all people interacting with systems.
It can be incredibly overwhelming to have multiple debts. If you draw an analogy to other types of debts that people might owe—say, mortgage arrears or rent arrears—the fact that you might lose your home if you do not pay it is obviously an effective deterrent. For some people, those kinds of consequences are an effective deterrent. But we see day in, day out in the services we fund that people leave it right to the last minute before they seek help, and some people do not seek help at all. There can be all kinds of reasons for that. It could be something to do with them—they may struggle with literacy; they may have really overwhelming mental health issues; or it could be that they just do not know what to do. It could also be that they do not know where to seek help from. So I am sure it will be a deterrent for some people, but for other people, deterrents are not really the reason that they do not engage with the system.
We think it is really important that the systems that are set up once a debt has arisen are encouraging and supportive and help people to engage with the Department, so that they can set up an affordable and sustainable repayment plan. That will minimise the number of people who get to that point. We have experience of working with the finance sector and with other Government Departments that are trying to recover debt. If you really focus on being supportive, encouraging and creating the environment where frontline staff are people that you would want to disclose information to, set up income and expenditure, get a signpost to debt advice from and those kinds of things—if that is inherent in the system—you will not need the deterrent very often. There are huge numbers of people who are very vulnerable who have multiple debts, and deterrents are not really the thing that will impact on their ability to engage.
Andrew Western
Q
Anna Hall: We work with the Department in a number of ways. One of the most recent initiatives is working with Jobcentre Plus colleagues to embed the Money Adviser Network referral system into that. That means that where people present at Jobcentre Plus for a variety of reasons and are identified as having some kind of debt or money difficulty, they can either be referred to the MoneyHelper website—that is the Money and Pensions Service website—which has a variety of information on money, debt and pensions, or they can get a referral through the Money Adviser Network to one of our funded debt-advice providers. It is as seamless as possible and it really enables someone who presents perhaps not realising that there is help out there. When someone interacts with a system that they have to interact with, it is great if we can offer a real range of support that allows them to get to debt advice as quickly as possible.
I probably would say this, wouldn’t I, but debt advice can be absolutely life-changing for people? Its impact is huge. One thing we know is that people often do not know that debt advice exists. A huge number of people would benefit from debt advice. They do not know where to look or how to find it and think that is maybe is not for them, and they do not know what will happen when they get debt advice. If you have someone reassuring at the jobcentre saying, “This is a really independent, trusted service and it can help you sort out your financial affairs, and here is a seamless transfer through to that debt advice service,” that can be incredibly effective.
We are working with the Department, in Jobcentre Plus and across the board, on where people are particularly vulnerable and where they really need that support before they can even start to think about finding work or engaging with other things. If you are worried about whether you have food, whether you have money coming in and what you are going to do about the bailiff who is coming to knock on your door, you really need to deal with that before you can look at your long-term future.
The Department and all the officials we have been working with have been prioritising that. Being an arm’s length body of the Department for Work and Pensions is really helpful to make those connections, and embedding debt advice into all those systems has been really welcomed by the Department.
Andrew Western
Q
Can you reflect on the way that we have structured the process for people to engage with the Department when they are notified that they owe us a debt? We have done everything that we can to structure that as a power of last resort. Do you think that that is as robust as it can be with the multiple points of contact, the attempt to agree a sustainable and affordable repayment plan, and the ability, even after we have agreed a deduction, for somebody to come back to the table and negotiate that with us? Is there anything else that you would like to see in that space, or do you think that that is robust in reassuring ourselves that it is a power of last resort?
Anna Hall: It certainly looks that way from the detail in the Bill. As others have said, the code of conduct will be the critical thing. One of the things is that if frontline staff are not picking up vulnerabilities, or they are not trained in how to sort out affordability, in empathic listening or in all the protocols about how to have different types of conversations with people in different types of vulnerable situations—if those things are not in place—some of the processes in the Bill will not be as effective. It comes down to the training for frontline staff, and the capacity and processes to then follow up on what has actually been disclosed, that will enable those repayment plans to be put in place before those later processes. If those are not in place, that could cause some real issues. How successful this Bill is will come down to the code of conduct, as many have said.
Christy McAleese: I agree with what Anna has said. There are probably parallels with what has happened in the financial services sector and changes due to consumer duty and other requirements there. They have found that it is about embedding that culture in frontline staff and recovery staff, and making sure that they are trained effectively. The process on paper needs to be brought to life. We have been assured by the colleagues we have been speaking to at DWP so far that that is in their thinking. They have really demonstrated a willingness with us to learn what they can from how this is approached in the debt advice sector as well. We are reassured on that.
Andrew Western
Q
Anna Hall: We understand the DWP’s intent to ensure that debts can be recovered across all the different groups of people who might owe money. We are really focused on what happens when that debt arises and how people are treated in that situation. It is probably slightly outside our remit to comment on some of what you just outlined, but once the debt has arisen, we would look at how people are treated fairly in that situation across the board.
Christy McAleese: I have nothing to add.
The Chair
There being no further questions, I thank the witnesses for their evidence.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gerald Jones.)
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Tuesday 25th February 2025
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesTerminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 View all Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 February 2025 - (25 Feb 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 15 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Electronic devices should be turned off or switched to silent. The only cups that I should see are those filled with the water provided in the room—no tea or coffee. Let us continue our line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
Clause 1
Assisted dying
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 281, in clause 1, page 1, line 20, at end insert—
“(c) has met with a palliative care specialist for the purposes of being informed about the medical and care support options.”
This amendment would mean that illness, disease or medical condition etc, the progress of which can be managed or controlled by treatment are not characterised as terminal illness.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 299, in clause 7, page 4, line 17, after “(g)” insert
“and the condition in subsection (4) has been met”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 298.
Amendment 298, in clause 7, page 4, line 26, at end insert—
“(4) The coordinating doctor may not take the steps set out in subsection (3) unless they receive confirmation from a palliative care specialist that the person has had a consultation with that specialist about the palliative care options available to them.”
This will require the coordinating doctor to be of the opinion that the person has had a consultation with a specialist in palliative medicine.
Amendment 304, in clause 9, page 5, line 41, leave out “any available” and insert
“the person’s experience of specialist”.
This amendment would require the assessing doctor to discuss the person’s experience of specialist palliative, hospice or other care.
Amendment 311, in clause 12, page 8, line 14, at end insert
“and
(i) the person has had a consultation with a consultant who is a specialist in palliative medicine.”
This amendment would require that a person has had a consultation with a specialist in palliative medicine before the High Court could issue a declaration.
Naz Shah
Amendment 281 would ensure that the patient receives advice on palliative care options from a specialist in the field. Medicine is fast-paced, with innovative and new medicines becoming available in quick succession. Although those in the profession try to keep abreast of developments, it is hard to maintain the depth of knowledge necessary in all specialties. A co-ordinating doctor may or may not have specialist knowledge in palliative medicine. Some courses may provide the opportunity to learn more, but others only touch on palliative medicine—covering it in less than a day of a five-year medical degree. Specialists who are leading in this field of medicine, innovating advances and working to palliate a patient’s symptoms at the end of life will have far greater knowledge of the specialism. Even in this wider debate, many who work in a different field of medicine or in general practice have simply got their facts wrong when speaking about palliative medicine—not through intent but because they have drawn on their own, perhaps out-of-date, experience or simply do not have the competencies to understand all that palliative care can provide.
Pain and symptom control techniques are advancing; in our debates on this Bill, people have articulated instances of poor care rather than what clinical experts are able to achieve. It is therefore essential that a patient has a consultation with an expert in the field of palliative medicine, who can alleviate a patient’s fear, support them with a plan for the end of their life, and discuss how pain and symptoms can be managed. Hearing an alternative approach to the end of life can be life-affirming, help people discuss their fears and concerns about dying, and provide a patient with what they are seeking physically, psychologically, emotionally, socially and perhaps spiritually. Specialists in palliative medicine are trained to home in on the challenges that people naturally have on receiving a diagnosis of terminal illness and are skilled at supporting a patient to explore what end of life could look like for them.
If the Committee does not pass this amendment, it would be placing itself above palliative care specialists when talking about such matters. It would undermine the need for such a specialty in medicine, like a GP who may not know the breadth of palliative medicine options for their patients. The Committee must not assume that it knows those options. Rather, it should enable those with a specialist understanding of palliative medicine to deploy their skills in this process by working through palliative care options with patients before the consideration of a path that will end with an assisted suicide.
Amendment 299 is consequential on amendment 298, which would ensure that a person has a consultation or consultations with a palliative care specialist. Amendment 298 would further embed this into the practice of managing the end-of-life process to provide the patient real choice over their options at the end of life, as what can be achieved through the practice of high-quality palliative care is often significantly different from people’s perceptions—even those of clinicians. Palliative care, like so many fields of medicine, continues to advance in its application and in the steps that can be made available to palliate a person’s pain and symptoms. When pain is difficult to control using oral or intravenous pharmacology, other interventions, such as a nerve block, can result in the absence of pain. A specialist is required to provide such a procedure, but for most people who are in receipt of palliative care, this option is rarely made available. Palliative care is about not just pain and symptom control, but the holistic journey of a patient at the end of life.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
The hon. Member mentions the principle that palliative care is a holistic service. Does she agree that, given that the Bill’s advocates—including the promoter, the hon. Lady for Spen Valley—emphasise the need for a holistic range of opportunities for end-of-life care, palliative care needs to be central to that? Rather than suggesting that there is an either/or between palliative care and assisted dying, the advocates of the Bill have often stressed the importance of having both options. Does the hon. Member for Bradford West agree that it is strange that the Bill does not require palliative care consultation as part of the range of services that are offered to patients when they are having their consultation?
Naz Shah
I completely agree, which is why the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) is very important. I urge the Committee to accept it, as it would ensure the provision of a palliative care consultation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has always said, it is about having a holistic approach—we need to get back to that.
In the evidence sessions, we heard that palliative care social workers can play a pivotal role in supporting patients. Those from other professions—psychological services, chaplaincy services, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and speech therapists—along with specialist nurses and medics can all contribute to the care of a patient at the end of life. In discussions with palliative care specialists who listened to the debate on 29 November, they were perplexed by the symptoms that were graphically described in the case studies, and cited poor care as the reason for them. Many such symptoms can be controlled, and they were shocked that such examples of poor care were presented as a reason for assisted death, rather than for making good quality palliative care available to all patients.
We further heard evidence, especially from Dr Jamilla Hussain, that access to palliative care is inequitable. We know that those from minoritised communities and from low socioeconomic backgrounds have poorer access to good palliative care, and that people can have poor access depending on where they live, and on the day of the week or the hour of the day. Through this amendment, we want to ensure that everyone who is seeking an assisted death, or who has it suggested to them, as this Bill allows, is able to access a consultation or consultations with a palliative care specialist, who can dispel the myths while supporting them with their end-of-life plan.
Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend talked about the stories that we heard on Second Reading. Does she acknowledge, as Dr Sarah Cox from the Association for Palliative Medicine said, that there are cases where palliative care cannot meet a patient’s needs? We have a lady in the Public Gallery this morning whose mother had a horrible death, having had ovarian cancer and mouth cancer; she had to have her tongue removed, so she could not eat and drink, and she essentially starved to death. We have to be careful not to dismiss those cases, because they are real stories of real human beings, and we have to acknowledge the limitations of palliative care.
Naz Shah
I absolutely agree. Nobody in this Committee, from what I have heard over the weeks of evidence that we have taken, is suggesting in any way that we are dismissive of people who actually need an assisted death and would benefit from the Bill. As I have said previously, and as Dr Jamilla said very clearly, there are some patients who clinically would benefit from an intervention such as an assisted death. I came on to this Bill Committee to ensure we have the best legislation and safeguards in place. The Bill currently does not ensure that people are aware of the options. This amendment would ensure that people have considered all options and can make an informed choice. If there is no requirement to speak to a specialist, I am afraid the Bill would do a disservice to those who might want to use it to seek an assisted death by not presenting them with those options.
In evidence from the representative of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, we heard an example of somebody who was in lots of pain and decided to seek an assisted death, but changed their mind once they understood that their pain could be alleviated. That is what this amendment is about. I urge the Committee to vote for it, because it is fundamental that we enable people to make an informed choice and to understand the services and options available to them.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend think that giving everyone access to palliative care would resolve some of the concerns about coercion and consent?
Naz Shah
My hon. Friend comes from a mental health background, and I appreciate his expertise. We have talked a great deal about coercion—we have debated it for hours and hours—and I agree palliative care specialists, who deal with such issues as their day job, can provide that intervention and support the patient by establishing a much stronger relationship with them. I added my name to this amendment because I feel very strongly that palliative care must be a central part of the Bill if it is to provide patients a real choice at end of life. There should not be an assumption, as there is in the Bill as drafted, that assisted death is the predominant option once a person embarks on this pathway.
Let me return to the matter of minoritised voices. Dr Jamilla submitted written evidence, and spoke passionately, about the options available to people from black and minority ethnic communities. She said that they feel very much ignored. As I have said previously, palliative care is not fit for purpose because there is postcode lottery: provision depends on where a person lives, whether they have a hospice nearby, what the hospital options are and so on. There is a fear among ethnic minority communities of being pushed towards assisted death.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Does the hon. Lady agree that the purpose of this amendment is to ensure the Bill delivers for the people for whom it is intended, such as the person the hon. Member for Spen Valley spoke about? It would put in place protections for the people for whom there is a choice, and that where those choices exits, they are laid out in full and properly examined before a final decision is made.
Naz Shah
I completely agree. It is imperative that those options—pain options and care options, including with the family—are explored in detail. The last time that I spent time in a hospice was when my brother-in-law was dying of cancer, and I remember that, as a family, we were very much involved in those conversations. Having such expertise empowers not just the patient but the family. Losing somebody who has a life-threatening condition is a difficult time for families and loved ones. When the wraparound model of palliative care, with specialist nurses and doctors, is good, it can be amazing. I have heard plenty of stories about when it is good. Last week, I mentioned a friend of mine who lost her husband last year, and she said that the palliative care nurses and doctors could not do enough. That gives the family confidence to explore the options. In that instance, that person would have benefited from this Bill—she encouraged me to support it.
As Dr Jamilla said, some people would absolutely benefit from the Bill, and they cannot be dismissed, but how do we legislate to cover people who do not have equal access to palliative care or to healthcare? There is discrimination. The covid experience that we went through recently showed the impact of inequalities. Disabled people, people with mental health conditions, elderly people, and people from black and minority ethnic communities, say that they were DNR-ed—subject to “do not resuscitate” orders. There is already a lack of trust in services, so we need to strengthen palliative care.
There is a fear among these communities that they will be pushed towards assisted dying. A consultation with participants from Pakistani, Roma, Nigerian, black Caribbean and Indian backgrounds revealed overwhelming mistrust, which is deeply rooted in the experience of discrimination and the disproportionate impact of covid-19. As one participant put it,
“They are doing this to save money…to kill us off.”
To get confidence among communities back, we need specialists people can rely on. That is what the amendment speaks to, and I hope that the Committee will support it.
Danny Kruger
I rise to briefly speak in support of amendment 281, moved by the hon. Lady and tabled by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell).
At the moment that somebody seeks assisted death through a consultation with a doctor, they stand at a fork in the road: they can either proceed towards the assisted death about which they are inquiring, or turn towards other treatment options. On Second Reading, almost every Member on both sides of this debate stated that we need more palliative care, and everybody emphasised the value of providing good palliative care to all who need it. The amendments in this group would simply give force and power to the clear call of the House of Commons for a strong, realistic palliative care option as an alternative to assisted death, and I would be astonished if members of this Committee chose to vote them down. They give clear expression to the will of the House: that palliative care should be offered, and that it should be apparent that a patient has clearly understood their palliative care options.
I implore members of the Committee to consider what they would be communicating if they rejected the amendments. They would be saying that this is not a fork in the road, but a one-way street: there is only one way that someone is likely to go, and that is onwards to an assisted death. If that is the will of the Committee, it should vote the amendment down. If it thinks, as so many people said on Second Reading, that there should be real choice, and that palliative care should be explained and properly available, then I implore the Committee to support the amendment.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West and the hon. Member for East Wiltshire for their speeches. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who is a fantastic campaigner for excellent palliative care, for tabling the amendment.
I cannot disagree with almost everything that has been said: people need to be given real choice, and they certainly need to be given the choice of palliative care. As the hon. Member for East Wiltshire said, people need to be offered palliative care. That is absolutely crucial to the Bill. However, the amendment would make it a requirement that a patient has met someone in palliative care. What would happen to a patient’s autonomy if they did not wish to see a palliative care doctor? Would they be excluded from the process? It is incredibly important that people have real choices with respect to palliative care in this process.
I note to the Committee the fact that clause 4(4) states:
“If a registered medical practitioner conducts…a preliminary discussion”
with a person, they have to also discuss with that person
“any available palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support.”
That is in the Bill. It needs to be offered.
I have had patients who have not wished to see a palliative care consultant. It is their autonomy to make that choice. I do not think that it is a wise choice—I think almost every doctor would try to push them towards palliative care—but we must not exclude those patients from accessing an assisted death if that is what they want. That does not mean that people should face a fork in the road, as the hon. Member for East Wiltshire just mentioned. This is not an either/or: sometimes people can receive excellent palliative care and still request an assisted death, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley said.
I absolutely agree with many of the things you have been saying. I totally agree that we need better palliative care—although, actually, we have pretty good palliative care. In 2017, palliative care in this country was the best in the world, and we need to rebuild back to that again. But having a requirement that someone has to have seen a palliative care consultant will weaken the Bill. I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I start by gently pushing back on what my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire said about this being a fork in the road. I do not see the Bill giving patients that ultimate option. They have the choice to opt for an assisted death while continuing with their palliative care all the way along; in fact, they could then decide that they did not wish to have an assisted death, although that opportunity would be open to them. I do not think that the choice is the binary one that has been presented; I am sure that was not the intention, but I just wanted to gently push back.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
I appreciate your giving way. The point that we are trying to make is that it is important to provide the information about palliative care. I understand the reservations of the hon. Member for Stroud about forcing someone to see a palliative specialist, but wording can be tweaked or changed to allow that choice. The key thing is that the opportunity to meet a palliative care specialist is provided so that the patient has the option, if they so wish, to seek that information.
At the end of the day, I think we can all agree that information allows people to make the right decision for themselves. Rather than getting too hung up on the exact wording of the amendment, I suggest that—this applies to quite a lot of the amendments—we think about the spirit of what we are trying to do.
The Chair
Before the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley continues, I should point out that when Members say “you” or “your” they are referring to me in the Chair. It has happened a couple of times. We all do it—we all make mistakes—but please make the effort not to use “you”.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I am grateful to you, Chair, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate for her intervention. She is right: it is absolutely critical that patients are given the full information in order to make an informed choice. I do not think any of us would disagree with that. But actually that goes entirely with the wording of the Bill as it stands. The hon. Member for Stroud has already highlighted the relevant provision—clause (4)(4)(c), which states that the initial discussion must explain and discuss with the patient
“any available palliative, hospice or other care, including symptom management and psychological support.”
Therefore a requirement to have those discussions is already stipulated in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate makes an interesting point about who has that discussion. But are we saying that only a palliative care specialist is capable of having those discussions? Of course, those who work in the field are highly trained individuals, but we must not be unfair or do a huge disservice to other healthcare practitioners who provide excellent palliative care in this country.
My father was a general practitioner for more than 40 years. He provided a huge amount of palliative care throughout his career, both in the community and in hospices. Look at Marie Curie’s own website, which talks about the provision of palliative care in this country and very much about primary care provision and secondary care provision. Within secondary care, of course, are the specialists—clinical nurse specialists, occupational therapists, physiotherapists; I could go on. But of course, as the hon. Member for Stroud will know particularly well given his former profession, there is another body of general practitioners, community nurses, district nurses, advanced nurse practitioners, pharmacists and social workers, who are all involved in this process.
I think the amendment comes from a good place; at first blush, I can see absolutely where it is coming from. But despite that, it leads us down the bureaucratic thicket that Chris Whitty spoke about.
Naz Shah
Professor Sleeman’s evidence to me around palliative care says:
“‘Essential’ services are not provided: A good example is that our study of community services that are provided to people with advanced illness found that just 1 in 3 areas consistently provides a 24/7 palliative care telephone advice line—even though this has been a NICE recommendation since 2011…Another example is that the most recent NACEL audit (National audit) found just 60% of hospitals provide a 7 day face to face palliative care service— even though this is also a NICE recommendation, and was a recommendation in the One Chance to Get it Right report (that came out of the Neuberger review—around 2015.)”
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s important point, but does he agree that not every GP is able to keep abreast of all the palliative care advances being made, which palliative care consultants would know about?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s intervention, which leads on to the point I was going to make. We are getting bogged down in nomenclature about what speciality is involved when this is actually about training. It is about whether the individual having the conversation has the requisite skills to have a meaningful conversation. Clauses 5(3)(a) and 8(6)(a) stipulate that the co-ordinating doctor or independent doctor
“has such training, qualifications and experience as the Secretary of State may specify by regulations”.
That is the key part. This is about ensuring that people having incredibly sensitive, challenging and difficult conversations with patients about choices available to them at the end of life have the requisite skills and knowledge to do so. That may not be applicable to each and every general practitioner, but those having those conversations should have that knowledge.
Danny Kruger
My hon. Friend is making a thoughtful speech, but I am concerned that he suggests that the skills required are simply the skills of conversation. The skills required are the skills to understand the patient’s condition and lay out very clearly to them their prognosis and the treatment options available to them.
With all respect to my hon. Friend’s father and other GPs, I cannot accept that every GP is fully qualified to understand the dying trajectory of the patient before them—perhaps my hon. Friend will confirm his belief that that is so. If that is true, what is the point of the palliative care profession? We have GPs already and are now introducing psychiatrists and social workers into the mix; I do not understand why on earth it should be regarded as unnecessary to include professionals in palliative care—the key skill that we all recognise as so important in this space. Why not?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I fear that my hon. Friend may be oversimplifying what I was saying. Perhaps I was not clear enough, so I will elucidate. I was certainly not suggesting that the required skills were merely those of being able to have a consultation and a conversation. I was talking about having the skills to have the information that needs to be imparted and the knowledge that underpins that and being able to articulate that within a consultation. It is a much wider picture than just having the communication skills—it is having the knowledge that underpins that. I am saying that that is not necessarily the domain only of someone who works in palliative care. There are a number of specialists who work within this field—it is a multidisciplinary field—and they all bring their expertise. The issue is about ensuring that anybody having these conversations has the knowledge base to conduct them properly.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I will try to make some progress. I want to move on to the other point I want to address, which is around bogging down the whole process with layer upon layer of bureaucracy. We are talking about a relatively small group of patients who are in the last six months of life and are then battling against the system that is meant to be helping them. If we put in layer upon layer and hurdle upon hurdle, it will become a much more difficult system for people to navigate. That does not mean that it would be a less robust system, but it would be a more difficult system. We are trying to make life easier, not harder, for those patients. This comes back to the central point that Professor Whitty made in his evidence about overcomplicating Bills: we overcomplicate Bills out of good intentions, but rarely make the safeguards more robust—in truth, we make them less safe.
Juliet Campbell
I want to go back to the point about making the Bill more complicated by putting layer upon layer on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West spoke about health inequalities and how not everyone is given the same advice to the same level. If we were to introduce a palliative care specialist we would guarantee that everybody was given the same advice and information. We could therefore help reduce the health inequalities and inequalities of access to information that we know exist in our healthcare system.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
The hon. Member makes a valid point. The reality is that, regardless of specialty title, there will be individuals who are better placed to have certain conversations and discuss certain issues than others. I look back at my own clinical practice: some colleagues would have had a better bedside manner than others, for example. I do not think this comes down to the name of the specialty; it comes down to the underpinning skills and knowledge. That is the point I am trying to make.
We can get bogged down by saying, “Everybody has to see a palliative care specialist”. Of course, that is open to people: if they wish to have a referral to a palliative care specialist, they can see one. However, as the hon. Member for Stroud said, some people may not want that. We cannot be removing the autonomy of patients when their decision-making process is that they choose not to engage with that. They may want to speak to their GP because they have had a relationship with them over 30 or 40 years and have the patient-doctor relationship that is so important when dealing with these important discussions. Perhaps they would feel less comfortable having that discussion with a clinician they had just met for the very first time.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I will give way because the hon. Lady has been very patient.
Naz Shah
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is being generous with his time. I want to bring in something that is very real for me at the moment. As a result of a hit and run, I have nerve pain for which I receive steroid treatment. I had treatment a couple of weeks ago and suffer from pain at the moment. My doctor is not a specialist in nerve pain; he has to refer me to a musculoskeletal service and I have been waiting for over a year for surgery.
I mention that because we already have care pathways for specialisms such as nerve pain. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley referred earlier to somebody who had cancer and it was a horrible experience. I would like to have thought that in that instance they would have been offered tube feeding. However, to go back to the point, the GP does not necessarily have the skillset. My GP, and there are lots of them in that practice—it is a brilliant practice at Kensington Street—has to refer me on. That is the point of the Bill. The amendment speaks to developing an established care pathway. If we are to pass this legislation into law, we must ensure that there is a care pathway to explore palliative care.
At the moment clause 4(4), which my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud referred to earlier, says this has to be explored in the wider term. However, what that looks like is not a specialty. For some people with cancer and palliative care needs and six months to live, their trajectories could be—
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. She makes a number of points. First, may I say that I am sorry about her own health issues? I think she hit the nail on the head when she said that the GP may not be able to offer that service. For instance, take shoulder injections. Some GPs can do a shoulder injection with steroids; some will refer to the hospital for it. My father was a GP who could do them, but others would have referred to me when I was an orthopaedic surgeon and I would have done them in clinic.
This will not be right for every single general practitioner; the issue is about having a cohort of general practitioners who have the skill and ability, and about having a flexible system that works for patients. It all circles back to the training point. The individuals who do this have to have the requisite skills. That, of course, will be set down in regulation.
The other point that the hon. Member for Bradford West made is that clause 4(4)(c) says that any clinician having that discussion must be able to explain
“any available palliative, hospice or other care.”
It therefore follows that if the clinician is unable to do that because of a lack of skill or knowledge, they should refer on to somebody who can do it. That is the fundamental principle of having informed consent and discussion with patients. If a clinician cannot provide that information, they ask for somebody who can. That was not uncommon in my practice: if I had something that was outside of my area of knowledge or specialist interest, I would refer it to a colleague. That is how those conversations take place.
The Bill as it stands allows that flexibility for patients without confining them. But it gives them the very welcome option of a palliative care referral; that is entirely open to them—it is not closed off from them. Of course, they will be fed into the palliative care route anyway, following the trigger of their terminal diagnosis. They will be going on the journey, and having further conversations around their end of life care. Those are the points that I wish to make.
Rebecca Paul
A thought has suddenly been triggered: we are talking as if the provision of this service is undertaken by the NHS, but what are my hon. Friend’s thoughts if the service were being delivered privately? How does that interact with his automatic assumption that there would be a referral to a palliative care specialist?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
I do not think that offends the principle at all. Whether I was working within the NHS or the private sector, if a patient requested an onward referral to a different specialist, I would action that. If I did not have the requisite skills or knowledge, or felt that they would be better served by a different speciality, I would refer on to another clinician. I do not see how it would be treated any differently in the NHS than it would be privately. I am afraid that I do not follow that argument.
Kim Leadbeater
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I will address the amendments in two different ways. I will start by looking at the technical issues around amendment 281, and then I will look at why I believe, as other colleagues have said, that the amendments are not necessary given what already exists both in the Bill and in terms of good practice in our health service.
First, I worry that amendment 281 will not have the effect that my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) intends. Clause 1(2), to which the amendment relates, provides an overview of the other clauses in the Bill, and therefore cross-refers to sections 5 to 22. Clause 1(2) does not impose duties on persons in and of itself. The duties are set out in the later clauses to which it refers. Adding an additional subsection to clause 1, as proposed by the amendment, would not result in a requirement that the person must meet a palliative care specialist. That is a technical detail to reflect on.
In addition, the term “palliative care specialist” is not a defined term. Palliative medicine is a designated speciality of the General Medical Council, and a doctor can apply to be entered on to the GMC specialist register for the speciality provided that they have the specialist medical qualification, training or experience. However, the current wording of the amendment means that it is not clear whether it is seeking to require the person concerned to meet with one of those specialist doctors, or whether a meeting with another medical professional specialising in palliative care—for example, a specialist palliative care nurse—would suffice. There is no equivalent specialist register for specialist palliative care nurses. It is a technical issue, but an important one.
I also point out that my hon. Friend the Member for York Central has put an incorrect explanatory note with the amendment, which refers to terminal illness. That might just be an error, but I wanted to point that out.
Coming on to the broader grouping of the provisions: as has been said by colleagues, the amendments are tabled with really good intentions by someone who cares passionately about the palliative care sector. But they are not necessary given the process that is already set out by the Bill. Both doctors already have to discuss all treatment options, and must make a referral if they have any doubt about the diagnosis. It is very clear from clauses 4 and 9 that both the co-ordinating doctor and the independent doctor must discuss all treatment options with the patient, so they will have all the options laid out before them. That is really important because we have to think about what happens in reality. This initial discussion, in many cases, may actually take place with a palliative care doctor, and in many cases it will be highly likely, given the nature of the conditions we are talking about, that the patient may already be receiving treatment or advice from a palliative care team.
We seem to have created a narrative where this conversation is happening in isolation. Actually, as other colleagues have alluded to, we have a patient-centred approach in our healthcare. This person does not just suddenly arrive and have this one random conversation. I am sure medical colleagues will correct me if I am wrong, but if a doctor is dealing with a condition of which they have very limited knowledge, one of the first things they would do would be to refer to a specialist.
As is covered in clause 9(3)(a), if the doctor has any
“doubt as to whether the person being assessed is terminally ill,”
they must
“refer the person for assessment by a registered medical practitioner who holds qualifications in or has experience of the diagnosis and management of the illness, disease or condition in question;”
Clause 9(2)(a) also states that both doctors must assess the patient’s
“medical records and make such other enquiries as the assessing doctor considers appropriate;”
They can speak to anyone they want to, and they would in reality—of course that is what they would do. They would not sit there and think, “Oh, I don’t know enough about this condition so I will just keep going.” They would refer to specialists.
It is also really important to acknowledge what goes on at the moment. I was looking at some research last night: NHS England also has comprehensive guidance on personalised palliative and end-of-life care through a comprehensive personalised care model. None of this stops with the introduction of assisted dying as a choice for people. It would continue to happen. Patients are already getting that really good level of care.
Danny Kruger
The hon. Lady is making a very good speech about how things should work and how things do work, in many cases, when the NHS does its job brilliantly. First, I want to correct the hon. Lady: subsequent amendments do impose the duty that is consequent to these amendments to clause 1, so it would be an obligation. Surely that is the point to make: what if the doctors are not as brilliant as she suggests? What if there is not an expectation that they should definitely seek expertise that they do not have themselves? To the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, what if this service is provided outside the NHS by an independent charity or private provider set up explicitly to facilitate people’s assisted death requests, and has no intention of referring people to palliative care if they do not ask for it themselves? Would she be content for a private provider to refer somebody for an assisted death without a palliative care referral?
Kim Leadbeater
I do worry about the lack of faith in our professionals. We have medical practitioners on the Committee and we have heard stories of the very good practice that happens, so it concerns me that we are so cynical about our system. Ultimately, we have to put faith in our professionals to do their job and to take that patient-centred approach, as I firmly believe they do. Dr Sarah Cox from the Association for Palliative Medicine said in her evidence to the Committee:
“In clinical practice, we make all these decisions in multi-professional teams…shared decisions are much better quality, much more robust and much safer.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 74, Q90.]
I absolutely agree with her, and that would continue to be the case.
Kim Leadbeater
But it does not say that at all. It actually says that they have to refer, and that they have to consult with other people. That is part of the process. That is exactly what happens now. Professor Aneez Esmail, who is the emeritus professor of general practice at the University of Manchester and who has been a practising GP for over 30 years, told us in his evidence to the Committee:
“In terms of holistic care, currently when I look after dying people I never do it on my own; I am with district nurses, Macmillan nurses, or on call to a palliative care consultant. There is already a team of people looking after dying people…palliative care…works very well and it works in a multidisciplinary way. I think that this legislation will allow a much more open discussion and proper monitoring. It will improve training, guidance and everything else. People say that it will enhance palliative care, and that is what I think will happen.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 171, Q219.]
Indeed, as was referred to by the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley, if we consider the training included in the Bill, which doctors will undergo as part of the introduction of assisted dying, evidence from other jurisdictions shows that these are very detailed conversations where health professionals work together in the same way as they do at the moment in end of life care and decision making. As I have said repeatedly, the training is fundamental. I agree absolutely with Dr Rachel Clarke, who told us:
“If there is one thing that I would say to the Committee regarding making the Bill as robust, strong and safe as possible, it is: please consider seriously the matter of education and training”.––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 71, Q85.]
I agree 100% and I have embedded that in the Bill.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
My hon. Friend quotes Dr Rachel Clarke. I was profoundly moved by her evidence. She was very clear that she wanted to talk about the NHS as it is, not as we would like it to be. Despite the efforts the Government are putting into bringing down waiting lists, there is still extreme time pressure on doctors. There are extreme waiting lists for people to access specialist care, which may impinge on the ability of doctors to carry out what my hon. Friend is asking. Does she accept that?
Kim Leadbeater
That brings me on very nicely to my next point, so I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. At the moment, the Bill accommodates a two-year implementation period, which is really important because it will take time to put the procedures in place: it will take time to train people and it will take time to work holistically with the overall healthcare system. It could end up being longer than two years. If that is the case to put all the robust systems in place—to improve things, and to work holistically with palliative care and other aspects of the NHS—then that is the right thing to do, and I would be open-minded to a conversation about that.
To finish, I also note that the General Medical Council’s “Good medical practice” guide, which is the framework of professional standards, already provides that in providing clinical care a doctor
“must refer a patient to another suitably qualified practitioner when this serves their needs”.
This is what doctors do: they refer if they need extra advice; they take a holistic approach.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I just want to quickly point out that we have a check on the conversations that happen in the first stages. In clause 8, which covers the second doctor’s assessment, that second doctor must be satisfied that the individual has a “clear, settled” and, critically, “informed” wish to end their own life. So, there will be a doctor who is verifying that the person is informed properly about their options. My concern about the amendments is that, as the hon. Lady says, we are inserting now a third doctor into a system which, with regard to the panel, will already have three, four or five specialists involved in the assessment of the care.
Kim Leadbeater
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It feeds into comments that have already been made about how difficult we are making the process. I agree that this should be a difficult process—it should be a robust process, with thorough checks, safeguards and balances throughout—but we are in danger of forgetting the dying person at the heart of the process.
Kim Leadbeater
I am going to finish, if I may.
We need to be really careful that we take a person-centred approach, as happens now. Doctors, medical practitioners and healthcare professionals quite rightly take a holistic patient-centred approach. That approach will be further enhanced by the robust training the Bill incorporates, and by adding the extra layers of safeguards and protection. Really importantly, it would open up conversations about death and dying.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford.
As previously stated, my role, and that of the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green, is not to give a Government view, given that the Government remain neutral on the Bill, but to outline the legal and practical impacts of amendments tabled.
The amendments are intended to add a new step in the process set out in the Bill, requiring consultation with a palliative care specialist. The purpose of amendment 281 is to require a person to have met a palliative care specialist before completing the required steps and assessments to end their life. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the person has understood the full range of end of life options available to them. Our assessment suggests that the present drafting, adding a subsection to clause 1(2), would not achieve that effect without further amendments to other clauses in the Bill. The amendment would increase demand on palliative care specialists and, should Members decide to amend the Bill in this way, we would need to work with the NHS and other provider organisations to assess how to operationalise it.
Amendments 298 and 299 would require the co-ordinating doctor to have received confirmation that the person seeking an assisted death has had a consultation with a specialist in palliative medicine about palliative care options before they are able to make a first statement under clause 7(3)(a). That would mean that a co-ordinating doctor would not be able to make a statement following a first assessment, and therefore refer a person to the independent doctor for a second assessment, unless the person had had a consultation about palliative care options with a palliative care specialist. As with previous amendments, the amendment would increase demand for palliative care specialists, and we would need to work with the NHS and other provider organisations to assess how to operationalise it, should hon. Members decide to pass amendments in that area.
Naz Shah
I have a few concerns about what we have just heard in relation to the amendment. One of them is in relation to Dr Cox’s evidence. What Dr Cox actually said was:
“The second difference, I would say, is that you are absolutely right that we do make those decisions with patients—with their families, if they wish—but in a multi-professional team. I would almost never make those decisions as an individual doctor without the support of my colleagues, for several reasons. First, as I have said already, that makes for much better decisions”. ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 74, Q91.]
Danny Kruger
To pick up on that point about Dr Cox, I think it is critical that the hon. Member for Spen Valley cited Dr Cox in support of the hon. Lady’s contention that the Bill is adequate. Dr Cox, in her evidence, was saying that there is a problem with the Bill because it does not require the multidisciplinary consultation that we all think needs to happen. Dr Cox was suggesting that the Bill should be amended in order to ensure that the NHS does its job properly, and that multidisciplinary consultations are held. Her evidence was not in support of the Bill as it stands.
Kim Leadbeater
On the point made by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, the Bill does not replace what already happens, and what Dr Cox was saying was that those conversations are already happening in a multidisciplinary way. We do not take that away.
Naz Shah
One of my concerns is that although the Government position in relation to the Bill, as they have said, is neutrality, the Government, in my opinion, have taken a position without an impact assessment, which might suggest that there is some ambiguity. Would the Minister therefore support redrafting potential amendments to include that? If it did specify a doctor or nurse, would the Government then, in their tidying-up, be prepared to accept that amendment?
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Referring back to Dr Cox, she said:
“We need to make sure that the 75% to 90% of people who are dying and need palliative care are getting it. We need to make sure that there is not inequity in palliative care, so that you do not have to be white and rich and have cancer to get good palliative care. We need to make sure that hospitals have seven-day services. Seven-day-a-week cover is unavailable at 40% of hospitals.” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 78, Q101.]
Does my hon. Friend agree that we need an inequality impact assessment to understand the current position and to get that right, in line with the Bill?
Naz Shah
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Without the impact assessment, how do we know what we are dealing with? That would be a normal way of progressing a Bill and dealing with amendments such as these. It feels as though we have just talked about something when the Government have already had a position on it, or have supported a particular position on an amendment.
To conclude, I will press the amendment to a vote, simply because it is important that we explore every option. We are already specifying what doctors have to do. I maintain again that there are 100,000 people in this country who do not access palliative care as it is. Palliative care is crucial when we are talking about end of life and people who have had a diagnosis of less than six months to live.
We will talk about illness and diagnosis in the next round of amendments, but on this amendment, I do not think that ensuring that somebody has at least explored that option is, as the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley repeated at least three or four times, “bogged down”. For me, it is not bogging down when we are talking about providing assisted death. The Bill is the biggest legislation on a conscience vote since 1967 in this House, and I do not care how long it takes. I feel very strongly that if we are to deliver a Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley said has the tightest safeguards in the world, then this debate has to happen. These conversations must happen and be explored not just for us here as parliamentarians, but in order for us to go away and say that we have done the best we can.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I point out that this is an opportunity to discuss clause stand part, not to cover the ground of amendments that have already been debated.
Danny Kruger
I will be quick, Mr Efford. I appreciate that we have been exhaustively over the detail of the amendments. I deeply regret that none of the amendments that were tabled to introduce stronger safeguards has been accepted. I want to take this opportunity to explain briefly what the Committee has done by rejecting those amendments and what we will be doing by agreeing to the clause without the amendments. I will not seek to divide the Committee on the clause, because I recognise that it enables the whole Bill to proceed, as the House wished on Second Reading, so I recognise that the principle of the Bill is represented in the clause. We wanted to tighten it, but have failed to do so.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
I say gently to the hon. Member that—particularly on the previous clause—I have been very sympathetic to several of the amendments. Candidly, however, with due respect to all the hon. Members across the House who submitted this, I do not think that they have been particularly well written. I think that they leave quite a lot of ambiguity in a lot of areas. We had a discussion in the week before the recess, on a number of areas, about the word “only”. I heard it suggested earlier that the principle is about the spirit in which things are taken.
The reality is that I am very sympathetic to a lot of what is proposed, but a number of the amendments leave quite a lot of open ends. That has been a particular issue. I have been very open and have said that in principle I am supportive of assisted dying, but that I could not support it because the Bill was not strong enough in its current state. I do not think that the amendments tabled so far will strengthen the Bill; in fact, they might leave a lot of open ends, despite the very good intentions behind a lot of them.
Danny Kruger
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining why, having opposed the Bill on Second Reading, he now seems to be supporting it. I wish I had heard, during our debates in the past two weeks, his specific objections to the amendments. If he felt, as he says, that the Bill is not strong enough, we would have welcomed his own amendments to strengthen the Bill in a form of words that he would find adequate. Perhaps that is what we will hear from him.
Jack Abbott
I did articulate a number of times where I felt that some of the amendments were not tight enough in those areas.
Danny Kruger
The hon. Gentleman has been on his feet; I appreciate that and am very grateful for his contribution to the debates that we have had.
I simply want to make the point that what the House voted for on Second Reading was the principle of assisted dying. What many members of the public who support the Bill think they are getting is a Bill that is safe—a Bill that is restricted explicitly to people at the very end of their life, who face extreme pain and suffering as they die; who are fully informed of what they are doing; who face no questions of external or indeed internal coercion; who have the absolute ability to understand what they are doing. Those are the things that people want to see in the Bill; those are the things that we have sought to effect through the amendments that we have tabled, and which the Committee has rejected.
Very explicitly, as a result of the rejection of these, I believe, very plainly written amendments, the fact is that under this Bill you can be depressed and suicidal and still regarded as having capacity to have an assisted death. You can be very marginalised—you can be a prisoner, you can be homeless—and still be regarded as eligible. You can have been influenced or encouraged by others and still be eligible. You can do it because you feel a burden. You do not need to be in any kind of pain. You do not need to be in the tiny proportion of cases that palliative care cannot help. As the hon. Member for Spen Valley accepted in the previous sitting, you can seek an assisted death for the sole reason of saving your family money, and you would be granted an assisted death on those grounds. The fact is that in rejecting these amendments, the Committee has decided and has demonstrated that the Bill is much wider than the campaigners portray.
I want to end with this point. I think there are two ways of approaching assisted dying—two essential framings of a Bill to legalise it. One is an autonomy Bill, which simply says that if people seek help to commit suicide, within certain broad parameters they should be able to do so, and there is no question of other people interfering with that choice; if they sign the requisite paperwork, they should be able to have an assisted death. The alternative is what we might call a safeguarding Bill—one where eligibility for the procedure is strictly limited and there are very strong, robust safeguards in place to protect the most vulnerable people.
The hon. Lady, and Members speaking in support of the Bill, have repeatedly emphasised that this is a safeguarding Bill. They want this Bill to be built around safeguards for the vulnerable. They respect the arguments that we make about the dangers that an open-ended assisted dying Bill would create. But the fact is that, as we have seen in the course of the debates on this clause, this is not a safeguarding Bill; it is an autonomy Bill. It is one that allows people to proceed to an assisted death because they want one, if they meet certain very loosely drawn criteria.
Kim Leadbeater
The reality is that this Bill is both. Of course it is about personal autonomy, choice and dignity for people who are coming towards the end of their life, but it has to be safeguarded as well. It is both. If I may say so, I think that the hon. Member makes quite an unfair characterisation of the robust, powerful debate that has taken place in Committee during the time that we have spent together. I think it has been extremely well informed. People have listened intently to other points of view and opinions, and it does the Committee a disservice to suggest otherwise.
Danny Kruger
We are all being very courteous, and it is absolutely right that we should be. I have absolute respect for the good faith of every Member here, but let us not use cotton wool in these debates. I am sorry to say that I do not accept that the Committee has listened—well, it might have listened closely, but it has not accepted a single amendment, including amendment 281, which would have put into law the principle in which the hon. Member for Bradford West believes, which is that palliative care should be an option. Why was that not accepted? The Committee has decided that it will proceed with the Bill as it is.
The fact is that the Bill will give maximum autotomy, within very broad parameters, to patients, many of whom will be very vulnerable. It is an autonomy Bill masquerading as a safeguarding Bill. When we attempt to strengthen the safeguards, they are described as bureaucratic hurdles. If the Bill becomes law, I worry about what will happen to the very limited safeguards that do exist. What we see elsewhere will happen, which is that the safeguards that do exist are treated as bureaucratic hurdles. They are in fact treated, and explicitly described, as we heard from the Australian witnesses, as barriers to a human right. What were safeguards become discrimination. I am afraid that that is the road we are going down.
The point about autonomy is often made. As I say, I think that this Bill actually has autonomy at its heart. The hon. Member for Spen Valley is right to make that point. That is really what is going on here. She wants people to be able to request help to commit suicide—to end their lives. The fact is that for the most vulnerable people, creating this option, especially when we have now switched off the obligation to seek a palliative care pathway and directed people straight down the road towards an assisted death—
Danny Kruger
I am sorry if it offends Members, but the fact is that the Bill in its present form, with the amendments rejected, will place no obligation on doctors to refer people to palliative care or to seek a palliative care consultation. Many will do so, of course—many good doctors will do exactly that—but they will not be obliged to. If we are imagining that every doctor will be as brilliant as the best doctors, I am afraid that I will have to talk about the Liverpool care pathway and the many tragic scandals that we are constantly dealing with. It is simply not the case that the option of a palliative care consultation equates to the absolute expectation that it will happen.
Danny Kruger
We have debated that issue; I apologise.
My concern is that the Bill, which is masquerading as a safeguarding Bill but is actually an autonomy Bill, will end in less autonomy for the most vulnerable patients, who will find themselves on this conveyor belt, internally pressured and encouraged to seek an assisted death when it is not in their interests. I invite the Committee to reflect on what we have done, but as I have said, I do not propose to divide the Committee on clause 1 stand part.
Rebecca Paul
Under our current law, assisting someone to commit suicide is a criminal act. Clause 1 of this Bill is where we cross the Rubicon, moving away from well-established principles into a new era in which the state is empowered to help individuals to die.
This monumental decision is one for Parliament in the coming months. However, what we must do on this Committee is bolster the safeguards so that the Bill is truly as safe as it can be. Our priority must always be the vulnerable: those who could be coerced into something that is not in their best interests, and those with no one to advocate for them or protect them, who could end upbeing pushed into a process because that is the easiest and cheapest option for everyone. This law must work for everyone, not just the privileged few.
That is why I am so disappointed that at the end of nearly three days of debate, there has been not one improvement to the safeguards—not one. We asked for amendments to exclude people with impaired judgment and the depressed and suicidal; this Committee said no. We asked to protect those who are unduly influenced or encouraged by others to seek assisted dying—
The Chair
Order. We are not discussing the amendments again now. This debate is about clause 1 standing part of the Bill.
Rebecca Paul
Thank you, Mr Efford. I am perplexed as to why some of the straightforward improvements to the safeguards have not been accepted. That should give us all pause for thought. If everyone here wants this to be the safest assisted dying service in the world, we must learn from other territories and improve the safeguards. Our priority should not be to make the service as accessible as possible, with as few barriers as possible, or to make it as easy as possible for medical practitioners to sign off. Time and again, throughout our proceedings, the importance of autonomy has been given as the reason why amendments cannot be accepted, but surely that must be balanced against what is in someone’s best interests.
It is clear that in other areas of medicine a best interests approach is taken, for example under section 63 of the Mental Health Act 1983, which states:
“The consent of a patient shall not be required for any medical treatment given to him for the mental disorder from which he is suffering”.
A patient can thus be deemed to have capacity, and yet still receive treatment that they have refused, for example in the force-feeding of a young girl with anorexia. Those who argue for full autonomy would no doubt rail against this best interests approach. However, I suggest that it is always worth considering what we would want to happen if it were our daughter.
This is not an easy balance to get right—I completely concede that—but right now the Bill has no best interests component. That means that if anyone inadvertently qualifies for assisted dying but should not, for example an anorexic girl who has refused treatment, there is no safety mechanism to take her out of scope. The amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Cleverly) would have gone some way to addressing that.
Clause 1 will profoundly change how society views suicide. Data from overseas territories indicates that introducing assisted dying can actually increase the number of unassisted suicides. In Oregon, whose system this Bill is specifically based on, non-assisted suicide has increased by a statistically significant amount. That demonstrates the seismic shift in attitudes that accompanies this, so when we tell our young people that suicide is not the answer and to seek help, we must do so knowing full well that the key message will be undermined by the availability of an assisted dying service, which may be plastered across billboards and advertised on daytime TV.
Rebecca Paul
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but I respectfully suggest that that is not the case and there is data. Professor David Paton found a 6% increase overall, and interestingly it was 13% for women.
Kim Leadbeater
I would be interested to know whether that data shows a link or a direct causation effect.
Rebecca Paul
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point. I think that what has been looked at is the number of unassisted suicides. The hon. Lady makes the good point that obviously we need to look at all the different factors that could be part of that, but I am just making the point that when we look at territories that have introduced assisted dying, we find that at the point at which it is introduced, we generally see, in most territories, an increase in unassisted suicide. I do not think that we should rush to disregard that. We need to recognise that in helping a small group of people at the end of their life, which undoubtedly this Bill will do, there will be a price to be paid. That price will be paid by our young people and other vulnerable groups.
I will not vote in favour of clause 1—I do not think that there will be a Division on it anyway—but I will not oppose it either, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire set out. I understand that it is the key clause in order for us to progress and continue the debate, which is what Parliament wishes us to do, but I hope that the Committee will be more receptive to improving the safeguards as we progress through the Bill. The amendments really were tabled in good faith. We did our best to write them in a clear way, but obviously the private Member’s Bill process makes that more difficult. This is not a Government Bill, but we are all doing the best we can to table amendments that would improve the safety of the Bill.
Naz Shah
I just have some concluding remarks. None of the amendments was voted for. I feel that in the clause 1 stand part debate, huge opportunities have been missed. I have talked a lot, throughout the debates, about the issues of people from ethnic minority communities. Opportunities were missed to safeguard disabled people and people from ethnic minority backgrounds.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich made a point about amendments being clear, and about ambiguity. The truth is that if the amendments were supported in principle, they could have been tidied up by Government. There are some good amendments that could have been clarified by the Government. In principle, they were good options. I struggle with the whole narrative throughout the debate on clause 1: “Yes, we accept the principle, but we are not going to do it because it is ambiguous or the wording is incorrect.” There is lots of wording that we will debate throughout the rest of the Bill that is not quite clear, and that is the whole point of going through this exercise. Going forward, I encourage us, as the hon. Member for Reigate did before me, to do as we have been doing, with sincerity, in trying to make this Bill the best in the world it can be, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley intends.
Stephen Kinnock
I will make some brief remarks on the legal and practical effect of clause 1, as amended, to assist hon. Members in making their own assessment. Clause 1 sets out the eligibility criteria that a person must meet in order to request to be provided with lawful assistance to end their own life under the provisions of this Bill. A person must be terminally ill; this term is defined in more detail in clause 2.
Clause 1(1) sets out a further four requirements, which require that a person must also have the necessary capacity to make the decision, which is to be read in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005; be aged 18 or over; be ordinarily resident in England and Wales and have been resident for at least 12 months; and be registered as a patient with a GP practice in England or Wales. This clause provides that, in particular, clauses 5 to 22 of the Bill require steps to be taken to establish that the person has a clear, settled and informed wish to end their own life and has made the decision that they wish to end their own life voluntarily and has not been coerced or pressured by any other person in making that decision.
The clause, as amended by the insertion of new subsection (3), will ensure that the service can be accessed only by an individual ordinarily resident in England and Wales. That amendment, amendment 180, has been drafted to give effect to the policy intent of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley for this legislation: that it is to apply only to those in England or Wales and is not to be accessed via medical tourism.
As I have said, the Government remain neutral on the substantive policy questions relevant to how the law in this area would be changed. The clause is a matter for the Committee and Parliament to consider, but the Government’s assessment is that the clause, as amended, is workable, effective and enforceable.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Terminal illness
Danny Kruger
I beg to move amendment 399, in clause 2, page 1, line 22, leave out “, disease or medical condition” and insert “or disease”.
This amendment ensures that a terminal illness under the Bill can only be an illness or a disease and not a medical condition.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 400, in clause 2, page 2, line 1, leave out “, disease or medical condition” and insert “or disease”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 399.
Amendment 401, in clause 2, page 2, line 5, leave out “, disease or medical condition” and insert “or disease”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 399.
Amendment 11, in clause 2, page 2, line 7, leave out from beginning to first “of” in line 8 and insert—
“(3) A person is not to be considered to be terminally ill by reason”.
This amendment amends clause 2 to say that a person cannot be considered terminally ill by reason of having mental illness or a disability.
Amendment 181, in clause 2, page 2, line 8, leave out from “ill” to end of line 10 and insert—
“only because they are a person with a disability or mental disorder (or both).
Nothing in this subsection results in a person not being regarded as terminally ill for the purposes of this Act if (disregarding this subsection) the person meets the conditions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1).”
This amendment clarifies that the purpose of subsection (3) is to emphasise that only having a disability or mental order does not make a person “terminally ill” and therefore eligible for assistance.
Amendment 283, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, at end insert—
“or one or more comorbidities alongside a mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983”.
This amendment would set out that a person who has a co-morbidity with one or both of a mental disorder or a disability is not considered terminally ill by virtue of those comorbidities alone.
Danny Kruger
I said in the last debate that this is either a safeguarding Bill or an autonomy Bill. [Interruption.] Or that it is both, but the claim has been that it is a safeguarding Bill and that there are very strong safeguards. If so, and if we are going to stress the safeguards, as I think we should, that means being very clear about who is eligible. It means having proper, meaningful guardrails showing who is inside and who is outside the scope of the Bill. I suggest that the Bill’s guardrails are not strong, safe or impermeable; they are broken fences. We need to mend those fences in this Committee in order to make the Bill safe.
This group of amendments includes a set in my name that would restrict eligibility to people with terminal diseases or illnesses, and another set that would build stronger safeguards explicitly for disabled people and people with mental disorders. The purpose of the two sets of amendments is the same, but they approach the challenge from opposite ends. I will speak first to the amendments in my name.
Quite simply, I want to remove the words “medical condition” from the definition of terminal illness. The reason for that is straightforward: some medical conditions are likely to also amount to a disability. As Fazilet Hadi, the head of policy at Disability Rights UK, told the Committee in evidence, there is a “huge overlap” between disability and terminal illness. The distinction between the two is notoriously blurred, and there is a reason why no disability rights organisation backs this Bill: it is here in this innocuous phrase “medical condition”. Removing that phrase will provide an additional degree of protection for some disabled people, which I think is a good enough reason to do it.
There is another group of people whom we do not hear from much in these discussions, but about whom we should perhaps be most concerned, because there are so many of them—they are almost all of us. I am talking about the frail. Frailty is an important word in this debate. I refer hon. Members to the briefing submitted in recent days by the British Geriatrics Society; it is a powerful document that highlights an essential challenge for this Bill. What is frailty? Is it a disability? Is it a terminal illness? Is it both? Is it neither? It can be noted on a death certificate as a cause of death and, even if it is not listed as a cause of death—this is a crucial point—it is the most common dying trajectory for people in the UK. More people are frail as they approach the end of life than are not.
Kim Leadbeater
I am interested to know where the hon. Member has got the idea that someone is going to scrap the six-month prognosis from.
Danny Kruger
Well, if the hon. Lady will say that she will never, at any stage, support a proposal to extend it beyond six months, I will be very glad to hear it. My concern is that we already have amendments tabled to do exactly that, which we will be debating shortly. I hope they will be rejected, but my confident expectation, on the basis of other countries, including the Australians who gave evidence to this Committee, is that the six-month safeguard will soon be seen as a barrier to a human right, because there is indeed no logical basis for such an arbitrary date.
The people who currently deal with the six-month prognosis, in the context of benefits and pensions, campaign that it is arbitrary and unworkable—rightly, I think—so I am afraid that I confidently expect the six-month barrier to be challenged in due course. If the hon. Lady is prepared to say that she would never do that, however, I would be very reassured.
Kim Leadbeater
Would the hon. Member agree that the purpose of the Committee is to look at the Bill before us? That is why we are here. I understand his concerns, his reservations and his nervousness about what might happen in future, and that is an important conversation to have, but the purpose of the Committee is to look at the Bill as it stands today; that should be the focus of our deliberations.
Danny Kruger
Yes, but I simply state on the record that I believe that this is not the end, but the beginning of a wider Bill that would follow if we passed this one. I am encouraged by what the hon. Lady says, or implies: that she does not want to go further than this Bill.
My plea to the Committee is straightforward. Let us confine eligibility to the people who the campaigners talk about: those with diseases or illnesses that are genuinely terminal. We can do more to strengthen that definition with later amendments, but, first, we have to remove the gaping hole in the fence that is this term “medical condition”. Let us remove that term.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Marie Curie’s definition of a terminal illness is
“an illness or condition which cannot be cured and is likely to lead to someone’s death”.
It is obviously one of the best-known end of life charities, so how does the hon. Member reconcile the differences he has with its professional expertise?
Danny Kruger
I am very happy to use the word “condition”—we all use it quite casually, including me—but we are concerned about legislation here. As I explained, if we include the term “medical condition”, courts could interpret that as a development—an addition—to the existing law on terminal illness, which refers only to illness and disease. The courts would be right to conclude that Parliament meant more than illness or disease, which is why it is important to be explicit about what we are talking about: illness or disease.
I think we should remove that term, but if other Members do not, I would like to understand why. The hon. Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough or for Spen Valley might have some suggestions, but I would be grateful if somebody could clarify, explicitly, what is meant by “medical condition” that is not caught by the terms “illness” or “disease”. What are the meanings of the three terms, and why do we have to have “medical condition”? It might well be that there are conditions that would not be captured by “illness” or “disease” that would be appropriate.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
On that point, I will quote directly from Chris Whitty’s evidence to the Committee:
“there are people who may not have a single disease that is going to lead to the path to death, but they have multiple diseases interacting, so they are highly frail; it is therefore not the one disease that is the cause, but the constellation that is clearly leading them on a path inexorably to…death”.––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 32, Q5.]
From my perspective, it is about that “constellation” where death is clearly going to happen as a result of a combination of different conditions, illnesses or diseases. That it is where that is very clear, and, because of the six-month eligibility in the Bill, we have that nailed down. That is the importance of including the term, because it is not one disease that leads to death; it is the constellation of diseases and illnesses that will inexorably lead to death.
Danny Kruger
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I thought that might be the case too, and I was wondering about that, but I am very concerned about some of the evidence that Professor Whitty gave. I regret that the hon. Member for Spen Valley has removed the role of the chief medical officer from the process that she is designing by introducing the new commissioner, but I will not be sorry to see that particular chief medical officer excluded from the process. He has made significant mistakes; he had to write to the Committee to explain that he had misrepresented the Mental Capacity Act, and, on his evidence, the Committee voted to reject certain amendments.
I am concerned about what Professor Whitty said, but if the reason for including “medical condition” is to reflect the fact that there might be multiple diseases or illnesses that, together, mean that somebody is terminally ill, that is what should be stated in the Bill. It could very well include “a combination of illnesses or diseases that amount to terminal illness”. My concern is about this new concept of a medical condition, which, as I have said, implies something different from a disease or illness.
The Bill would say “the person’s death in consequence of illness or disease”—if we remove “medical condition” —so that would be the qualification or eligibility. If there is a number of illnesses or diseases that amount to a fatal prognosis, that would be captured in the clause, even once we have excluded medical condition, because the singular “illness” or “disease” would, as I understand it from our guidance on statutory interpretation, include the plural. If it is about there being a number of illnesses or diseases that add up to a fatality, the Bill as I propose to amend it would be adequate to the scenario that the hon. Member for Sunderland Central described and that Professor Whitty accounted for. The question is, what is additional illness or disease, or illnesses or diseases, that are captured by the term “medical condition”?
Kit Malthouse
Let me give a quick example. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis is described as a condition rather than a disease or an illness. ALS is not dissimilar to motor neurone disease, but nevertheless people regard themselves as having a condition rather than a disease.
Danny Kruger
Again, I am interested in that, because I would be surprised if that condition were not adequately captured by the term “illness” or “disease”. If not, we should seek further clarification, because we need to be very specific. Illness or disease has been adequate; it is adequate in the current law on terminal illness for eligibility for benefits and pensions. I await clarification on what is added by the term “medical condition”, because my concern is that it opens the door to frailty. Going back to Chris Whitty’s evidence, I am concerned at his suggestion that frailty should be an eligible condition for an assisted death.
I will wrap up shortly so that hon. Members have time to speak to other amendments, but I will quickly refer to amendment 181 tabled by the hon. Member for Spen Valley and amendment 11 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), which attempt to do the same thing as my amendments. They seek to protect disabled or mentally ill people, but they do so explicitly by disapplying the provisions of the Bill for those groups, or they attempt to do so. Only amendment 11 actually does, while amendment 181 fails to do so, in my view.
Let us look at subsection (3), which attempts to protect disabled people and those with mental disorders, but which, on closer inspection, is ineffective or even meaningless. In statutory interpretation, the first phrase,
“For the avoidance of doubt.”
indicates that the subsection does not add anything to the Bill except clarity. It is intended not to change the law that is being enacted by the Bill, but to clarify the meaning of the Bill. My point is that it does not add anything—in fact, it signals that the clause can be disregarded. It is like an explanatory note and not actually relevant to the Bill. Its effect therefore negates the point that it tries to make. In including it, the hon. Lady protests too much and exposes the weakness that the clause fails to overcome. It invites a court to disregard the protection it pretends to offer by stating that that protection has no force except what is elsewhere in the Bill.
Kim Leadbeater
I agree with the hon. Member to some degree in terms of the legal drafting. I have been advised that the expression “for the avoidance of doubt” is not generally used in a Bill if the Bill is already clear, which this is—I have been reassured by parliamentary counsel about that—but I was keen, having met disabled people and disability rights activists, to have it very clearly in the Bill that by virtue of having a disability, a mental health condition or a mental disorder, someone would not be in scope of the Bill. It was a very clear drafting decision and I stand by that decision; I think it is the right thing to do so that we are clear who is not covered by the Bill.
Danny Kruger
I am grateful to the hon. Lady; it is helpful to understand her thinking. Her amendment is an attempt to further clarify her purpose, which is to communicate that we cannot have an assisted death only because of a mental disorder or a disability. I know that other colleagues will speak to that point more explicitly.
My point is that
“For the avoidance of doubt”
is a massive signal to the courts that the subsection is meaningless. The advice was right that it is not usual to include that phrase, as it signals that nothing is being added. My concern is that it does not add anything, and the inclusion of the word “only” further demonstrates the hollowness of the protection that it purports to offer. The fact is that someone will still be able to get an assisted death because of a physical illness that derives from a mental disorder or disability. That is my concern with the later parts of the clause, but I will leave other Members to make that point.
Dr Opher
There is a lot to talk about in this group and I thank you, Mr Efford, for calling me to speak. I would also like some confirmation about the term “medical condition”, and I agree with the hon. Member for East Wiltshire that we need to absolutely nail that. I am still to be convinced on the question of a condition that does not come under illness or disease but would come under “medical condition”, so I agree that we need to be very clear about what that means.
Frailty is very often diagnosed in older people and I fear that “medical condition” could be equated with that, which would open up the Bill. We need to decide whether we want to do that. Personally, I would not support that in any way. If this is an opening for that, we need to close it, so I agree with the hon. Member in that respect.
Some of the other amendments do not materially add anything to the Bill. On changing “an inevitably” to “a typically”, I do not think that would change the Bill—in fact, I think it would weaken it slightly, so I would not support amendment 123.
Both amendment 11 and amendment 181 talk about how we can exclude mental health issues as a cause for seeking assisted dying. My personal feeling is that the Bill is strong enough as introduced to exclude that. I point people to clause 2(3):
“For the avoidance of doubt, a person is not to be considered to be terminally ill by reason only of the person having one or both of—
(a) a mental disorder, within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983;
(b) a disability, within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.”
I think that is pretty tight; I do not think that people with anorexia could be given an assisted death under this legislation. That is my personal view, and I am happy to be persuaded otherwise if the whole Committee thinks we need to tighten up the measure significantly. It is important to make that very clear so that the Bill cannot be amended away from what we wish it to be. I think all of us would say that we do not want patients with anorexia to be able to access assisted dying—I have not spoken to anyone who does not agree—so the question is how we nail it down in the Bill.
Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)
I have great sympathy with amendment 11 in particular, which is clearly motivated by a desire to ensure that having a mental illness or disability alone does not qualify someone for an assisted death under the Bill. It is worth saying that clause 2(3) already does that and, therefore, the amendment is not necessary. However, the hon. Member for Spen Valley has tabled amendment 181, which further tightens that language. In my view, amendment 181 strengthens the Bill by simplifying the language to make it absolutely clear that a person is not considered to be terminally ill if they have a mental disorder or a disability alone. The chief medical officer, Professor Whitty, encouraged us to keep this simple, and that is precisely what amendment 181 does. Therefore, I support the amendment.
Rebecca Paul
I rise to speak to amendment 11, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire. This is one of the areas of the Bill where we all agree on what we are trying to achieve, so it comes down to making sure that the drafting does exactly what we all intend in order to protect people.
The definition of “terminal illness” in the Bill has two components. The first is that the person has an inevitably progressive and irreversible condition; the second is that their prognosis is less than six months. An issue raised in our evidence sessions is that there is a risk that a person with a mental disorder or disability will meet that definition if they are suffering physical symptoms that mean that they satisfy both parts of the test; a possible example could be a young woman suffering with severe malnutrition as a consequence of anorexia. With respect to the point that the hon. Member for Stroud made, I agree that anorexia on its own would not qualify, but the issue arises when there is a physical manifestation from that disorder such as severe malnutrition or even diabetes, which can co-occur, as we heard in the evidence sessions.
It is clear that that is not the intention of the hon. Member for Spen Valley or anyone on the Committee, as evidenced by the inclusion of subsection (3). I thank the hon. Member for making that point; it is much welcomed. However, in oral evidence, Chelsea Roff said that
“we have case law in the UK where people with anorexia are being found to be terminal. We have to take that reality into account.” ––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 153, Q194.]
Before I get into amendment 11, which aims to address the issue, it is important to understand what clause 2(3) is trying to do. It reads as follows:
“For the avoidance of doubt, a person is not to be considered to be terminally ill by reason only of the person having one or both”
of a mental disorder or a disability; it refers to the relevant bits of law. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Wiltshire has set out, the words “for the avoidance of doubt” make it clear that this is a clarifying subsection that does not make any change to the rest of clause 2. It appears to be clarifying that mental disorders and disabilities alone will never qualify someone for assisted dying—I think we all concur with that—unless they also have a physical condition that meets the terminal illness test, namely that it is inevitably progressive and irreversible and that the person has a prognosis of less than six months.
This is where the problem lies. If someone has a physical condition arising from their mental illness, such as severe malnutrition resulting from anorexia, and if the physical condition meets the definition of a terminal illness, they will qualify. As the Royal College of Psychiatrists said in its position statement:
“The wording of the Bill could also be interpreted to include those whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental disorder. While anorexia nervosa, for example, does not itself meet the criteria for terminal illness as it is not an ‘inevitably progressive illness, disease or medical condition which cannot be reversed by treatment,’ its physical effects (for example, malnutrition) in severe cases could be deemed by some as a terminal physical illness, even though eating disorders are treatable conditions and recovery is possible even after decades of illness.”
To remedy the issue, amendment 11 would remove the words “For the avoidance of doubt”, to make this a legally effective clause, rather than just a clarifying one. That means that it is providing an additional safeguard to those with mental disorders and/or disabilities. It would also remove the word “only”, to ensure that a physical condition resulting from a mental disorder or a disability will not make a person eligible for assisted dying. The amendment is further bolstered by amendment 283, tabled by the hon. Member for York Central, which would make it clear that comorbidities arising from a mental disorder do not qualify a patient for an assisted death.
I thank the hon. Member for Spen Valley for tabling amendment 181 to try to address the issue, but I do not believe that would quite solve the problem, which is quite a tricky one. “For the avoidance of doubt” would still be there, as would “only”. The sentence beginning with “Nothing in this subsection” makes it crystal clear that if a condition meets the six-month condition and the rest of the definition, it will be considered a terminal illness. There is therefore no exclusion for physical symptoms manifesting from mental illness or disability, which I think is what we are all trying to get to.
In my view, the only amendment that would address the issue is amendment 11, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire. It would remove both “For the avoidance of doubt” and “only”, and would therefore better ensure that a physical condition resulting from mental illness or a disability does not make a person eligible for assisted dying.
Naz Shah
Sorry, I mean amendment 11. Thank you, Mr Efford.
I think it will be helpful to spell out what the Bill currently says, and what it would say if amendment 11 were adopted. I will also set why the amendment would provide a much stronger safeguard than amendment 181, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley.
Clause 2(3) states:
“For the avoidance of doubt, a person is not to be considered to be terminally ill by reason only”
—I stress the word “only”—
“of the person having one or both of—
(a) a mental disorder, within the meaning of the Mental Health 1983;
(b) a disability, within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.”
If amendment 11 is agreed to, clause 2(3) will read:
“A person is not to be considered to be terminally ill by reason of the person having one or both of—
(a) a mental disorder, within the meaning of the Mental Health 1983;
(b) a disability, within the meaning of section 6 of the Equality Act 2010.”
That may seem a very small change, but it is an extremely important one.
The Bill, as presented to Parliament on Second Reading, would allow someone to qualify for assisted dying if they had a mental health condition such as anorexia nervosa and a physical condition such as malnutrition. To put it with absolute bluntness, that means that somebody with anorexia nervosa could stop eating until they suffered so badly from malnutrition that two doctors prognose that the patient is likely to die within six months. That person, under the Bill, would then qualify for assisted dying.
Kim Leadbeater
This is a really important discussion and I am so glad that we are having it—some brilliant points have been made. As someone who has worked with people with anorexia, I am very aware of the sensitivities of the condition and the issues around it. Would my hon. Friend agree that, as part of this discussion, we have to consider the capacity assessment of people with eating disorders? It is a very serious mental health condition; it would require a lot for somebody with anorexia to pass the capacity threshold for making a decision of this magnitude. It is certainly the sort of instance where I would be very surprised if a doctor did not refer to an eating disorder specialist. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have to look at the condition and how the patient should be cared for holistically?
The Chair
Order. I remind hon. Members that there are a set of amendments in the next group about anorexia. Let us not go too far down this road.
Naz Shah
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that there need to be specialists—we will come to that debate later. Let me bring our debate back to the amendment we are discussing. I understand that the Bill is drafted so that people who suffer mental disorders, such as anorexia nervosa, cannot qualify for assisted death—when my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley sets that out, I have absolutely no reason to doubt it—but that is not enough to safeguard people with such disorders. As we know, people with anorexia can and have stopped eating until they suffer advanced malnutrition, which is a physical disorder. In some cases, that malnutrition becomes so advanced that doctors will prognose death within six months.
If we wish to protect people with anorexia and other eating disorders, we must rewrite the Bill. We must ensure that people who have those disorders, and who also have a physical disorder, cannot qualify for assisted dying. I must underline that this is not a hypothetical point or some clever objection that has been dreamed up without reference to the real world. It has actually happened—not once, but dozens of times in countries that have assisted dying.
Kim Leadbeater
My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Does she agree that the reporting and data around assisted dying are fundamental? That is why it is important that, if the law is to change in this country, we get that absolutely right. What we propose in the Bill is closest to the laws in Australia, and in my understanding there have been no assisted deaths of people with anorexia in Australia. However, my hon. Friend makes a valid point about the accuracy of reporting; we do not know whether those examples were people with anorexia who happened to have cancer as well. We just do not know, and that is not good enough.
Naz Shah
I absolutely agree that if the Bill is to get through Parliament, it has to have those mechanisms and safeguards in place, but I am sure we will come to those later. If we do not know with any reasonable degree of accuracy how many cases there have been worldwide, we cannot say where the majority of such cases have occurred. When we are told that there have been zero assisted deaths of people with anorexia in Australia, I would err on the side of caution—another witness said that there were zero deaths involving coercion.
I understand that my hon. Friend’s amendment 181 also attempts to change clause 2, but the change would still allow people to qualify for an assisted death if they had a mental disorder alongside a physical disorder. I have no doubt that this stems from a compassionate desire not to exclude—for example, someone who has mild depression and a major physical illness—but its effect is to create a major risk for people suffering from both a mental health disorder that affects their eating and a physical disorder caused by not eating. To avoid that risk, the Bill must be much more tightly worded than it was when presented to the House on Second Reading, and it must be much more tightly worded than amendment 181 would make it.
We must make it much harder in the Bill for people to qualify for assisted death by way of having malnutrition caused by an eating disorder. It is a complex problem, and I believe no one amendment will solve it completely. I have submitted two amendments with the aim of making a contribution. Amendment 11 would also make a significant contribution to solving the problem, and I urge all Members to support it.
I turn to amendment 181, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. Although the Acts mentioned in clause 2 define mental illness and disability as being taken from the clear medical model, it is not clear if she is further suggesting that a new definition should be used—for instance, the social model. Someone could have a significant impairment under a social model of disability, and for the purposes of the Bill, not consider themselves to be a disabled person. Therefore, they could qualify for an assisted death, thus rendering the provision of no worth.
It is therefore unclear what my hon. Friend is similarly proposing with regard to mental illness. Amendment 11 is needed to provide assurance that if someone does have a mental illness, then it is tightly defined and would preclude them from being able to access an assisted suicide, in case the reason they are seeking it is the mental illness and not the terminal diagnosis. I will speak further on that later.
If amendment 181 was agreed to, the clause would read that a person is not to be considered terminally ill
“only because they are a person with a disability”.
There are two obvious problems with the amendment. First, the amendment removes references to the Equality Act 2010 and the Mental Health Act, which previously defined who did and did not have a disability or a mental health disorder, but having removed those definitions, it does not then define disability or mental disorder in the Bill. What definition will medical practitioners, and indeed applicants, use to determine who does or does not have a disability or mental disorder?
Kim Leadbeater
In terms of the removal of references to the Equality Act, I was not aware when the Bill was initially drafted that cancer is actually classed as a disability. Given the fact that in some countries 70% of assisted deaths are for cancer patients, it would seem ridiculous to exclude cancer patients from having the option of assisted death. I hope that goes some way towards explaining that point.
Kim Leadbeater
The concepts of a mental disorder and a disability are well understood, and those terms are well used. In the eyes of the law, we would not need to provide a definition of those in the Bill, but the removal of the reference that would include people with cancer is an important thing to do.
Danny Kruger
The fact that cancer is included in the Equality Act definition does expose a concern about the Bill. It suggests that there is a real connection there, which is of concern. I think the solution is to accept the amendment 11 and ensure that disabled people and those with mental health conditions would not be eligible for assisted dying, and then to introduce a further amendment—either now, as a manuscript amendment, or later—to exclude cancer from the definition. That is a tidying-up exercise that could be done in light of the point that the hon. Member for Spen Valley made about the reference in the Equality Act. The most important thing is that we tighten the clause to protect disabled people.
Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 25th February 2025
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesPublic Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill 2024-26 View all Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 February 2025 - (25 Feb 2025)
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Joshua Reddaway from the National Audit Office, and Richard Las from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. We have until 2.30 pm.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Q
Joshua Reddaway: I guess I am agnostic as to what is done, but the benefits would be an opportunity for governance and an opportunity for accountability, clarity and transparency. I am sure that we would be absolutely delighted to audit the accounts for the PSFA and help to provide some of that transparency. Of course it is currently incorporated with the Cabinet Office, so it is about a clear line of sight. You have to offset that against the fact that there is an administrative burden for producing things like sets of accounts, and having governance and so on. The bigger question, and the one for the Committee, is whether it will enable better oversight of the powers in the Bill.
Rebecca Smith
Having a separate organisation?
Joshua Reddaway: Having a separate body.
Rebecca Smith
Q
Joshua Reddaway: I do not have a major opinion. I would ask whether you are comfortable with the oversight arrangements. One thing to point out is that this will be the closest thing to an anti-corruption unit that the Government have, with search powers. Are you happy with that being constitutionally in the Cabinet Office or not? I am also interested in what the criteria are. The explanatory notes have set out that there will be an efficiency assessment for the powers in the impact assessment. I am not sure the Cabinet Office is clear on exactly what that means. It is interesting to think about what would actually trigger it to exercise that power under the Bill to create it as a separate body.
Rebecca Smith
Q
Joshua Reddaway: In short, yes. Would you like a longer answer?
Rebecca Smith
That would be great.
Joshua Reddaway: First, we should be clear: with most fraud, once the payment has gone, you are not going to get it back. I have a professional next to me who can talk to you about the challenges and the pursuit, but if you ask how much fraud is out there, the answer is a lot. If you add up all the official estimates from the different schemes during covid, it is £10.5 billion-worth of fraud. The Government have so far recovered £1 billion of that, mostly from HMRC and less from others. Of course, HMRC stopped collecting it because it knew that its resources would have a higher return of investment if they were re-diverted back to tax rather than fraud recovery. I am afraid you are always on to a losing game if you enter the recovery phase, but every million counts. It is always nice to get something back.
The covid counter-fraud commissioner has only just been appointed. Their role is to review these schemes and see whether there is a way to get the money back. My understanding is that the six-year time limit under the Fraud Act 2006 will be expiring next spring so, with that timetable alone, if the fraud commissioner is going to bring forward anything that has a chance of working, it makes a lot of sense to give them a bit more time. Like I say, we are really sceptical that it is possible to get the majority of that £10.5 billion back. Some of it will come back from the bounce back loans anyway, but the vast majority of it has gone. But every million counts.
The Chair
Do you want to add anything, Mr Las?
Richard Las: On the covid side of things, we have not stopped our efforts, but we have recognised that we are not going to pursue it as a lead subject. However, we are conducting other inquiries and looking to other taxes. We will be looking at whether there was fraud under the covid schemes, and we will still be pursuing that. I still have a large number of cases going through the courts or heading towards prosecution in relation to the scheme. A bit like Joshua, I am certainly not giving up on it—we will keep pursuing it—but, in a decision on how we deploy our resources, we are saying, “We’ll look to what we think are the higher risks, and we will pick up the covid risks as and when we come across them at the same time.”
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)
Q
Joshua Reddaway: Specifically, do you mean the EVM—eligibility verification measure—stuff?
Andrew Western
All the powers pertaining to the DWP—the five principal areas in the DWP’s proposals—so information gathering, debt recovery, penalties reform, powers of search and seizure, and EVM.
Joshua Reddaway: Okay. To step back, we have been looking at a general trend of rising levels of benefit fraud for a few years. Actually, it has come down a little since covid, because there was a blip then, but if we take covid out, the levels were rising anyway. Currently, it is more than £10 billion, if you include the bit of benefits that HMRC pays—obviously, that is coming down with universal credit.
I do not think that what is in the Bill will solve that; what is in the Bill will support tackling it. This is about adding a few tools to the DWP toolkit. The key thing is that prevention is better than recovery. DWP is really good—one of the best in the world, as far as we can see—at knowing how much fraud is occurring; I am afraid it is not very good at saying why it occurs. In particular, DWP is not great at saying what it is about the way in which it administers benefits that enables fraud to occur or error to happen.
For some time, we have been advocating for DWP to get a much more granular view of its control environment. I think that, given how I interpret the capital rules here—it is an EVM exercise—it is doing that. This is one of the places where DWP said, “Actually, our control over capital at the moment is, frankly, to ask people how much capital they have,” which left it fairly exposed to the risk that people did not tell them the truth. Several times, the Public Accounts Committee asked DWP if it had the powers it needed, and several times has said, “The one area we need to explore is capital.” The challenge for this Committee is to work out whether that proposal is reasonable and includes enough oversight, given the privacy issues. In terms of there being a real problem behind it, however, I can confirm that there is a control-level issue that DWP is trying to resolve.
The other issues that the Bill tries to deal with on enforcement are similar. If we look at the impact assessment, the EVM was £500 million a year when fully rolled out and operational—that is a significant dent, but only a dent, in the £10 billion. I want to be clear: yes, I do think that there will be an impact. Is it sufficient? No. Is it meant to be sufficient? I doubt it. I think that DWP knows that, and that it has a very hard slog ahead of it. I will try to hold it to account—I am afraid it is your Department—on that hard slog of understanding where fraud is coming in and where error is happening, and put in controls step by step to improve it. There are no shortcuts in that.
Richard Las: My reflection is that fraud is inherently difficult to identify and potentially more difficult to investigate at times. How do you identify fraud? If I think about HMRC, you need information and to be able to triangulate information to understand the risks in front of you so that you can identify the highest risk. Sometimes you will not know what that risk is, or whether it is fraud or error, but it will point you in a direction. I feel that as an agency, if you have fraud, you need a good bedrock of information to understand the environment and to identify risk. A lot of that information can be information you gather from your customer—in our case, a taxpayer—or third party information. It is information that we can use to triangulate and verify. We do that regularly with lots of different information sets.
Once you come to investigate and deal with fraud, it is obvious to everybody, but people do not always co-operate, so you need powers that allow you to compel people to co-operate or powers that allow you to secure information and evidence in a way that you otherwise would not be able to do, because people would not do that. On the general framework, we are always looking to improve our basis for powers and our ability to use them. Certainly I feel that much of what is included in the Bill is powers that HMRC already has in many respects. We use those powers, we would argue, in a proportionate and necessary way, and there are controls and safeguards about how we do that. It is a difficult business with fraud. If you do not have some of those tools at your disposal, you are working with one arm behind your back.
Andrew Western
Q
Joshua Reddaway: Is there an alternative? I am aware that DWP is thinking about open banking as an alternative, but that, of course, would have wider implications and at the moment is on a voluntary basis. You have got that.
I honestly think that it fundamentally comes down to this: if you want to be able to detect, and if Parliament has set an eligibility criterion of capital as part of universal credit and some other benefits, DWP can either use that as a kind of symbolic deterrent so that you can opt out by owning up that you have that capital—that has a use—or if you want it to actually be enforced, you have to provide DWP with a tool that goes a bit further than just asking. There are various ways that you can get data matching from various different partners. This is the one that the Government have come up with.
Andrew Western
Q
Richard Las: It is the Finance Act 2011 that you refer to, which allows us bulk data gathering powers on information that we believe will support our functions. I guess it is not just the banks, but we do get the information on interest-bearing accounts. It is an annual exercise, not a real-time exercise. It is clearly timed in such a way that it helps us understand whether the right amount of tax has been paid on interest that has been accrued. We are talking about large accounts because in most cases people’s interest is quite small, but there will be some people who get a lot of it. We have a huge amount of controls over how we manage that information and how we use it and protect it; they are our normal requirements as with any other taxpayer data.
We gather other information from third parties. We have information from merchant acquirers on transactions that businesses might make, for example. We also have information that we get from online platforms in terms of sales and things like that. It is all part of bringing that information together. HMRC very much respects taxpayer confidentiality and manages that data responsibly. I guess those safeguards can exist in other organisations.
Andrew Western
Q
Richard Las: I do not know, if I am honest, whether there is. I can look that up for you.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Georgia Gould)
Q
Joshua Reddaway: I think you are referring to the report we did in March 2023, after the PSFA had just been established. We very much wanted it to be a baseline for the challenges it was trying to deal with. We basically said that there needed to be a cultural change across all of Government, that 84% of the resources were in DWP and HMRC, and that covid really exposed that the Government did not have the capability in other Departments. I have to say that, from our point of view, we saw fraud as essentially a welfare and tax issue for many years, so it was a bit of a surprise to start bringing it out to the other Departments a bit more.
I would interpret the Bill as being about giving the powers, particularly on the enforcement side, and in the meantime, the PSFA has been doing quite a lot on the prevention side. The prevention side is primarily where I would be focused because that is where the biggest gains are to be had in dealing with the cultural changes that are needed across all of Government. Mind you, I do not read the Bill as being against that; I see it as supplementary.
We would be very disappointed if the PSFA became exclusively an investigation and enforcement-type agency. The impact assessment thinks it can get roughly £50 million over 10 years from enforcement. Like I say, every million counts, but that is very tiny compared with the challenge that the PSFA is trying to meet. Is that the sort of thing you are interested in?
Georgia Gould
Q
Joshua Reddaway: It is not rare to find what we call audited bodies, Government organisations, that have found a fraud, have taken it as far as they can through their internal services, and have tried to hand it over to the police to make an arrest—this is the point where it is outside audit—but have not been able to find anyone who will pick up that file, which has been fairly developed. The point that we raised in the 2023 report and that the PSFA was trying to deal with was: how can you get an organisation that fills the gap to help defend the Government when they get attacked? The police are basically going to say that Government are big enough and ugly enough to look after themselves on this.
When we looked at fraud more widely across society in a report that we did later in 2023, we found that at that time it was 40% of all crime and 1% of police resources. That is what you are trying to tackle here. You are trying to have an organisation that fills the gap on enforcement. How important is that? I think it is about having a deterrent, and if you get it right it should also be about root cause analysis. By that I mean, if you have an investigation and you are able to fully investigate it, it is not just about prosecuting that person, but about properly understanding why that happened in the first place, and improving it. So if you are an organisation that is outsourcing an investigation to another party, I always wonder a bit whether they will do that bit of the loop. I am hopeful that the PSFA will develop the capability to do that.
Georgia Gould
That is a very helpful challenge.
Joshua Reddaway: That is my understanding of this. Our one concern is, please don’t let this be the tail that’s wagging the dog.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
Q
Joshua Reddaway: Interesting. The reason we always talk about error and fraud together is because it is often really difficult to differentiate between them when you are doing prevention. So, in my job, I am more interested in fraud and error together because I am more interested in how to correct that and stop the money going out. If you are in Richard’s job, as I am sure he will tell you in a second, he is going to be more interested in the one that you can prosecute—to an extent.
Richard Las: I am happy to jump in from an HMRC perspective. It is important to understand what the driver is—I think that is absolutely right—and to be able to distinguish between fraud and error. We have estimates for fraud and error in terms of the tax system, which we publish every year. We generate those estimates for a lot of different activity, but partly they are the result of our own inquiries, so we are analysing what we do and what we see. We make a judgment—is it fraud, is it error?—and we work out what is going on. Absolutely, you have to look at the underlying reasons, so if there is an error, a repeated error, you ask what is going on there—what is the cause of it? Certainly, as we develop our business in HMRC—especially with people filing online—we are very much looking to prompt people so that they can get the right answer. Those of you who do self-assessment hopefully will see that yourself—“Are you sure? Is this information correct?” That really does help in reducing errors—the simple errors that people might make, because it is complicated.
Siân Berry
Q
Richard Las: Potentially. But it goes both ways, often. Sometimes people overpay as well.
Joshua Reddaway: If you are looking at a particular case, normally the first thing you detect is that it is wrong—the transaction is not correct. You then have to take it to a certain level before you can work out, on the balance of probabilities, what it is. In tax world, is it evasion or avoidance? Then you go down a different route, depending on how you are dealing with it. Obviously, if you want to go for a prosecution, you have to have much more evidence and you have to be beyond reasonable doubt to go there.
I think the reason why PSFA often deals with both is that it is at that earlier stage of dealing with prevention, and it is not always clear which one you are dealing with; besides which, we want to stop error as well. My job is to definitely try to stop both, through audit and accountability. I think where it does not make sense for PSFA to get involved is where that fundamental responsibility for correcting the control environment belongs with the Departments. So if you see that as a, “They have done that triaging; they now think that it’s fraud,” you need an enforcement capability and you go down that route, but I would be very disappointed if that meant in that triage process that an error was not being dealt with. Does that explain?
Siân Berry
Q
Joshua Reddaway: I am saying I do not think this Bill is about that issue.
Siân Berry
Okay. Even with that title?
Joshua Reddaway: Even with that title.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Q
Joshua Reddaway: On how much fraud is created?
Neil Coyle
Q
Joshua Reddaway: Is this the behavioural effect?
Neil Coyle
Q
Joshua Reddaway: I have not done anything that adds to the information that is already in the impact assessment. I have not audited it, so I would just point to the numbers in there. I know there is an issue around whether people will split their money between multiple bank accounts. Is that also part of what you are referring to?
Neil Coyle
Yes.
Joshua Reddaway: I have spoken to DWP and the OBR about that. My understanding is that frankly it is an area of uncertainty, and that they wanted to make an adjustment because they knew there would be an effect but they do not know what that will be. We will have to come back and see what that is.
For me, the more fundamental point is that this power will not stop all fraud. It is designed to stop some. Will there be behavioural effects that will limit that? Yes. Does that in itself mean you should not try? No.
Neil Coyle
Q
Joshua Reddaway: My first instinct is that I would ask DWP how it was going to do that, because that is how the wonderful world of audit works.
Neil Coyle
Of course.
Joshua Reddaway: Secondly, I would suggest to them that they can establish a baseline, because this is pretty transparent within their published statistics. You have got a breakdown there of how much fraud is caused by people mis-stating their capital. The reason DWP is able to do that is because when you apply for a benefit, you do not have to provide your bank statements, but when you are subject to an inquiry that informs the statistics, you do have to provide your bank statements. The statistic is generated by the difference between those two processes. That will continue to be the case after this power is enacted.
Andrew Western
Q
Joshua Reddaway: I think that is a fair comment, given that I said it does not really deal with error. I was really referring to the enforcement powers under PSFA. I think PSFA do other stuff that is in the error space, but the enforcement stuff is not. The enforcement stuff for DWP also will not really be in the error space. However, you are quite right that any data matching is an opportunity to detect error, and DWP are used to that. For example, when they are doing targeted case reviews, that will be detecting error as well as fraud. What we know from the statistics is that DWP believes there is more fraud than error in that space, but I entirely accept the premise of your question, and I should have made that part clear.
Andrew Western
Q
Richard Las: Ultimately, it allows us to operate immediately and with real clarity. We would be under the same kind of governance and restrictions as the police would be, in terms of having to go to a court to get those warrants, but, in terms of our ability to—
The Chair
Order. We have come to the end of the allotted time. I thank the witnesses for their evidence, and we will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witness
John Smart gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from John Smart, formerly partner for forensics at Ernst & Young, who now sits on the Public Sector Fraud Authority’s advisory panel. We have until 2.50 pm.
Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)
Q
John Smart: I think being fully independent would probably be helpful, although I suspect that the realistic impact of that will be more theoretical rather than practical in the short term. Maybe, in the longer term, a fully independent, stand-alone organisation would be much more helpful.
Mike Wood
Q
John Smart: That needs to be determined in terms of the overall governance structure of the organisation, as and when it is set up, because it would clearly need to have an independent board, and some of the oversight powers proposed in the Bill would need to be independent of the management of that business. I think it would require quite a lot of thought around the overall governance structure, the way it operates and the way that the day-to-day management of the business is independent of the oversight powers.
Mike Wood
Q
John Smart: As you say, the nature of the investigations that will be carried out by the PSFA will be quite different from those being carried out by the DWP. Certainly, the proposal in the Bill is that investigations that require some form of search warrant will be carried out with a police officer present, and therefore the powers that are being given to DWP in relation to this Bill will already sit with the police that will accompany any investigators that are doing work on behalf of the PSFA. That is my understanding.
Mike Wood
Based on your experience with the PSFA so far, is that consistent with the length of time that, in most cases, it takes such organisations to reply to requests for information?
John Smart: The consistency question is an interesting one. I think a lot of those powers are likely to be applied specifically in relation to banks and telecoms companies. They already have procedures in place to respond to requests for information, and therefore, in the majority of cases, my suspicion is that those short timeframes will be consistent with what they normally deal with, so there will not be a big onus on them to change the way they normally operate.
Mike Wood
Q
John Smart: They are not, no. I do not know which institutions are likely to be required to provide information. There will be individuals and institutions. Other institutions might find it more difficult, but there is an appeals process, which they can apply to use, in relation to provision of information. If it is unreasonably onerous, I suspect it will mean that the timescale will be varied.
Mike Wood
Q
John Smart: That is true. I have spent 35 years investigating fraud, and the challenge is that there is a need to be reasonably speedy in doing those investigations because, as we heard earlier, any recoveries are going to be much reduced if there is a significant delay in carrying out the investigation and applying for either criminal or civil proceedings to take place. Therefore, speed is important in any investigation. Otherwise, you are spending a lot of time and effort without getting the result you need.
Mike Wood
Q
John Smart: I think weeks is reasonable. A small number of weeks is a reasonable number to look for, rather than days or months. Months is far too long, and days is probably a little too short in relation to the ability of organisations to respond.
Andrew Western
Q
John Smart: At the risk of echoing what has been said before, I think it is critical that we modernise the approach to fraud, and the Bill is a good step towards that modernisation. The critical part of a lot of investigations now—and of identifying, preventing and detecting fraud—is the use of data. Getting that data and information quickly and effectively is critical. I think the Bill will go a long way towards speeding up and broadening the available information that can be used to prevent, detect and prosecute fraud. That is a really valuable thing that we should be pushing for, because relying on pieces of paper to seek information from organisations is crazy in this day and age, when you can do it electronically and get an answer relatively quickly. If you are turning up with a piece of paper, it can take weeks or months.
Rebecca Smith
Q
John Smart: Having worried about this for a number of years, I think there are a lot of steps that the Government—the PSFA—can take over time, but we are on a ladder to get to a position that is constantly moving because the fraudsters are developing all the time. One critical thing that I have been concerned about for a number of years is the use and sharing of data across Government. Government have so much data available to them, and third parties have a lot of data available to them. There is clearly a privacy question that rapidly comes into play, but from my perspective, if the data is available to Government, they should use it. They should use it proportionately: they should not exploit those powers to use that data on some sort of phishing trip, but if there is evidence that fraud is being or has been committed, getting that evidence in the hands of investigators quickly is critical to preventing the fraud from continuing and to identifying and recovering any money that has been lost. To my mind, there is quite a lot of work still to be done on data sharing across Government.
Rebecca Smith
Q
John Smart: Absolutely. There are two points to make. The first is that that frauds that are already happening would be identified if the data was shared more effectively and quickly. Secondly, by joining up data that is sitting in Companies House, the licensing authority, or wherever, you can find evidence that a fraud is being carried out and prevent frauds from happening in the first place.
Rebecca Smith
Q
John Smart: An obvious example is the United States; there is an interesting case in point at the moment, which I have dealt with quite a lot. The US has whistleblower reward legislation in place, which is very effective at flushing out issues affecting payments made by Government. Their qui tam legislation, as it is called, flushes out frauds by incentivising whistleblowers to blow the whistle. It creates a lot of work for various organisations, but it encourages people to think about whether fraud is being committed against the Government in the US. That is an obvious piece of legislation that might be worth considering in this country.
Georgia Gould
Q
John Smart: That is a big question. I have been involved with the Cabinet Office for over 12 years, so the inception of the PSFA came about while I was working there. In the 18 months since it was formed, the PSFA has gone a long way to reach a better understanding of where the issues sit across Government. Clearly, it plays best outside the DWP and HMRC. My passion has been identifying where fraud is taking place, which I have worked on for the past 10 years, and trying to quantify the fraud occurring within Government. As you all know, that is very hard to quantify because it is hidden and therefore unknown. The PSFA has gone a long way and is continuing to flush out where resources should be committed to preventing, investigating and deterring fraud across Government outside HMRC and the DWP. That is critical. When I first started asking Departments where frauds were within the Departments, they replied, “There’s nothing to see here.” At least now, particularly because of the work the PSFA has been doing, there is recognition that there is a real issue to be addressed, and that it is not just expenses fraud, or whatever they used to think it was.
Georgia Gould
Q
John Smart: As we said earlier, the larger organisations will be geared up to provide the information within the timeframe required. Some of the smaller organisations might struggle to meet that 10-day requirement, but I still think it is a reasonable starting point. If you do not start with a reasonable starting point, for the larger organisations you end up deferring decision making and action being taken. I think 10 days is reasonable.
Georgia Gould
Q
John Smart: Exactly. That is the reason for the starting point.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank John Smart for his evidence, and we will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Eric Leenders and Daniel Cichocki gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Eric Leenders and Daniel Cichocki, both from UK Finance. We have until 3.10 pm.
Mike Wood
Q
Daniel Cichocki: A number of conversations with the industry have taken place since the measure was announced. We have been very clear since the announcement was made that we are supportive of the efforts to tackle fraud and error in the public sector. We recognise the scale of the challenge that the Government face, and as a private sector we see clearly the damage fraud does to both the public and the private sectors. We are very supportive of the objectives of the Bill. As you say, the key thing for us as a sector that is heavily regulated, both from a vulnerable customer treatment stance—my colleague Eric Leenders is best placed to talk about that—and a financial crime compliance perspective, is that more detail on the specifics of how the measure will work is still to emerge through the code of practice, but extensive conversations about that are under way.
From the banking industry perspective, we are keen to ensure that the compliance requirements for banks are clear in terms of what information is required. We hope to see in the code of practice, as soon as is practical, details of the specific criteria against which the Government will mandate banks to perform checks under the measure.
Mike Wood
Q
Daniel Cichocki: We are awaiting more detail. We have high-level indicators that the Government are likely to use the measure to require banks to perform checks against, which gives us some sense of the scale. Our initial assessment is that it is likely to be significant, but the key thing for us is to have more details of the criteria that the Government will require us to check against under the measure.
Mike Wood
Q
Daniel Cichocki: It is quite difficult at this stage to perform that level of assessment, partly because so much detail of the measure will be set out in the code of practice. We are obviously very keen to ensure that the expectations of the industry in complying with the new requirement are proportionate, but that is difficult to assess in detail before we have seen the detail of the code of practice. Much will depend on the mechanism through which banks will be required to share the information, the frequency of the information notices, whether the criteria we are required to run the checks against change over time and other factors that will influence how much capacity is required from the banking sector. As I say, at this stage it is challenging to do a detailed assessment.
Mike Wood
Q
Daniel Cichocki: Certainly. The banks share very significant amounts of information with Government Departments and law enforcement to ensure compliance with measures to tackle economic crime. We take that very seriously. We also continue to share extensive information with the Director of Public Prosecutions where there is suspicion of fraud. There is certainly an existing set-up to respond to information requests.
There is a difference with this particular measure, though, and we are keen for it be considered. This request is for information to tackle both fraud and error. A lot of the information sharing that we as an industry currently do with elements of law enforcement is very much focused on suspected fraud, economic crime and serious and organised crime. This is a slightly broader measure, so we are keen to see in the code of practice a very clear set of requirements for banks to comply with. The infrastructure is certainly there.
Mike Wood
Q
Daniel Cichocki: A variety of powers exist to date. Some have time measures built in for compliance with them and some are voluntary. I think you have to ensure that this particular power is balanced against all the information sharing that the industry is currently required to do with both Government and law enforcement. For example, it must be balanced against the voluntary sharing that the industry is doing, particularly with law enforcement. Certainly, those of us working in economic crime are primarily focused on how we can work with Government and law enforcement to tackle serious and organised crime. Striking the balance between the additional requirements under this power and that effort is an area of focus on which we have also been engaged with the Government.
Mike Wood
Q
Daniel Cichocki: Given that the eligibility verification measure is one of the more extensive powers in the Bill, we think that it may be appropriate to require the Minister to attest that its use is proportionate, as is required with the other measures in the Bill. That is just because of that particular power’s scale in requiring banks to share information on both potential fraud and potential error. As it includes the sharing of information of customers who may not be suspected of any crime whatsoever, we think that it would be helpful if the Government were to articulate that their use of the measure is proportionate, as is the case with the others.
It would also be helpful if the Bill were to replicate the very effective Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 exemption, which exists within the eligibility verification measure, in the other measures across parts 1 and 2 of the Bill. That is simply because we do not think that it is necessarily proportionate or helpful for banks to be considering, in complying with legislation, whether they should also be undertaking a suspicious activity report for the authorities. One of the constructive conversations that we have been having with Government is how we delineate our responsibilities to comply with this legislation and our responsibilities to comply with financial crime measures. We will be writing on this in more detail, but we suggest that the exemption under the eligibility verification measure, which is very helpful, should be replicated in other elements of the Bill.
Andrew Western
Q
Daniel Cichocki: We are making this suggestion because under the Bill banks responding to an information request or a direct deduction order, would have to consider whether there is some indication of financial crime that under POCA requires them to make a suspicious activity report. We think it is simpler to remove that requirement, not least because where there is a requirement to make a suspicious activity report there is a requirement to notify the authorities; clearly, there is already a notification to the authorities when complying with the measure. Removing that requirement would avoid the risk that banks must consider not only how to respond to the measure but whether they are required to treat that individual account as potentially fraudulent. We are trying to manage risk out of the system more broadly with financial crime compliance, so we think it is much more proportionate and effective to simply apply the same exemption across all the measures in the Bill.
Andrew Western
Q
You briefly mentioned direct deduction orders. I know you have some concerns about the debt recovery power, and this is an opportunity for you to set them out. Is there anything you want to elaborate on beyond what you have just said about that element of the powers we are proposing?
Eric Leenders: There are two or three key areas for us. First is the affordability assessment. I think you have heard previously that the use of the standard financial statement would be helpful in outlining essential monthly expenditure. I will come back to that point.
Secondly, I believe the caps differ between the PSFA and the DWP. We think that they should be aligned, with the PFSA’s 40/20 split also applied to the DWP. It is also quite important that there is some form of de minimis, so that individuals do not find themselves without any funds whatsoever. Our thinking is something aligned to the £1,000 threshold that there is in Scotland. HMRC has a threshold of about £5,000, or £2,000 for partners paying child maintenance. We think there should be a floor, but more essential is consideration of one month’s essential expenditure. That would allow the individual to readjust their expenditure in the period when they need to consider making the payments under the deduction order, or indeed the period in which the balances are withdrawn.
Andrew Western
Q
Eric Leenders: We would like to consider a specific de minimis. There are probably two approaches: an absolute amount or a relative amount, dependent on the individual’s essential expenditure—not their lifestyle expenditure. That is why we feel that the standard financial statement would be a useful tool.
Siân Berry
Q
Going back to Daniel’s earlier comment, can you clarify that you do not yet have a clue regarding the volume of requests? Have you been given some sort of estimate by the Government?
Daniel Cichocki: Let me take that first. The Government set out two broad criteria pertaining to the eligibility verification measure: the capital check and the check against abroad fraud, through assessment of transactions abroad. It is difficult at this stage, because the industry has not undertaken any detailed collective analysis of the criteria against the current book of customers. That work has not yet been done. We anticipate it being done through the development of the code of practice, but key for us is understanding exactly what criteria we will be required to run, and then banks can start to build an assessment of how that looks against their current book. That detailed work has not yet taken place.
Siân Berry
Q
Daniel Cichocki: I do not think we take a view on the scope of individual benefits for which this is applied. The key principle for us is that where there are changes to the eligibility criteria, we are required to check that there is proper public consultation around those changes and an appropriate implementation period for any of those changes, and that those changes are not too frequent. As an industry, we have to build a system to run these checks every time, and every change will have to be built and tested. For us, it is more about the principle of the frequency and appropriateness of the changes. The broader debate around what is in scope is not one we have taken a view on.
Siân Berry
Q
Eric Leenders: Certainly. I will just build on Dan’s point regarding change requirements, to give a picture of the timespan involved. Typically, a change would involve the build—IT systems change and training, which is policy and procedures. We would also need to think about communications, including potentially into terms and conditions for the legals that sit around that. We would want to build monitoring systems to ensure that we have conformance and some form of review process. We have a three-line defence model, where the business runs the business, the second line checks the business, and the third line checks the checkers, so to speak. We then repeat that cycle. Putting that in place takes some time, which rather illustrates Dan’s desire for fewer changes and additions, because all of that would need to be considered.
The point on vulnerability is very well made. There is a slight health warning in my comments, because the Financial Conduct Authority is due to publish findings from a thematic review imminently, as I understand—within the next couple of months. The broad drivers we adhere to that they identify are around financial resilience—we touched on that point a little earlier—and physical and mental strain. There are potentially some mental strains for individuals who feel they may be under suspicion, particularly where those prove not to be founded. Life events are critical now—key in affordability, typically the driver for financial difficulty, and also capability. There are various measures, but as an industry we typically would work to a reading age of nine to ensure that the UK population understands the communications that they receive. In building out the guidance, it would be very helpful for a period of consultation so that we can get into the detail and forensics around those points.
Siân Berry
Q
Eric Leenders: It would always be within the gift of a consumer to open a separate account. They can then ask for the benefit to be paid into that account. There might be a risk, from a wider perspective, that potentially attorneys and landlords might no longer want to receive benefits directly because of the potential admin burdens through this Bill. I flag that as a consideration. I do not think it is necessarily a show-stopper but certainly it is something that I think from a vulnerability perspective we need to be alive to, because that might be an additional responsibility on a vulnerable person, for example, to pay the rent.
Georgia Gould
Q
Daniel Cichocki: The key thing for us now, as I said in relation to the DWP measures, is to start to look at the detail of the draft regulations and the code of practice that sit behind the powers, which we look forward to engaging on. Our broader observations are more on the DWP side. Across both elements of the Bill we welcome very strongly the independent review processes that have been built into the powers. We think the scope of those reviews could just consider some of the other factors that we know have been raised as questions around these powers. For instance, could there be more direct scope for that independent reviewer to consider the impact of some of the unintended consequences on vulnerable customers and the cost of compliance? Those are just some broader points on the independent review, but I think the principle of having one across both elements of the Bill is important.
Rebecca Smith
Q
Daniel Cichocki: In terms of broad principles, obviously wherever there is additional legislation and regulation on the sector, we would hope that that is proportionate. We anticipate doing further work with the Government to help to support the impact assessment as a result of the more detailed work when we see the draft code of practice, when we are better able to understand the methods through which this information will be shared, the practicalities of how it works, and the scale at which the powers will be used. We therefore anticipate more work being done around the impact assessment.
We would hope and anticipate that the Government would recognise that the impact on the private sector needs to be proportionate. As well as the cost implications around resource, this is also around prioritisation. To my earlier point, many of the teams that will be complying with this legislation will currently be complying with the broader legislation and regulation that we have in place, sharing information with the Government and law enforcement, and ensuring proportionality of how that resource is deployed. Certainly from an industry perspective, as a broad principle, we would see it as appropriate and desirable for much of that resource to be focused on serious and organised crime in the round.
Eric Leenders: I have a couple of brief points. First, one consideration is congestion. There is quite a crowded mandatory change stack, as we call it. There is a sequence of changes in train that firms are already implementing. Secondly, to your specific point about the cost-benefit analysis, we recognise the challenge that the cost will be direct, as in the build costs that we have just summarised. The benefits—reducing and deterring criminality generally, and perhaps even preventing it—are perhaps more indirect. I suppose that leads to another point: the extent to which we need to be thoughtful about circumvention and how to ensure that the legislation is suitably agile, so that bad actors cannot game the system no sooner than it has been introduced.
The Chair
There being no further questions, I thank our witnesses for their evidence. We will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witness
Ellen Lefley gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear from Ellen Lefley, senior lawyer at Justice. We have until half-past 3 o’clock.
Rebecca Smith
Q
Ellen Lefley: It is right that the bank power, which is the eligibility verification measure, is separated out in terms of proportionality because, just to clarify, it is important that the other powers of information, search, entry and seizure, which are extended by the Bill to the PSFA and to DWP, all contain that threshold form of words of needing “reasonable grounds” of suspicion or belief. That threshold for the exercise of state power requires reasonableness and objectivity—for there to be something there. That rule-of-law barrier prevents fishing expeditions and state intervention in people’s lives when there is simply nothing to it.
Any such form of words, however, is missing from the eligibility verification measure, which is why the privacy concerns and the concerns about the proportionality of the measure have been so concentrated. Justice is concerned about the proportionality of the measure precisely because it does not have that threshold of reasonable suspicion and because of the vast numbers that could be subject to it, albeit that the state pension has been taken out of scope—it was in scope before, under the almost-equivalent measure in the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill last year.
The concern is with the broadness of that power, the lack of a threshold and the fact that the fundamental right to privacy is involved. We all have a right to privacy, and we all have a right to enjoy our privacy in a non-discriminatory way, and that is the further issue that I would raise. I am sure that others will raise this today, too: the almost inevitable disproportionate impact that those financial surveillance powers will have on people who are disabled. There has been no equality impact assessment for this Bill, but there was for the previous one—not that it was released, I think, but it was the subject of a freedom of information request and I had sight of it. It revealed that, even though about 23% of the population at large are disabled, that figure is about 50% for the benefits-receiving population. There is that prima facie disparity. The financial privacy that is enjoyed by citizens of this country and people who reside here is less protected for disabled people than for others. That very much needs to be proportionate and justifiable, given the fundamental rights that are engaged.
Rebecca Smith
Q
Ellen Lefley: Reassurance cannot be the word, unfortunately, given the moment we are in, which is one of increasing automation and increasing investment in data analytics and machine learning across government. Last month, I think, we had a Government statement about mainlining AI into the veins of the nation—that includes the public sector. Knowing that that is coming and having a clear focus on how the functions in the Bill will be operationalised need to be a key concern.
The preservation of human intervention in decision making might have been a statement that has been made, but it is not on the face of the Bill. Indeed, we need to remember that the Data (Use and Access) Bill, which is also before Parliament, is removing the prohibition on fully automated decision making and profiling. That is happening concurrently with these powers. In addition, over the years, there have been numerous Horizon-like scandals that have happened in the benefits area. One, quite close to home in the Netherlands, was a childcare benefit scandal, which Committee members will know of. In that scandal, recipients of childcare benefit allowance in the Netherlands were subject to machine-learning algorithms that learnt to flag a fraud risk simply because of their dual nationality. So there is a problem here. Even with the powers that are subject to reasonable grounds, we need to have a wider discussion as to what reasonable means and what it definitely does not mean when we talk about reasonable grounds of suspicion, when suspicion is an exercise that is informed in a tech-assisted and technosocial decision-making environment.
Justice has some suggestions as to how reasonable grounds can be better glossed in the Bill in relation to generalisations and stereotypes that a certain type of person, simply because of their characteristics, is more likely to commit fraud than others. Perhaps it could be recorded in the Bill that that definitely is not reasonable.
Some useful wording from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act code of practice A is not in the Bill because it relates to the power to stop and search, which is not being given to DWP officers, probably rightly and proportionately, but some explicit paragraphs in the code of practice for stop and search for police officers say that they cannot stop and search someone based on their protected characteristics. Under the Equality Act 2010, they cannot exercise their discretion to stop and search someone due to generalisations and stereotypes about a certain type of person’s propensity to commit criminal activity. Amendments like those could strengthen the Bill against unreasonable, but perhaps not always detectable suspicions being imbued by machine-learning algorithms. Of course, if there will always be a human intervention in the decision-making process, perhaps that could be explicitly recorded in the Bill as well.
Andrew Western
Q
Ellen Lefley: They make up a larger number of the cohort, so we would analyse a prima facie indirect discrimination potential risk there, which would then need to be justified as being necessary and proportionate. The proportionality assessment of course is for Parliament, but we consider that a significant amount of scrutiny is required not only because of the privacy impacts, but because there is that clear indirect discrimination aspect. I am not alleging direct—
Andrew Western
Q
Ellen Lefley: Raising the risk of indirect discrimination when you have cohorts of the population that are disproportionately reflected in any subcommunity of the population that will be exposed to any power is a relevant consideration, so yes in that respect. When it comes to the eligibility-verification measures, the proportionality analysis is, in our view, strained because there is not that threshold of reasonable suspicion. The mere fact that benefits recipients are in receipt of public funds makes them subject to this power. Of course, that could go further; all the public servants and MPs in this room are in receipt of public funds. If that is the threshold that we as a society are happy with, some real scrutiny of its proportionality is required, because it is a power that can require private financial information.
Andrew Western
Q
Ellen Lefley: When I speak about proportionality, the degree of loss is relevant, but there is no question but that the economic wellbeing of the country is a legitimate aim. On whether measures are proportionate to achieving that aim, we must consider not only whether there is any reasonable suspicion, but the degree of external oversight. The Bill includes that consideration, and there are various ways in which some of the powers are subject to independent review.
We have some suggestions as to how those independent review mechanisms can be a stronger safeguard and therefore make the measures more proportionate. For example, the independent review mechanisms seem to have the ability to access information but no power to demand it. That raises a query as to transparency and the full ability of the independent reviewer in different circumstances to meet their objectives. Also, when an independent reviewer lays their report before Parliament with recommendations and those recommendations are not going to be adopted, it might be helpful for there to be an obligation on the Department to provide reasons why not. That would be a more transparent way of ensuring that the oversight measure is as effective as intended.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Q
Ellen Lefley: On the £35 billion figure, I think the benefits fraud and error figure was around £10 billion, and I think £7 billion can be shown to be fraud. I am sorry if I have got that wrong.
Andrew Western
Q
Ellen Lefley: I am grateful. It is a difficult one. For example, we could have almost zero crime in this country if everyone’s house had 24/7 surveillance installed. There will always be a way of decreasing privacy to increase state surveillance and therefore reduce unwanted behaviour, but the balance needs to be struck. Justice’s view is that when the state is getting new powers to investigate people’s private affairs, the balance is struck by having that reasonable suspicion threshold, which requires reasonable grounds for believing that a crime has been committed. That ensures that the powers given to the state in any primary legislation are not open to abuse or arbitrariness. Of course, the laws in the statute book must be written narrowly so that they protect rights on the face of it, rather than being written broadly and relying on the self-restraint of future Administrations to exercise them proportionately.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Q
Ellen Lefley: We continue to have concerns, acknowledging that there are two key oversight mechanisms in the Bill that were not in the previous one: this independent reviewer role and the code of practice. It would be far easier for Justice, but more importantly for Parliament, to be assured of the proportionality of any human rights infringement if that code of practice were before us.
Paragraph 79 of the human rights memorandum to the Bill notes that the code of practice will significantly impact whether the EVN measures are proportionate and prevent arbitrary interference with people’s privacy. It would therefore be very helpful to see that detail in order for Parliament to be confident about the content of that code of practice and how these powers will actually be used.
Mike Wood
Q
Ellen Lefley: I will try to give a very brief summary of the wider legislative framework that operates with respect to artificial intelligence in general. There are, of course, human rights obligations on any public authority or any authority exercising public functions, as well as equality obligations against direct and indirect discrimination. There is the data protection framework, which of course relates to personal data. Then there are different obligations on artificial intelligence use within different sectoral areas.
Mike Wood
Q
Ellen Lefley: That is where it gets quite tricky, because of course the first barrier would be even knowing that you have been subject to any kind of algorithmic decision making or algorithmic-assisted decision making. If you have been subject to a completely automated decision, the new data Bill that is coming through will enable you to make representations and to request human intervention after the fact. But if algorithms are assisting a human decision-making process, there is no right to be notified, let alone to complain.
The position of someone who has been subject to one of these decision-making processes also needs to be considered in a very realistic way. The motivation, empowerment, means and brain space to complain in such circumstances cannot always be relied on. Justice is clear that while access to redress is always important, preventing unfair and discriminatory decision making always needs to be the priority.
The Chair
There being no further questions, I thank the witness for her evidence. We will now move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witness
Mark Cheeseman OBE gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Mark Cheeseman OBE, chief executive of the Public Sector Fraud Authority. We have until 3.50 pm.
Mike Wood
Q
Mark Cheeseman: The practical benefit to consider is that the place from where these powers are operated will have some degree of independence and separation from Ministers. That is a practice you would see in other circumstances as well, so it may give Parliament some assurance. That is balanced up against the cost.
Mike Wood
Q
Mark Cheeseman: In the Bill, the Minister passes the powers to authorised officers. The authorised officers could be in that statutory body, and the authorised officers would be the ones who use the powers to do that. Those authorised officers would be people who have experience working in fraud and are part of the Government counter-fraud profession.
Mike Wood
Q
Mark Cheeseman: The Bill currently lays it to the authorised officers. One of the transformations that has been going on in Government is the professionalisation of counter-fraud work. We now have a counter-fraud profession. There are now professional standards where, a while back, there were not, for a lot of investigations in the public sector. There are professional standards and practices, and a code of ethics for people who work in the sector. That sets a standard for the knowledge, skills and experience that the authorised officers exercising the powers would have. As to what level they are, that aligns with current practice and what you would see across the public sector.
Mike Wood
Q
Mark Cheeseman: The Public Sector Fraud Authority has been created by bringing together people from other spaces. These powers are designed by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. We heard from Richard Las earlier about the powers that HMRC uses to take action on suspected fraud where it has reasonable cause to do so. It is some of those experts who have come and developed these powers. I feel that that capability will come into the organisation, through which the organisation will be able to use the powers.
Mike Wood
Q
Mark Cheeseman: Absolutely. The code of practice will be developed alongside the legislation, as is standard practice.
Mike Wood
We saw this in other legislation under the previous Government. It is not uncommon for Ministers to give an undertaking that at least a draft code might be published before legislation returns to Parliament for final decisions to be made. I know this is, perhaps, a question to ask of Ministers in a future session, but what are your thoughts on developing a draft code that parliamentarians might be able to look at whilst making those decisions, given that the legislation is now well under way? Is that something that you feel is a long way away, or would it be possible to have at least an outline of a draft code in a reasonably short period of time? I accept that there will be developments as we learn with experience.
Mark Cheeseman: I will leave Ministers to answer that question later, but we are developing the codes of practice now. The reason I talked about who has come into the Public Sector Fraud Authority to think about this is because it is not from scratch; we are basing it off current practice elsewhere. We are now developing those and they are under way, but I will leave it for Ministers to respond on the timescale.
Mike Wood
Q
Mark Cheeseman: It is important to remember that the 10 days in the legislation is a minimum. It is the lowest that would be used. It is not saying that it will always be 10 days. One of the witnesses earlier highlighted that some of the organisations will have standard practices where they could respond in that time—they will be set up to do so. The time that is given will be dependent on the organisation you are interacting with, the individual you are interacting with and what is reasonable. Our fraud investigators are trying to balance the expediency of doing the investigation with making sure that people can respond, and that it is a fair and reasonable time to respond. The balance is there, and we should remember that that timescale is a minimum.
Mike Wood
Q
Mark Cheeseman: It is slightly different—it goes back within the structure, but the review of that decision is done by a separate authorised officer from the original authorised officer who did it.
Mike Wood
Q
Mark Cheeseman: The process as set out in the legislation is within the organisation, but there is an extra safeguard of an independent chair who will review the decisions taken by authorised officers. One would expect that that would be on a sampling basis, but we will be reviewing those decisions. If there are practices where those timescales look unreasonable, the independent chair could pick up on that and ask for action to be taken on it.
Mike Wood
Q
Mark Cheeseman: There will be case-by-case review, but you are right; it will be more, “Here is an issue that should be dealt with, and here’s how”.
Andrew Western
Q
Mark Cheeseman: My view is that the Bill does strike that balance, and it tries to strike the balance. It is difficult, because you need to balance the ability to take action against someone who has committed fraud against the state with having fair and reasonable processes for looking at someone who has not. The purpose of an investigation is not to find fraud; it is to find fact. That is why we have professionals who are trained and have a code of ethics around objectivity; their role is to find fact, not fraud. The Bill tries to strike that balance both by having authorised officers and by having the oversight that is in place. The Government structure, in having the counter-fraud profession, provides some of that as well. My view of the Bill is that there is a fair amount of independent oversight—that is a good thing—to increase how well things are done.
Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)
Q
Mark Cheeseman: Of course. When we estimate fraud, we estimate fraud and error, as the NAO has done. The NAO used the methodology that we have used previously. We have not repeated that yet, because it has gone ahead of us in the cycle. I have no reason to indicate that its estimate is incorrect, but that is its estimate, and Joshua was here earlier.
We estimate fraud and error as a whole, rather than fraud separately, but what we have seen in the fraud data is that detected fraud in the public sector has risen over the past few years. We have published that. Some was due to covid, but some is in other spaces. Earlier witnesses indicated that the threat has risen and that there are some changes in the perception of fraud and of how people may approach it.
My perspective is that the level of fraud and error in the system is high. There is waste there, and Parliament itself has challenged the Government on what more they can do to deal with it. The threat is rising, and therefore in my position, I think that the powers will help to take action on that. There is more to do to drive down waste and to reduce fraud in the system.
Michael Payne
Q
Mark Cheeseman: I will come back to what I said about the counter-fraud profession. We are one of the only countries in the world with professional standards published. Those are used by the police, the Serious Fraud Office and HMRC. They use these types of powers successfully on a regular basis. We would have exactly the same standard of investigator—both by bringing them in and by training them up to those standards—who would use these powers if and when they are in place.
Georgia Gould
Q
Mark Cheeseman: Yes. Apologies—that was a slip when I answered earlier. Yes, the powers of the Minister—it is written as “the Minister” in the Bill—are delegated to authorised officers, who sit in the PSFA. They would be qualified to the standards of the profession, and they would be taking the decision. What I was referring to earlier is that any review decision, if someone asked for a review, would be taken by a separate authorised officer. There are a number of provisions in the Bill to enable people within the process to make an information-gathering request or to ask for something else to be reviewed.
Georgia Gould
Q
Mark Cheeseman: Absolutely. That decision is made by the authorised officers, based on their experience of weighing up both proportionality and how they can engage with the organisation or individual they are asking for that information, and that individual or organisation can request a review of that request.
Georgia Gould
Q
Mark Cheeseman: Absolutely. First, the PSFA has been brought together from experts across the system. We have brought in experts not just from within the public sector, but from other sectors, and we also work with other countries to understand what they do on this. We have been consulting very widely with the public sector, and a number of the people who have come to look at this have looked at it from the point of view of what they could not achieve in their own public bodies and therefore how they could take more action and what that power would look like. We have also brought together other investigators and asked them what they think the optimal powers are and what the proportionality aspect and the safeguards should be, and considered that. We have done quite broad consultation within the public sector, but we have also asked local authorities what their views are on other aspects such as that.
Georgia Gould
Q
Mark Cheeseman: The Public Sector Fraud Authority has two elements to it. One is overseeing Government and how individual Departments are doing in dealing with fraud and what they are doing on it; the Bill itself says that Departments would refer cases to the PSFA and ask for them to be dealt with under it. The second is providing some of the services that support Departments around taking action on fraud where it happens.
The biggest difference we will make, alongside that, is through prevention. We heard from witnesses earlier about the use of data and analytics. We have a data and analytics service that works with public bodies to use that to find and prevent fraud up-front. We also have a risk service that works with other parts of the public sector to understand the risks they face, in order again to prevent those risks by putting in controls.
While there will always be that balance, there will also always be some element of fraud that is still committed. We will not be able to design a system where there is no fraud risk or design out fraud. There will always be cause for an efficient, effective and proportionate part of the machine to take action on those instances of fraud and to investigate them thoroughly and properly.
Rebecca Smith
Q
Mark Cheeseman: Again, I do not know whether it would need to be in the Bill; that would be for you to debate. As it gets past the authorised officer, there is a structure: there are senior leaders with deep experience in investigating fraud who are overseeing them. We have structures of senior investigation officers overseeing your investigators and the individual authorised officers. While it may feel like a big jump, there is a structure to ensure quality, to ensure the right practices, and so on. That directly compares with what happens elsewhere.
I am pretty comfortable that “authorised officers” is a term used elsewhere. I recognise what you say about the seniority of grade; I had to have a wry smile, because it took me a while to get to HEO and SEO—higher executive officer and senior executive officer—but those are still senior, experienced roles. They are experienced administrators with a high level of skillset and expertise doing those roles. Part of the reason for creating the counter-fraud profession is to show the expertise and capability that those experienced counter-fraud experts have in taking action on fraud.
The Chair
There being no further questions, I thank the witness for his evidence and we will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witness
Jasleen Chaggar gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Jasleen Chaggar, the legal and policy officer at Big Brother Watch. We have until 4.10 pm.
Rebecca Smith
Q
Jasleen Chaggar: We recognise that the Bill is different from the previous Conservative Government’s Bill and some changes have been made. However, we are still concerned that the purported safeguards in the Bill are really insufficient. One of the major safeguards that is pointed to as a reassurance is the fact that financial transaction information and special category data will not be handed over to the DWP from the banks. However, it is a circular safeguard in reality, because once the account number and name of the individual has been passed on to the DWP, it can very easily go back to the bank and request that granular financial information. That is incredibly privacy invasive, as you will know, so we are still concerned about the safeguards in the Bill.
A similar safeguard is the provision for an independent person, but there are no safeguards about what qualifications that person should have. They are expected to provide an annual report to Parliament, but we are concerned that their oversight role is more to do with enforcement than accountability. There are provisions about the efficiency of the measures but no provisions about how they impact equality or the adverse consequences on benefits recipients, so we are not reassured by these safeguards.
Rebecca Smith
Q
Jasleen Chaggar: Is that in relation to—
Rebecca Smith
Particularly in relation to bank account details and information on spending, and that sort of thing, which you just used as an example.
Jasleen Chaggar: On the eligibility verification measures—what we are calling the bank spying powers—we are recommending that they be removed in their entirety. They really are unprecedented financial surveillance powers. There are no other laws like this in this country. The powers would permit generalised mass surveillance of everybody’s bank accounts. It is not just benefits claimants who will be targeted; it is everyone’s accounts, including yours and mine. They will be scanned using algorithmic software to make sure that the eligibility indicators are not met. Even if you are a benefits recipient, you can appoint an individual—a parent, a guardian, an appointed person or your landlord—to receive the benefit on your behalf, so those people will also be pulled into the net of surveillance. We do not really see a way in which these measures could ever be proportionate.
Andrew Western
Q
Jasleen Chaggar: What is really important about the Bill is the conflation of fraud and error. It is not just people suspected of serious crime, or even low-level crime, who are pulled into the net of surveillance. It is also people who, while navigating the complexities of the benefits system, may have found themselves on the wrong side of making a benefits claim and made a mistake. It also involves DWP’s own errors, which make up one in 10 errors. What is critical when we are thinking about the Bill is that it is suspicionless surveillance that applies to everyone.
Andrew Western
Q
Jasleen Chaggar: There is another difference between HMRC recovering money and the DWP recovering money. When you think about the types of individuals these powers will be recovering money from, they are among some of the most vulnerable in our society. There are people living on the breadline, disabled people, elderly people and carers, who will all be dragged into this surveillance. The risk of errors caused by the automated system that is proposed will, therefore, have a dispro- portionate effect on those groups of people. There is a difference, if that is the case, between the powers being used by HMRC and the DWP.
Andrew Western
Q
Jasleen Chaggar: I am not aware of powers that are similar to eligibility verification notices that are exercised by the DWP. I am aware that they have similar powers in relation to direct deduction orders, and maybe that is the distinction that the witnesses earlier were making.
Andrew Western
Q
You talk about the inclusion of error, as well as fraud, in what we are attempting to do here. Do you accept that there is the potential, through the effective use of the eligibility verification measure, to detect overpayments through error sooner, thereby reducing any overpayment because it would come to light earlier?
Jasleen Chaggar: Yes, and to stop people getting into debt is an incredibly laudable aim. The question is whether we are willing to infringe the privacy rights of the entirety of the population to do that. Perhaps a more proportionate solution would be to make it easier for those benefits claimants who are making mistakes to navigate the system in the first place.
Coming back to your previous point, if you were happy to send me information about those powers, I would be happy to get back to you with our position on those.
Andrew Western
Q
Jasleen Chaggar: I accept that the Government are purporting that this is a sufficient safeguard, but I propose that it is not, because of that circularity.
Andrew Western
Q
Jasleen Chaggar: Absolutely. We believe as much as anyone that fraud and error need to be tackled in this country. Our position is that the best way to do that is through intelligence-led policing, where there is suspicion of fraud and not just of error, that is well resourced. In relation to error, as I have said, we think that making the benefits system easier to navigate in the first place, and the DWP getting its own house in order to avoid its own errors, are far better, more proportionate and privacy-preserving solutions than the ones proposed in the Bill.
Andrew Western
Q
Jasleen Chaggar: I think that it is important that suspicion has already arisen before those policing powers can be enacted. The police already have powers to request that granular financial information where there is suspicion of fraud.
Andrew Western
Q
Jasleen Chaggar: I think that there are ways to address this. We are a civil liberties organisation, and our job is to be a watchdog and to ensure that privacy rights are preserved. I do not have a solution for how the police should find out whether someone is suspicious, but we should not sacrifice the privacy rights of us all just to find out whether we should be suspicious of someone when no suspicion exists. As I said, it is a disproportionate power.
Siân Berry
Q
Jasleen Chaggar: Our view is that the powers will only ever be proportionate if they uphold the presumption of innocence, due process and judicial oversight, and any privacy infringements are set out in law and are necessary and proportionate. We feel that a code of conduct would be insufficient, because it would just defer those legal protections to some other time. Also, if an individual has a problem as a result of the use of the powers, they are unable to enforce their rights through a code of conduct. Setting out the protections in legislation would create a far more rights-preserving framework, with which we would definitely feel more comfortable.
Siân Berry
Q
Jasleen Chaggar: We are really concerned about the unintended consequences of the Bill. We appreciate that there has been an effort to tackle fraud and error, which is a serious problem, but we also have to consider the adverse and unintended consequences. One of those is the algorithmic error that can occur when automated systems are used on a population-wide scale. If the algorithms are scanning the bank accounts of 10 million people, an error rate of just 1% will result in 100,000 cases where innocent people are wrongfully investigated.
We are also really concerned about the human backstop element. The DWP has assured us that there will be human involvement in any investigations on the back of receiving this data, but when you receive such a deluge of information from the banks, that calls into question whether the human involvement will be meaningful. The impact assessment acknowledges that by saying that we might have to slow down the rate at which we receive all this data from banks. We are very concerned about the false positives, and about the devastating effects that they would have on the lives of the individuals who are wrongfully investigated.
Benefits recipients, who are already subjected to burdens in terms of documentation requirements, will find themselves subjected to an investigation by the DWP. We have heard from dozens of disability rights and elderly rights groups about the anxiety and stress that this will cause. Also, when benefits recipients are under investigation, they can find that their benefits are suspended, meaning that they will not have the money to pay for food, medical bills or heating bills. So the equality impact also has to be considered, and we have not actually seen an equalities impact assessment for the Bill either, which is a concern.
The Chair
There being no further questions, I thank the witness for her evidence. We will move on to the next panel.
Jasleen Chaggar: Thank you for having me.
Examination of Witnesses
Geoff Fimister and Rick Burgess gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Geoff Fimister, of the Campaign for Disability Justice, and Rick Burgess, from the Greater Manchester Disabled People’s Panel, who joins us via video link. For this panel, we have until 4.40 pm. I have introduced the witnesses already, so we will go straight to Rebecca Smith.
Rebecca Smith
Q
Geoff Fimister: I should say, first of all, that the Campaign for Disability Justice was launched relatively recently—a few months ago—by Inclusion Barnet. We now have a substantial number of individuals—several hundred—supporting us, as well as a substantial number of organisations, ranging from large charities to grassroots disabled people’s organisations, so we get quite a lot of feedback.
I suppose our concern with the Bill include a broad aspect, but also a very specific aspect as to how it may impact disabled people. The broad aspect is that, because it focuses very much on means-tested benefits, it will, by definition, disproportionately affect people on low incomes, and disproportionately affect disabled people, because they are more likely to be on low incomes than others.
The practical issue, which I think has attracted the most concern, from the conversations I have had, is false positives, as the previous witness, Jasleen Chaggar, mentioned. We are all familiar with a world in which we have problems with malfunctioning technology. Every few months, my internet provider locks my inbox because of “suspicious activities”, which have included sending an email to an MP’s researcher or one to Mencap. Every now and then, my bank freezes my wife’s and my bank accounts because of “suspicious activity”, such as, on one occasion, purchasing a sandwich from a Marks and Spencer in Deptford.
That might sound entertaining, but it is a serious business; this tech goes wrong, and I think the previous witness made the point that, if large numbers of people are embraced by this kind of trawl, it will go wrong for a percentage of them. We do not know whether that will be a large or a small percentage, but even a small percentage of a big number is a lot of people. People being left without any income if technology triggers the cessation of their benefit is a serious business. Not having any income can cause hardship, debt and stress. In extreme cases, there can be serious health and safety issues. Disabled people are concerned about that kind of eventuality.
As to what we can do about it, I understand the thrust of the Bill and where it is coming from. In parliamentary terms, it has widespread backing, although a number of reservations have been expressed. We would like to see some sort of safeguard whereby benefits could not be stopped unless and until it was established that there was an overpayment—not that the DWP thinks that there might have been because the tech spotted something. We do not want to see a “shoot first and ask questions” later approach. If we could have some protection along those lines, that would be helpful.
Rick Burgess: I stress that I am from the Greater Manchester Coalition of Disabled People. The panel is something we do, but I am not speaking in that role today.
There are particular worries about how this affects people living with mental distress, particularly those with diagnoses of paranoia, schizophrenia, depression or anxiety. This adds to the feeling of being monitored, followed and surveilled, because you literally are being surveilled by your bank on behalf of the Government. So it will necessarily reduce the wellbeing of disabled people who are claiming benefits that are monitored by the system. There is no getting away from that.
On the potential risks, when you enter a trawling operation, you are not targeting it in any way; you are simply looking at everyone. So the error rate becomes extremely important. We do not know exactly what the technology is. We have not seen the equality impact assessment, but even if it had a failure rate of 0.1%, which would be a quite respectable systemic failure rate—it is pretty acceptable in a lot of these areas—that is still 1,000 people per million scanned. If you are talking about even the means-tested benefits, that is going to run to thousands of people getting false positives. If you think about the entire DWP caseload, which is 22.6 million people, that is over 22,000 people. Bearing in mind that the Post Office scandal involved fewer than 1,000 people, you are at the inception stage of something that could be the greatest miscarriage of justice in British history, if you go ahead with this with untested technology that has not had proper impact assessments.
I stress, though, that we are against this measure in its totality because it treats disabled people as a separate population who should have lower privacy rights than the general population. In that respect, given that the United Nations has condemned the UK twice in a row for grave and systemic human rights abuses, this is going further in the wrong direction and failing to address the failures identified by the UN. It is further marking disabled people for additional state oppression and surveillance, which, as I said, will necessarily be harmful to a great many of the people under the surveillance regime.
Andrew Western
Q
Rick Burgess: Because we are over-represented in those classes. If you choose to target it at those cohorts, you are accepting an additional level of targeting towards disabled people, which is discriminatory.
Andrew Western
Q
Rick Burgess: I think it does edge into that. There is certainly established thinking and case law that begins to establish that. The Equality and Human Rights Commission need to be brought into this urgently. There need to be public and transparent equality impact assessments, because I do not see how this does not breach a right to privacy and represent discrimination against groups who are over-represented in these cohorts.
Andrew Western
Q
Rick Burgess: It is about where that measure is one of a number of additional enforcement measures, rules or laws that would have negative consequences. The key to this is the trawling nature of the technology; it is not targeted, beyond being aimed at everyone on UC, everyone on ESA and so on. When you trawl, you do not target, and then you have a huge cohort. If, in that cohort, you have over-representation, without even thinking about it, you have then enacted a level of discrimination, because of the trawling nature of this approach.
If this approach applied to everybody on benefits, that would also be slightly questionable, because you are applying a different level of privacy to people who get an award from the DWP versus people who do not. If it applied to the whole country, I suppose that would be fairer in one respect, but it would also be a breach of everyone’s privacy, which goes to another question.
In terms of this measure being important for Government revenue, the amount lost to the tax gap is more than four times more—we are talking about £9.1 billion, but the tax gap is over £39 billion. You would recover more money if you subjected the whole country to this measure, but I would suggest that the reason you do not subject the whole country to it is that there would be outrage, because people would find their rights to privacy being completely abused.
Applying this measure in these targeted ways suggests a level of, “Well, these are people who perhaps have less rights to privacy than the general population.” If you are happy to have your bank account monitored in this way, fine, but you have not suggested that this should apply to the general population. You have suggested that it should apply to a population who receive benefits, and within that population there is an over-representation of disabled people, who are already exhaustively monitored, reviewed and tested and having to provide proof, whether that is for a blue badge, personal independence payment, ESA, universal credit or a concessionary pass on public transport.
The life of a disabled person is to be constantly tested and examined and having to produce proof, and this is another step in that. That is why this is germane to the United Nations report on the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. We have continued down the road of removing rights, not respecting them, and of subjecting disabled people to greater scrutiny, greater surveillance and greater tests of their basic rights to be a citizen of this country. It is really quite distressing for disabled people to be in this position.
Not only have we had two really damning reports from the United Nations, but the new Government is actually adopting old policies of the previous Government and continuing on that road. The level of anger and distress in the disabled community is absolutely enormous. It is really difficult to explain to people that this is not an obvious attack, or one motivated by ableist assumptions about how disabled people run their lives or whether they are more or less honest, or more or less genuine, than people who are not disabled. It is really hard going for us—I have to tell you that. Disabled people in Britain have had a decade and a half of being the scapegoat of this country, and it has to stop. This measure is actually making it worse, as opposed to stopping that scapegoating.
Geoff Fimister: I just want to add something to a point that Rick made. We both made the point that the discriminatory aspect relating to disabled people arises, in the immediate sense, from the fact that these means-tested benefits are primarily in scope at the moment, and disabled people are disproportionately likely to be on low incomes. It is worth adding that if this measure were to be extended at a future stage to a wider range of benefits, potentially bringing disability benefits into scope, that would be even more sharp discrimination against disabled people.
They are not theoretical points that Rick has been making—there is a really raw feeling among disabled people that they are being targeted. In the context of quite a lot of negative media publicity around the interface between employment and unemployment among disabled people, there is an unpleasant atmosphere for disabled people. That is certainly the feedback that we are getting.
Andrew Western
I will not ask any more questions, but I just say to Rick that I think it might be helpful for a follow-up conversation to take place. Without wishing to get into a protracted argument, there were some things that I did not recognise as part of the Bill, but clearly that is how people are feeling and how the people you represent are feeling. I am very happy to ask officials to pick up a conversation to go through the detail.
The Chair
There being no further questions, I thank the panel for their evidence, which was robustly delivered.
Examination of Witnesses
Andrew Western and Georgia Gould gave evidence.
The Chair
For the final session, we have the Ministers in charge of the Bill. We have until 5 pm. You have been participating actively in the proceedings already, but could both of you please introduce yourselves for the record?
Andrew Western: I am Andrew Western, Minister for Transformation at the DWP.
Georgia Gould: I am Georgia Gould, the Minister for public sector reform at the Cabinet Office, with responsibility for fraud against the public sector.
Mike Wood
Q
Andrew Western: For the DWP part of the Bill, there will be three individual codes of practice: one for the eligibility verification measure, one for the debt recovery measure and one for the information gathering measure. As for exactly how they will work, you will appreciate that we are able to talk only in general terms at the moment, because that will depend on what the final version of the Bill looks like. That is why we do not currently have a code of practice that we can share.
Perhaps it will be helpful if I say a bit about how we intend to engage both Houses on the content of the codes of practice. For the Bill Committee, I will provide an outline of what will be covered by the draft codes of practice as we come to each of the relevant clauses, allowing the Committee to provide feedback on what they feel should be in there.
Beyond that, we intend—there are ongoing engagements, as you heard earlier from, for instance, UK Finance—to publish a draft version of the codes of practice as they pertain to the DWP in time for the House of Lords Committee stage, so it will also have the opportunity to play into the conversation on that. Ultimately, there will be a final statutory public consultation on the content of the codes of practice. It is difficult to say with any sort of exactness or precision what the codes of practice will look like at this stage, without knowing what amendments, if any, will be made to the Bill. But I know that Georgia has a code of practice on her side as well.
Georgia Gould: I do, and the same applies. As we go through the clauses, I will share with the Committee where we are on the codes of practice in relation to those clauses. We are working on the same timeline set out by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston. For the PSFA, within the Bill, it requires a code of practice that is particularly focused on penalties, in clause 60. Beyond that mandatory content, the intention is that the code of practice will also include information on safeguards and vulnerability assessments when it applies to the PSFA powers for investigating individuals, and more detailed information on the various reviews and appeals.
Mike Wood
Q
Andrew Western: That is the route we are taking. Obviously, Members have an opportunity to suggest what they would like to see in the code. The code is primarily an operational document rather than one on the general principles in the Bill and what we are trying to achieve through it. I absolutely understand that Members will want to see that, but we are simply not able to bring forward a final code of practice. It would not be possible to do that without knowing what is in the Bill. We can commit to sharing a draft as soon as we are able, but even that would be subject to change. It is not unusual, as I understand it, for this to be the case.
Mike Wood
Q
Andrew Western: All I would say is that that is the timeline we are proposing to follow. We will share the draft code of practice as soon as we are able to do so for all the measures that have them.
Mike Wood
Q
Andrew Western: I am happy to confirm precisely—because it may be that Members, as we go through the Committee stage, make it very clear what their expectations would be—what the current proposal is before we go into line-by-line scrutiny on Thursday.
Mike Wood
Yes.
Andrew Western: Because they are iterative documents that will change as we go through the test-and-learn phase. In particular, we are looking to introduce the eligibility verification measure in quite a cautious manner initially to check that it works, and to check that we do not have the sort of overreach that some witnesses have suggested may be the case. We want to be certain that the false positives that we have talked about and that witnesses have raised are minimised as best as possible. It is to enable flexibility so that we have the maximum potential to make any changes that we require, but obviously we would update the House as and when we were to do that.
Mike Wood
Q
Andrew Western: I would be very happy to have that conversation, should you want to table any amendments in that regard.
Mike Wood
Q
Andrew Western: I would not accept that and I do not think that that is the case. I would say that we require that flexibility. Even with the six weeks, if there are problems in the process, we would potentially need to act more swiftly than that, based on feedback from stakeholders. As I said, colleagues are very welcome to table amendments if they want to secure any changes in that regard.
Neil Coyle
Q
The Chair
That is a matter for debate. I think it is probably a question for the Library. Let us carry on with the questioning.
Mike Wood
Q
“Where it is proposed to introduce a code of practice in a way or for a purpose which departs from the guidance below, Ministers should be aware that this is likely to be controversial, particularly in the House of Lords.”
Have officials brought that to your attention?
Andrew Western: As I said earlier, we hope to have a draft code of practice by the time we reach the House of Lords Committee Stage. Clearly, alongside consideration of that guidance, as I said—and it was reiterated by Mr Coyle—this has not been unusual practice in recent years, as I understand it.
Mike Wood
Q
“the drafting of the code ought to begin early enough to enable a decision as to whether statutory provision is required”.
Has that drafting been done early enough?
Andrew Western: As I said, we will debate this in more detail as we come to the relevant stages. I think that we have done this in sufficient time to enable us to consult, as we are required to do, on the statutory code of practice and to ensure that both Houses can see it as it makes its way through the process.
Mike Wood
Q
“if Parliament is to be asked to enact statutory provisions relating to a code,”
which appears to be the case in this instance,
“a draft of the proposed code should if at all possible be made available so that the appropriateness of the statutory provisions can be properly considered.”
Obviously, that is part of the legislative process. Should we not have that information? Why should only the House of Lords be provided with that?
Andrew Western: I suspect that at that point you are asking a procedural question, so I am not best placed to answer it.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
Q
Andrew Western: In the DWP space, we estimate that the amount would be £1.5 billion over the forecast period. That roughly equates to around £950 million on the eligibility verification measure, with the overwhelming majority of the rest—in fact, almost all of it—coming from the debt recovery power. There are also potentially significant savings over time that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office may want to outline with regard to the PSFA powers. I realise that they are scalable; they start off small-scale. Minister Gould, would you like to come in on the potential?
Georgia Gould: They are more modest in the first instance. We are estimating just under £60 million-worth of savings. We are testing the new models. If the model is successful, there is potential to scale that up. We think that this is the first time we are introducing powers to take on fraud in the wider public sector outside tax and welfare. A huge amount of fraud has gone uninvestigated. We think the deterrent impact of this will be substantial.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
Q
Andrew Western: As I have highlighted in my questions to witnesses throughout the day, there is the potential, through the eligibility verification measure, for a number of overpayments to be detected earlier than they would have been otherwise, thereby avoiding the large numbers that we have seen people rack up in overpayments through, for instance, the carer’s allowance challenges that we have seen in recent years.
The breadth of the conversation we are looking to have with people who are in debt with the Department is significant. We heard about the MoneyHelper service, on which the Money and Pensions Service works with us. That is just one of a range of organisations and packages that we utilise to support people who are in debt. We know that, whatever the reason—whether it is fraud or error, but particularly, as you say, if it is error—it is an incredibly stressful time for people.
In debt recovery terms, the power that we are taking is intended to be a power of last resort. What we always want to do, having been through all the things that you would expect us to do—the vulnerability management framework that was referenced earlier and the assessment that we make of people’s ability to pay—is to agree an affordable repayment plan. By the time we reach the point where we are looking for a direct deduction order, we would have looked to engage somebody on multiple occasions, contacting them several times and trying to agree that plan. This is for people we have no other means of engaging. It is as much a lever to try to bring them to the table and have the sorts of conversations you referenced as anything else.
This is also about addressing the existing fundamental unfairness. We can directly deduct from somebody in receipt of benefits, by deducting from that benefit entitlement, and we can do the same for someone in pay-as-you-earn employment, but we do not have that opportunity for people in receipt of income through other means—most obviously, but not exclusively, self-employed people. There is a fundamental point about addressing that inequity in the system. Having made those financial assessments, we know that these are people who can afford to pay. We have tried to reach out with the wraparound support that you suggested, and ultimately, they continue to refuse to engage.
Michael Payne
Q
Andrew Western: As it relates to the DWP—I do not know whether you want to say anything about the PFSA powers later, Georgia—it is worth reflecting that the proposed eligibility verification power is in effect a data-push power. The banks will not make any decisions as to someone’s culpability, on what penalty they might receive, or on whether the overpayment flagged on the account is legitimate; all the banks will do is send back a marker against an account to suggest that someone is in breach of their eligibility requirements.
For example, that might include someone who has more than £16,000 in their account, but is in receipt of universal credit. It is important to say that the flag is then passed to a human investigator to analyse the information and look at what the reasons may be, because there can be very legitimate reasons why someone has more than £16,000 in their account and is still entitled to benefits, such as someone who has received a compensation payment that is out of scope of what would be considered capital for benefit-eligibility reasons.
In all the five principal measures on the DWP side of the Bill, a human is involved in the decision making: on eligibility verification, it is passed to an investigator; on information gathering, when we receive information, it is passed to an investigator to consider the next steps in a fraud investigation; on debt recovery, an individual—a person—would make a decision as to someone’s ability to repay a debt; and on penalties reform as proposed, a human will determine what actions will be taken against a person who received a penalty for fraud against a DWP grant scheme. That is entirely the way that it works with any other penalty that can already be applied. Finally, on the powers of search and seizure, as we would expect, a human judge will take a decision on whether to issue a warrant. At every stage, a human decision maker is baked in before any final decision on sanction or otherwise.
Rebecca Smith
Q
Andrew Western: A draft code of practice will not be available at that stage, so I will speak in general terms about what we intend to include, but there will not be a written document at that stage.
Rebecca Smith
Q
Now the question that I was coming to, if I may. The state pension has been explicitly excluded from the eligibility verification measure, and the three means-tested benefits are the initial focus. I wonder why the Government have left it open to include other non-means-tested benefits in future, and what data would the Government ask for in those cases?
Andrew Western: The state pension is excluded—because of the particular nature of the eligibility criteria for state pension and the consequently incredibly small amount of fraud that we see on it—considering the number of people we would have to bring into scope of the measure to go after what is a tiny amount of fraud. It is not considered proportionate to do that, as far as I am concerned.
The determination that we have made as to the three benefits that should initially be in scope is entirely predicated on current levels of fraud and error. We want to retain the ability, if necessary, to bring other benefits into scope, should there be a surge in fraud in those benefit areas. We do not anticipate this, but we want to future-proof the Bill as best as we can, should there be any material changes in the level of fraud in those areas. For instance, if we consider the tiny amount of fraud in the state pension versus the £1 in every £8 currently spent in universal credit that turns out to be fraud or error, it is clearly right to distinguish between benefits and consequently to have some in scope and others not.
Sally Jameson
Q
Andrew Western: I answered this slightly in response to Mr Payne, but the flag in of itself does not mean that someone has been found guilty of fraud. A bank indicating to us that someone has above a certain amount of capital in their account does not mean, “Job done, box ticked”, or that person receives news that they have been found to have committed fraud, or that we then go through the penalty process with that individual. It would be referred to the most appropriate team for investigation—in the case of capital fraud, the team that looks at that particular type of fraud.
The principal other type of fraud that we think would be in scope is people who have been out of the country for longer than they are allowed to be as a condition of their benefit. Again, it is really important that we do not automatically penalise somebody for having done that, because it could be on grounds of a health emergency abroad. I had somebody in my advice surgery recently whose flights had been cancelled due to an environmental issue in the country that he was seeking to return from. It is really important that this is triaged to a human investigator to look into what the nature of the flag is, what the benefit eligibility criterion that we suspect may not have been satisfied is, and then take the appropriate steps needed to establish whether there is any legitimate reason for that.
Siân Berry
Q
Andrew Western: We would need, at that point, to take advice—legal advice, primarily—if there was that level of concern around any human rights impact. I would not want to second-guess, but certainly, in the instance where those views have been put forward and the legal advice suggested that they were valid, then clearly we would need to take appropriate action to ensure that the Bill is legal and satisfactory.
Siân Berry
Q
Anthony Western: When I talk about reducing over-payments, I mean reducing the value of overpayments rather than the number. Obviously, for a bank account to be flagged, there would have to be something in there to cause that flag. This would not reduce the overall number of overpayments necessarily, but it would reduce the amount of debt that someone might have accrued, were the eligibility verification measure to identify that at an earlier stage. We have seen some horrendous cases, through the carer’s allowance issues that have come to light, involving really significant numbers, because it has gone on for several years. That is the sort of thing we would be able to stop as a result of this—I am really sorry, Siân, but I cannot remember the rest of your question.
Siân Berry
Q
Andrew Western: I am not sure that I fully understood the question, so please come back in if needed. It is clearly the case that if somebody has been receiving benefits that they are not entitled to, for whatever reason, they could end up in a worse financial position as a consequence. That is necessarily the case for two principal reasons. One is that in universal credit all overpayments are reclaimed regardless of the circumstances behind them. That was the policy enacted by the previous Government. The other reason is that they may no longer receive benefits that they previously believed themselves to be entitled to. For instance, if it comes to light that you have £18,000 in your account and there is no mitigating circumstance for that, it would be the case that you would be worse off in overall terms because you would no longer receive that benefit.
Siân Berry
Q
Andrew Western: I am not prepared to put a percentage on it. We would have to see what came out. We have done two previous trials on this and we are fairly confident in the mechanisms that are in place. That has underpinned some of the assumptions we have made. We are committing through this process to a test and learn phase so that we can keep errors as minimal as possible. Ideally, I would not want to see any errors at all, but ultimately we have structured this so that, were something to come back as a false positive, as it were, it would not lead to an immediate decision, because it would be passed to a human investigator for further investigation.
Neil Coyle
Q
Andrew Western: I think it is fundamental, given both the lack of previous action that you identify and a general modernisation of powers. The world is changing. The nature of fraud is changing, and the behaviours exhibited by fraudsters are different from those of 10 or 15 years ago. The previous Government tried to bring forward the third-party data measure, now likened to the eligibility verification measure, but it did not have the oversight and safeguards in place that we have now.
There are a number of totally new proposals in the Bill that are crucial. To your point about the capacity of the police, the powers of search and seizure will be particularly helpful in speeding up investigations into serious and organised crime, because we can crack on with that, as it were, and enter premises without the need to wait for co-ordinated action from the police.
The other totally new power that is really important here, and which I personally think is a fairness argument, is the ability to directly deduct from people who receive their income through means other than benefits or PAYE employment. Overall, it is a fundamental change to the way that we do it, and it is part of a broader package. As I said earlier, this saves £1.5 billion over the forecast period, but it is part of a broader suite of measures that amount to the largest ever intervention to tackle fraud of £8.6 billion over that period. Unfortunately, like many of these things, that number is so high because the level of fraud we have is so high.
Georgia Gould: I add that the PSFA measures are entirely new. There have previously been no powers to investigate and recover fraud from the wider public sector, outside of tax and welfare. This is some of the highest-value fraud, through procurement or businesses falsely applying for Government grants, which is currently going un-investigated because of the resource pressures that you talked about. These are landmark new powers to investigate fraud across the wider public sector that have not previously been considered.
Neil Coyle
Q
Andrew Western: Yes. We are always looking at ways that we can build stronger relationships and build trust. On specific interventions, I would argue that—although it runs contrary to the evidence that we heard from the witnesses—there is the potential, through the eligibility verification measure, to build trust not just with disabled people but with all people in receipt of benefits, because we will be able to check that they are entitled to what they have. The capture of overpayments at an earlier stage and the ability to know that people who are genuine claimants are receiving the right amount of benefit will help to build that trust.
What really erodes trust is someone being captured in a position where they think that they have, for several years, been receiving benefits to which they are entitled but then end up with, for instance, a £35,000 debt to the Department. There is a suite of activity ongoing with stakeholders. The Minister for Social Security and Disability is doing a tremendous amount of work to reach out to repair relationships where that needs to happen. That work must continue because people make a fair point when they tell us that they are fearful of the DWP. I speak to people who do not want to apply for current benefits; they want to stay on legacy benefits because they fear they will lose entitlement through the application process. That is something that we need to constantly keep under review. We need to look at what we can do to improve those relationships.
Charlie Dewhirst
Q
Andrew Western: That is an important question, on which I have sought to reassure myself. We have already been through a spending review process in which we secured additional funding for further targeted case review officers and officers in the fraud space. I actually think that the number of fraud staff in the Department is slightly concerning not because of a lack but because the number of people suggests the scale of the problem. Because of the spiralling nature of fraud, we have had no option but to significantly scale up the number of people working on both prevention and detection of it. I hope that by embracing new technology, and through data sharing and other mechanisms, we can gradually reduce that number over time. It is a damning indictment of the state that we are in with fraud and error that we have that number of people.
To answer the question, I am assured and we have secured funding for the people that we need.
The Chair
There being no further questions, I thank the Ministers, and all the witnesses, for their participation.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Gerald Jones.)
Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Tuesday 25th February 2025
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesTerminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 View all Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 February 2025 - (25 Feb 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 15 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 15 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 15 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 15 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 15 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Before we start, I remind colleagues about the use of the second person—that is, the word “you”. Can you please refrain from using “you” unless you are actually directly addressing me? As for interventions, they should be a vignette, not a disquisition—in other words, a sketch, not an oil painting. I will remind Members if their sketch becomes an oil painting.
Clause 2
Terminal illness
Amendment proposed (this day): 399, in clause 2, page 1, line 22, leave out “, disease or medical condition” and insert “or disease”.—(Danny Kruger.)
This amendment ensures that a terminal illness under the Bill can only be an illness or a disease and not a medical condition.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 400, in clause 2, page 2, line 1, leave out “, disease or medical condition” and insert “or disease”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 399.
Amendment 401, in clause 2, page 2, line 5, leave out “, disease or medical condition” and insert “or disease”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 399.
Amendment 11, in clause 2, page 2, line 7, leave out from beginning to first “of” in line 8 and insert—
“(3) A person is not to be considered to be terminally ill by reason”
This amendment amends clause 2 to say that a person cannot be considered terminally ill by reason of having mental illness or a disability.
Amendment 181, in clause 2, page 2, line 8, leave out from “ill” to end of line 10 and insert
“only because they are a person with a disability or mental disorder (or both).
Nothing in this subsection results in a person not being regarded as terminally ill for the purposes of this Act if (disregarding this subsection) the person meets the conditions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1).”
This amendment clarifies that the purpose of subsection (3) is to emphasise that only having a disability or mental order does not make a person “terminally ill” and therefore eligible for assistance.
Amendment 283, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, at end insert
“or one or more comorbidities alongside a mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983”.
This amendment would set out that a person who has a co-morbidity with one or both of a mental disorder or a disability is not considered terminally ill by virtue of those comorbidities alone.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
Before we adjourned, I was talking about the two obvious problems with amendment 181. The first is that it would remove references to the Equality Act 2010 and the Mental Health Act 1983, which previously defined who did or did not have a disability or mental disorder. The amendment would remove those definitions, and the Bill would not define disability or mental disorder. What definition would medical practitioners, and indeed applicants, use to determine who does and does not have a disability or mental health disorder?
I appreciate that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley explained, that was done on the basis of advice she took to remove the references to the Equality Act because people with cancer could also declare themselves to be disabled people. However, that leaves a real opening, which weakens the clause even further. I cannot understand why we would remove one clear definition but not provide a replacement. That is a serious concern.
However, there is a bigger problem with the clause as it would be changed by my hon. Friend’s amendment. In referring to someone who could not be disqualified from assisted dying, the clause would still use the word “only”—again, I emphasise the word “only”. That leaves the door open for individuals with mental health disorders or disabled people to qualify for an assisted death based on the physical consequences of their condition. If the goal is to prevent people with mental illness or disabled people from qualifying, this amendment fails to do that. It weakens, rather than strengthens, the Bill’s safeguards.
As we heard in oral evidence, there are now 60 documented cases of individuals with eating disorders who have died by assisted death internationally.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend accept that nearly all those cases were in jurisdictions whose schemes bear no resemblance to the one proposed in the Bill?
Naz Shah
I accept that the majority of those 60 cases are in such jurisdictions, but to me it does not matter whether it is the majority or one—one death is too many, as I am sure my hon. Friend will agree. In Oregon, the evidence was that it was two, but it is also important to reflect on the fact that Oregon does not record these things. There is no record of the people who had anorexia—by and large, it is women—and who felt that they fit the criteria for assisted death, or that they were on a trajectory to fit it, because they had decided not to eat. So we cannot exactly rely on the two cases that have been found—and those were found only because of the research that was carried out. That does not quite satisfy the question.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Does the hon. Lady agree that it really does not matter what happens in other jurisdictions? The question is, does this legislation prevent people who are currently suffering from anorexia from seeking an assisted death or not?
Naz Shah
I completely agree with the hon. Member.
Coming back to the physicians who justified eligibility by citing the physical complications of anorexia, not just the mental disorder itself, we know that in all 60 of the cases that have been cited, the person did not have a terminal illness other than the one that was caused by anorexia, because that then fit the definition. Under the Bill, the same could happen here. I say in response to the hon. Member for Richmond Park that eating disorders or substance use disorders could still qualify if a doctor determines that the resulting physical deterioration meets the criteria for terminal illness. I will speak to anorexia in much more detail when we debate a further amendment that I have tabled.
Amendment 181 would also remove references to the Equality Act and the Mental Health Act, and the Bill would not define disability or mental disorder. That raises serious concerns, so I will not support the amendment. I encourage Committee members to strengthen the Bill in this regard and not weaken it. The Acts define mental illness and disability as taking a clear medical model, and again it is not clear whether my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley is further suggesting that a new definition should be used—but I am going over ground that I have already been over.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
The amendments before us have left me in a significant quandary, as some Members are aware. I am concerned that while their proposers are genuinely seeking to improve the Bill, legal loopholes may remain.
Prior to Second Reading, the Equality and Human Rights Commission produced a briefing note on the Bill. It included a section relating specifically to discrimination and equality considerations, which stated:
“It may also particularly impact disabled people. We recognise that this bill is focused on assisted dying for adults who are terminally ill, and does not propose access to assisted dying on the basis of disability or chronic conditions. However, there is not always a clear line between terminal illness and disability. Disabled people can also suffer from terminal illness, and illness may itself amount to a disability. Parliament should note that the exclusion of disability as a standalone criterion for accessing assisted dying does not mean that the rights of, and protections for, disabled people do not need to be considered in relation to this bill.”
I note that amendment 181, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, seeks to clarify these matters, but I remain concerned that, with its reference to
“only because they are a person with a disability”,
it would retain the ambiguity that she is seeking to remove. I understand the legal advice that she has received on this matter. My view is that although the amendment would remove the reference to the Equality Act, that Act still sets out that disability is one of the specified protected characteristics. Paragraph A9 of the Government’s guidance on the Equality Act reads:
“The Act states that a person who has cancer, HIV infection or multiple sclerosis (MS) is a disabled person. This means that the person is protected by the Act effectively from the point of diagnosis.”
I remain concerned about this point. I have previously raised my concerns about the language used on Second Reading and, if I had spoken then, I would have raised this point. We have heard throughout the Bill’s passage that being a disabled person does not make someone eligible for assisted dying, but I have just diagnosed three disabilities in the Equality Act that may or may not be eligible under this Bill.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is making a very important point, and he picks up the observation by the hon. Member for Bradford West that there is a link, through the Equality Act, with disability. It is absolutely right that we address that. Does he agree that the way to do so is not to accept amendment 181 tabled by the hon. Member for Spen Valley, which would retain the dangerous words “only” and “for the avoidance of doubt”, but to accept amendment 11, which would exclude those words and ensure that someone could not get an assisted death by reason of disability or mental illness? Because of that concern, perhaps we need to table a further amendment to exclude the Equality Act from the operation of this clause, and I await the Chair’s ruling on whether that is possible at this stage. Amendment 181 does not refer to the Equality Act, although the Bill does, so we should follow that point. Rather than accepting that amendment, which would not move us forward, we should accept amendment 11. I hope that that is clear and that it might satisfy the hon. Gentleman’s concern.
Daniel Francis
I will return to that. I understand what amendment 11 seeks to do, but I think we should have a hybrid, because I do not think either amendment would completely achieve what we want. I will seek the Minister’s advice in due course. I understand the legal advice to my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley on this matter, and I understand that all the amendments have been tabled in good faith, but I am concerned about the loopholes that could remain.
We heard on Second Reading that assisted dying will not be available to disabled people, but let us imagine an individual who does not consider themselves to be disabled. If they were diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, our current legislation states that they would be disabled from the point of diagnosis. They could live with that cancer and receive treatment for a considerable time, while continuing to have no other disability. When they receive a six-month prognosis, they would be eligible for assisted dying due to the same disability they have had for a very considerable time, and it would remain the only disability they have had in their entire life. I remain concerned that my hon. Friend’s amendment still talks about disability, potentially leaving that loophole.
Kim Leadbeater (Spen Valley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but the purpose of the Bill is that a person with a terminal cancer diagnosis and six months left to live would have the choice of assisted death. As we have heard, they might have seen the suffering of relatives with a similar cancer, and they might have seen what their death looked like. I understand that people might disagree, but that is the purpose of the Bill.
Daniel Francis
I hear that point but, looking at my postbag, the people who berate me for not supporting the Bill often talk about their loved ones with motor neurone disease or Parkinson’s, which I understand from oral evidence will be exempt. We need to make it clear which disabilities and conditions will be eligible, and I am not sure that the amendments before the Committee nail it down. I am concerned that the wording would lead to potential loopholes and legal challenges.
We should still be concerned about legal review of the Bill, based on indirect disability discrimination. The Equality Act says that indirect discrimination happens when a rule, a policy or even a practice that applies to everyone disadvantages people with a particular disability, compared with people who do not have that disability, where that cannot be shown to be justified as being intended to meet a legitimate objective in a fair, balanced and reasonable way.
If we accepted this amendment to allow the inclusion of cancer and some other disabilities set out in the Equality Act, I believe it would be argued in due course that other disabilities meet the criteria for assisted dying and, despite the promises made to this Committee and to the House in good faith, the loopholes would allow the criteria to be widened.
Other amendments in this group retain the reference to the Equality Act 2010, which could equally result in legal challenges down the line, for the reasons my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley outlined this morning. I am not deliberately being difficult, but I am not sure that any of the amendments would completely achieve what they seek to achieve.
I await the Minister’s view on the matter but, as things stand, I am concerned that we will take the clause back to the House without completely satisfying Members’ aims. By allowing those with cancer to seek assisted dying, there could be a loosening of the rules for other disabilities. I fear there could be manuscript amendments on this matter, but I await the Government’s view on the robustness of these amendments if they were to be accepted.
Lewis Atkinson
I want to come back to the Bill as drafted. The key factor in clause 2, for me, is the focus on terminality. That is what determines eligibility: that death is reasonably expected within six months. The clauses that we are discussing, subject to amendment, merely clarify—rightly, because this is important, and I too will wait to hear the Government’s guidance—that solely having a disability or a mental disorder does not in itself provoke eligibility. I fear that we are overcomplicating matters; the focus on terminality is in the name of the Bill. It is the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, and that is what we are focusing on today. I urge Members to think about that point when they consider the amendments, including amendment 181 from my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
I would like to make a short comment. It is very important that the Committee does not get too hung up on anorexia, because the Bill is very clear about what is excluded. Deprivation of nutrition is always reversible. Someone who is anorexic and about to die would go into multi-organ failure and be unconscious and unable to give any sort of consent. Before that, the nutritional deprivation is reversible and therefore not covered under the Bill.
Danny Kruger
I just wanted the hon. Gentleman to comment on the reality in our NHS at the moment that people are described as terminally ill with anorexia. They are given the label of being terminally ill and put on palliative care pathways because it is assumed that their condition is not reversible. Doctors today, in this country, are concluding that people with eating disorders are going to die and are treating them accordingly. Is he aware of that, and how does it affect his comments?
Dr Opher
I am not aware of that. I believe that this is always reversible until a person goes into the absolute terminal stage of multi-organ failure. Before that, we can reverse nutritional deprivation. I do not accept that point, and I think it is important that we look at the Bill in all its detail. I think it has enough safeguards to exclude someone with anorexia.
The Chair
I have received a manuscript amendment from the hon. Member for East Wiltshire that he wishes to move. As the hon. Gentleman knows, a manuscript amendment requires a very high bar and exceptional circumstances. I do not believe that exceptional circumstances are present, and he will be aware that further amendments can be proposed to the clause for consideration on Report. That is my decision on the matter.
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. Although it is for Parliament to progress any Bill, the Government have a responsibility to make sure that legislation on the statute book is effective and enforceable. For that reason, the Government have worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley; where changes have been agreed mutually between her and the Government, I will offer a technical, factual explanation of the rationale for those amendments. That applies to amendment 181 in this group.
This group of amendments is linked to how the Bill’s definition of a terminal illness applies to those with a mental disorder or disability. Amendments 399 to 401 would remove the term “medical condition” from the Bill’s definition of a terminal illness, so that only those with an inevitably progressive illness or disease would be able to request to end their life, rather than, as under the current drafting, those with a “disease or medical condition”.
The amendments could narrow the scope of those who may access assisted dying services. However, clinical advice suggests that the use of the terms has changed over time, may not be used consistently and remains debated in both medical and lay circumstances. Removing the term “medical condition” may lead to disputes or protracted debates about whether a particular condition is or is not a defined disease or illness, despite there being medical consensus around whether it will lead to death within six months.
Danny Kruger
I am grateful for that clarification, but it rather concerns me. Can the Minister elucidate exactly which conditions might fall into the category of medical condition that would not be captured by “illness” or “disease”? Does he accept the point that I made in my speech—that the interpretation of the law by the court will be that the phrase expands the definition of a terminal illness beyond illness or disease, as it is in the current law? What are the new conditions that will be captured by the term?
Stephen Kinnock
What the hon. Member will have picked up throughout this debate, on every day that we have met, is that the Government are concerned about adding or taking away terminology that delivers clarity, stability and familiarity.
I have to say that I am quite torn on the hon. Member’s amendment 399, because I absolutely see where he is coming from. It is one of those situations in which my position as a Government Minister is made somewhat more complex by my personal view that his amendment is perfectly reasonable. My instinct—speaking personally as a Member of Parliament, rather than as a Government Minister—is that the remaining terms in the Bill, if we removed “medical condition”, would continue to cover the waterfront or spectrum of conditions. It is possible that this is a case in which there has been an overabundance of caution on the part of the Government. I am delivering the Government’s position, but I want the hon. Member to know that that will not necessarily determine how I vote if this amendment does go to a vote.
Danny Kruger
I was going to remind the Minister that he is, in his strange Jekyll and Hyde personality, speaking as a Minister but voting as a Member of Parliament, so if he has given the Government’s view that my amendment is not acceptable, but he personally thinks that it is, I hope that he will vote for it.
Stephen Kinnock
It is a well-made case; I am still reflecting on it, because of the somewhat complex nature of my role on this Committee, but I am inclined to support the hon. Member’s amendment.
Amendment 11 also seeks to amend clause 2(3). Our assessment of the effect of this amendment is that a person who has a mental disorder and/or a disability may not qualify under the Bill as terminally ill, even if they have an inevitably progressive illness and can be reasonably expected to die within six months. There might be concerns from the point of view of the European convention on human rights and the Equality Act if the amendment were passed as currently drafted, because its effect would be to exclude people from the provisions of the Bill if they had a disability or a mental disorder. That may not be the intention of the hon. Members who tabled the amendment.
I turn to amendment 181. In executing our duty to ensure that the legislation, if passed, is legally robust and workable, the Government have advised my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley in relation to the amendment. It clarifies that a person who seeks assistance to end their own life based only on a mental disorder or a disability, or both, would not be considered terminally ill for the purposes of the Bill. Such a person would therefore not be eligible to be provided with assistance to end their own life under the Bill. Someone who has a disability or a mental disorder, or both, and who also already meets all the criteria for terminal illness set out in the Bill would not be excluded by the amendment, as drafted. The amendment therefore brings important legal clarity to the Bill.
Amendment 283 sets out that a person who has one or more comorbidities, alongside a mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983, would not be considered terminally ill by virtue of those comorbidities alone. The reality of modern healthcare is that many patients, not least those towards the end of life, will be dealing with several conditions or comorbidities. The term “comorbidity” in a clinical context can sometimes be used to distinguish the main problem that someone has experienced experiencing from additional but less serious problems, but it can also be used by those specialising in one or more other aspects of a patient’s care to distinguish their area of focus from other issues.
In the context of the Bill, the essential test is whether any morbidity, comorbidity or otherwise, meets the requirements in the Bill. Although it is unlikely that a terminal morbidity would be thought of as a comorbidity, it is not inconceivable that it might be, for the reasons that I have set out. The phrasing of the amendment, notably the term “alongside”, potentially increases that possibility. The effect might be that a condition that would otherwise be considered terminal would instead be considered a comorbidity alongside a mental disorder. The amendment would prevent a person with a mental disorder who would, but for the amendment, have been considered terminally ill from accessing assisted dying services under the Bill.
As I have said, the Government have taken a neutral position on the substantive policy questions relevant to how the law in this area could be changed. However, to ensure that the legislation works as intended, we have advised the sponsor in relation to amendment 181, to further clarify the Bill such that only having a disability and/or mental disorder does not make a person terminally ill and eligible for assistance in accordance with the Bill.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
Most of the discussion on amendment 181 has centred on the word “only”. Just to get clarification on this point, would someone with an eating disorder who was later diagnosed with a terminal illness still be able to access an assisted death, if that were required under the amendment?
Stephen Kinnock
My answer to that question is yes. My understanding is that so long as the terminally ill, six-month criteria are met, that person would qualify for assistance under the Bill.
Jack Abbott
Just to be absolutely clear for everyone in the room, and in case I was not specific enough, if that terminal illness is a result of the eating disorder, rather than, say, of that person also being diagnosed with a terminal illness such as cancer, would they be covered under amendment 181?
Stephen Kinnock
My understanding is that amendment 181 is clear that the qualification for accessing assisted dying has to be based on the definitions in the main body of the Bill. If passed by the Committee, the amendment will make it clear that an eating disorder does not qualify for access to that service. There has to be another, clear definition that does qualify under the terms set out in the main body of the Bill.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
I just want to illustrate to the Committee that people with eating disorders, certainly as they come towards the end of their life, are already subject to quite assertive action by the state. For example, over the past few years, generally, where hospitals have detected that an individual is effectively trying to starve themselves to death, they have applied to the Court of Protection and got orders for forcible treatment. In that application, it is determined that that person does not have the mental capacity to make decisions about their own medical care.
I do not want the Committee to labour under the illusion that people with anorexia or other eating disorders are going to wander up and suddenly ask for an assisted death. If there has been a detection that they are trying to get themselves eligible by effectively causing organ failure by starvation, the system would have intervened well before then, effectively to force them to be treated.
Stephen Kinnock
The right hon. Member makes an excellent point. I think it goes back to our basic view that there are some amazing health professionals in our healthcare system who do fantastic work. Eating disorders are a truly tragic condition and, of course, there is all sorts of support in place. It is not always perfect or exactly how we would want it to be, but I think it would be a false move for the Committee to think that this is an either/or situation. This is a both/and situation. Of course it is not always perfect, but I think we should pay tribute to our amazing health professionals, who look after all sorts of people with all sorts of conditions, including eating disorders.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that the language of clause 2(1)(a)—
“cannot be reversed by treatment”—
is reassuring? Indeed, the written evidence from Professor Emily Jackson notes:
“Someone with a condition that is not inevitably progressive, or which could be reversed by treatment, would be ineligible under the Act.”
That covers the case raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich.
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. She brings us back to the fundamental point made in the Bill, which is that it has to be “an inevitably progressive illness”. Eating disorders do not fall under that definition: that is very clear. I hope that that explanation and the observation that I have made on the other amendments are helpful to members of the Committee in their consideration.
Kim Leadbeater
I will keep my comments brief, because we have had a very thorough discussion today. I will first speak briefly to amendment 123, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe. Amendment 123 would change “an inevitably” progressive disease to “a typically” progressive disease. [Interruption.] Is that the next grouping? Oh, I am peaking too soon—my apologies, Mr Dowd.
I will come back to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe, but let me turn to amendments 399, 400 and 401, on the exclusion of “medical condition”, which the hon. Member for East Wiltshire submitted a few days ago, before the end of the recess. I looked at them over the weekend and was very interested to hear his reasoning for them today. This is the purpose of the Committee; I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said, and he has made some valuable points. All along, I have taken the view that this legislation must not only be the strongest anywhere in the world, but be very clear in its intentions and leave no room for ambiguity regarding who is entitled to request assistance under its provisions.
I am very comfortable with the definition of terminal illness in the Bill, but across the world—I have done lots of research into this, as I know other colleagues have—some jurisdictions use the term “medical condition” or, actually, just the term “condition”, and others do not. Many in Australia do, but in New Zealand, for example, which has a similar law to what is being proposed here, “medical conditions” do not feature, nor do they in a number of states in America.
While I do not necessarily think that it would definitely be problematic to include the term “medical condition”, I appreciate the argument that the hon. Gentleman has made. We have to be as cautious as possible to ensure that the Bill achieves its purpose but does not create a lack of clarity. That point has been very well made.
The advice that I have received from officials is that, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, “medical condition” does not have a clear legal definition and could therefore be seen as imprecise. That does worry me. The purpose of the Bill is clear—it is in the title. It is to give choice to terminally ill adults at the end of life. They must have a clear, settled and informed wish, and be expected to die within six months, in circumstances that are inevitably progressive and cannot be reversed by treatment. The hon. Gentleman has, I believe, helped to make that even clearer, and I am grateful to him for doing so.
Naz Shah
My hon. Friend is making her points very clearly. The last words of amendment 181 are:
“Nothing in this subsection results in a person not being regarded as terminally ill for the purposes of this Act if (disregarding this subsection) the person meets the conditions in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1).”
Does that not demonstrate that the amendment does not change the test for terminal illness?
Kim Leadbeater
My apologies; I am speaking to amendments 399, 400 and 401. I will be happy to come back to that point at the appropriate time, but I first want to finish my comments on those amendments.
As I have said, the hon. Member for East Wiltshire has done a good job this morning of improving the clarity of the issue. That shows that the Committee is doing its job and working effectively. I am therefore open to supporting those amendments.
Danny Kruger
I am delighted to hear it. I am grateful to the hon. Lady and to other hon. Members who have indicated their sympathy for the amendment. I look forward to the Division and to the Minister’s decision.
May I follow up on a point made by the hon. Member for Bradford West? I do not know whether the hon. Member for Spen Valley would like to intervene to help me understand the point. Amendment 181 would redraft clause 3(2) to make it clear that a person does not qualify as terminally ill
“only because they are a person with a disability or mental disorder”.
It would add to clause 3(2) the following additional sentence:
“Nothing in this subsection results in a person not being regarded as terminally ill for the purposes of this Act if…the person meets the conditions in paragraphs (a) and (b)”.
Does the hon. Member for Spen Valley agree that that will essentially mean that the clause does nothing? It confirms the terms of eligibility set out earlier in the Bill, and confirms that a person would still be eligible to receive an assisted death if they had conditions that were a consequence of a mental disorder or a disability. If she feels like intervening on me, I would like her to help me understand what that additional sentence adds. To my mind, it negates the purpose of the clause.
Dr Tidball
I stand here as a disabled woman. Under the Bill, as a disabled woman, I would not —by reason only of being a disabled woman—be eligible to have access to assisted dying. The amendment clarifies that I would not be eligible only through being a woman who has a disability. However, if I develop a condition that means that I have a terminal illness, leaving me with only six months left to live, I would be permitted to have that choice. It is right, I think, that I should have that choice. As I said in my Second Reading speech, this is about giving people access to a good death and living a good death. This is about giving that choice, where they choose to make it, to disabled people, while building in sufficient safeguards so that this is not something pressed upon them—
The Chair
Order. I do not like to intervene when a debate is going on, but as I indicated earlier, Members’ interventions have to be just that: interventions, not mini-speeches or disquisitions. Can we please keep interventions short and precise?
Danny Kruger
I am grateful, Mr Dowd. I recognise the force of what the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge is saying. To be clear, the amendments that I am supporting would not deny disabled people any of the other rights that are being awarded in the Bill. She is absolutely right that a disabled person with a terminal illness would qualify just as much as someone who was not disabled. That is absolutely right.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that people whose illness is a direct consequence of a mental disorder in particular would not be eligible. The reference to disability is because of the confusion, which I expect the hon. Member for Spen Valley recognises in current law and guidance, about where the distinction between disability and terminal illness lies. That is our concern. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that people would not be deemed as eligible for an assisted death in consequence of disability or mental illness. I know that is what the hon. Lady is trying to do with the amendment, and with the clause that it amends, so we are on the same page. Our concern is that, by including the words “For the avoidance of doubt” and the word “only”, we will be leaving quite a large loophole, through which, I am afraid to say, some vulnerable people might fall.
I look forward to the Division on the amendments. We have not been able to discuss them all in close detail, but I am grateful to Members for the debate that we have had.
Amendment 399 agreed to.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 123, in clause 2, page 1, line 23, leave out “an inevitably” and insert “a typically”.
This amendment changes the definition of what it is to be terminally ill from having an “inevitably” to a “typically” progressive illness, disease or medical condition that cannot be reversed by treatment.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 9, in clause 2, page 1, line 24, after “reversed” insert
“or the progress controlled or substantially slowed”.
This amendment would mean that illness, disease or medical condition etc, the progress of which can be managed or controlled by treatment are not characterised as terminal illness.
Amendment 48, in clause 2, page 2, line 2, leave out
“can reasonably be expected within 6 months”
and insert
“is expected with reasonable certainty within 6 months, even if the person were to undergo all recommended treatment”.
Amendment 282, in clause 2, page 2, line 2, leave out
“reasonably be expected within 6 months”
and insert
“be expected with reasonable certainty within one month, even if the person were to undergo all recommended treatment.”
This amendment would restrict the scope of assisted dying to people who, with reasonable certainty, would die within one month, even if they were to undergo all recommended treatment.
Amendment 51, in clause 2, page 2, line 2, leave out from “expected” to end.
This amendment would remove the six-month time requirement for a person to be eligible to request assistance under the Act.
Amendment 234, in clause 2, page 2, line 2, leave out “within 6 months” and insert—
“(i) in the case of a neurodegenerative illness, disease, or medical condition, within 12 months; or
(ii) in the case of any other illness, disease, or medical condition, within 6 months.”
This amendment changes the definition of a terminal illness for the purposes of the Act to include neurodegenerative illnesses, diseases or medical conditions where a person’s death in consequence of such an illness can reasonably be expected within 12 months.
Amendment 10, in clause 2, page 2, line 6, at end insert
“, providing the treatment does not alter the overall prognosis of the condition.”
This amendment, which is linked to Amendment 9, would mean that illness, disease or medical condition etc, the progress of which can be managed or controlled by treatment are not characterised as terminal illness.
Amendment 402, in clause 2, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
“(2) A person who would not otherwise meet the requirements of subsection (1), shall not be considered to meet those requirements as a result of stopping eating or drinking.”
This amendment means that someone who is not terminally ill within the meaning of subsection (1) cannot bring themselves within that definition by stopping eating or drinking or both.
Juliet Campbell
The amendment would change the definition of what it is to be terminally ill, from having an “inevitably” to a “typically” progressive illness, disease or medical condition that cannot be reversed by treatment.
The limits of medicine, and where they manifest in our healthcare system, have been repeatedly discussed and have come up in oral and written evidence. The Bill’s supporters have frequently used the argument that our current medical care is limited to highlight the benefits of assisted dying, by stating that even with the best care available, not everyone can be prevented from experiencing significant suffering as their life comes to an end. However, such an understanding of the limits of medicine is not consistently applied in the Bill. The truth, as is repeatedly corroborated in the written evidence, is that in many cases we simply cannot reasonably know how long a person could survive.
Witnesses have explained that predicting whether someone is inevitably terminal is often not a certainty. Even when a disease is considered advanced or at the end stage, there are variables—such as an individual’s response to a treatment, access to care, new clinical trials, medical intervention, or a person’s overall resistance —that can influence the outcome. When practising medicine, doctors often use terms like prognosis, life expectancy, or expectation, rather than definitive statements on the degree of someone’s terminal prognosis. The variables in prognosis make the amendment necessary.
The term “typically” better acknowledges the limitations of the knowledge of medical practitioners. In written evidence, Dr Chris Paxton, a retired GP of 38 years, says:
“No doctor can accurately predict if a terminally ill patient has six months or more to live. I have seen many patients being told they have only months to live, continuing living many years after their ‘terminal’ diagnosis.”
The concept of a condition being “typically” terminal acknowledges that although a disease usually leads to death, there may be exceptions where individuals survive longer than expected, or even achieve remission.
The process of assisted dying must maintain honesty and transparency with patients who are seeking assisted death. A declaration of certainty is implied by using the word “inevitably”. In her written evidence, Dr Ariel Dempsey, who is currently studying end of life care, says:
“Physician prognostic estimates are variable, optimistic/pessimistic, uncertain, and more often than not, inaccurate. For example, a prognosis of 6 months is required for hospice eligibility in the U.S., yet it is not uncommon for hospice patients to live beyond six months, even without life-prolonging treatment.”
For individuals seeking assisted death, the use of the word “inevitably” can lead to an over-reliance and overconfidence in the judgment of their doctors. If someone believes without question that they will inevitably die within six months, an assisted death may seem like an obvious and minimally life-limiting choice. The problem is that a claim that someone’s death is imminent and inevitable within six months simply may not be true.
Not only does the use of the word “inevitable” risk embedding dishonesty in our law, but it risks doctors who agree to engage in assisted dying and end of life care becoming overburdened with the responsibility of proclaiming an individual’s prognosis. Having considered the circumstances that surround a person’s illness, a doctor can only give a prognosis that is typical and give a typical indication of their life expectancy.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Juliet Campbell
I have almost finished, so I will carry on.
If we give doctors the essentially impossible task of proving that death will inevitability occur in six months, there is a risk of an individual being advised to stop treatment, to accelerate them artificially into a serious or terminal state or speed it up to ensure their eligibility. As medical intervention is so key in the prognosis of a seriously ill patient, it makes no sense to me to use language that is not consistent with real-life medical experiences or reasonably within the scope of medical diagnosis.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I speak in support of amendment 234, which is tabled in my name and seeks to ensure that people suffering from neurodegenerative conditions are not excluded from the dignity and autonomy that the Bill seeks to provide. The amendment would extend the eligibility period for those with neurodegenerative conditions from six months to 12 months—a simple yet crucial change that could alleviate needless suffering and ensure fairness in our approach to end of life care.
The intention of the amendment is to change the law to match that in five of the six Australian states. The wording mirrors that found in those jurisdictions. Conditions that would be affected by the change include motor neurone disease, Huntington’s disease, multiple system atrophy, progressive supranuclear palsy, Parkinson’s and many others. Although Alzheimer’s is a neuro-degenerative condition, those with Alzheimer’s would not be eligible for an assisted death should the amendment pass because they would not have the mental capacity.
Daniel Francis
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that those with early-stage dementia or Alzheimer’s could pass the mental capacity test in the Mental Capacity Act 2005?
Tom Gordon
They would need to come within the definition of a terminal illness. I will come that later in my speech.
We must recognise the reality of neurodegenerative diseases. There are other conditions where prognosis follows a clear trajectory. People with conditions such as MND and Parkinson’s experience a slow but relentless decline. Their suffering can be profound long before they meet the six-month prognosis requirement that is currently in the Bill.
Let us look at some real-life stories. Mary Kelly is a bright and sharp-witted woman from Middlesbrough. Diagnosed with Parkinson’s last year, Mary knows that she faces many years of deterioration. She said:
“It would make the world of difference to know that assisted dying was legal and available. I’d know if I’m not finding joy, I can end it peacefully. It would make the intervening years so much more peaceful, loving, and relaxed.”
Parkinson’s-related dementia affects a third of those with the condition. If Mary loses capacity before a doctor confirms her eligibility, she will be denied the very right that the Bill aims to uphold. If we do not amend the Bill, people like Mary will lose their autonomy precisely when they need it most.
We must also consider the experience of people like Phil Newby, who was diagnosed with MND a decade ago. Phil fought to challenge the UK’s ban on assisted dying, taking a case to the High Court in 2019. He is the last living person who took one of the court cases involving assisted dying. Phil knows that the uncertainty of prognosis leaves too many in limbo. He said:
“People with neurodegenerative diseases often suffer a cognitive decline in the later stages. Twelve months would give a much greater chance for a civilised death to those suffering from the most devastating illnesses.”
We must ensure that those voices are not ignored in this conversation.
Imagine a scenario in which someone with MND applies for an assisted death. They tell their friends, family and loved ones. They begin to make preparations, including signing the written declaration, but they cannot get approval until a doctor says they have six months left. They wait. Their condition gets worse. They suffer choking fits, have feeding tubes fitted, and experience a slow and cruel deterioration. Finally, they receive approval from the first doctor, but before they can get to a second doctor, they begin to lose capacity. They are still suffering. Their family know their clear and settled wish, but they have no chance of a second approval, and especially no chance of approval from a panel. They will be potentially consigned to a death of agony and pain, despite everyone knowing that it is not how they would like to die. Their family must watch on, helpless.
The loss of competency is one of the greatest fears for those with neurodegenerative conditions. The Bill currently states that a person must have full mental capacity at the time of their assisted death, which is an important safeguard. However, people who develop MND can have their decision making impaired, and around 50% experience some form of cognitive decline. In New Zealand, where there is a six-month limit, many people lose their decision-making capacity before they can proceed. By contrast, in Victoria in Australia, where there is a 12-month limit for neurodegenerative conditions, only 7% lose competency. If we do not amend the Bill, we risk condemning those people to a fate they fought to avoid.
We must also recognise the difficulty in predicting life expectancy for those with neurodegenerative conditions. Prognosis is not an exact science. I am fairly sure that everyone agrees on that—people have made those points repeatedly. The Court of Appeal has acknowledged that a six-month prognosis cannot be made with certainty for many terminal illnesses. That is one of the most difficult things that I have had to grasp as part of the Committee. To impose what could seem like an arbitrary threshold on those with unpredictable conditions is unfair and unnecessary.
Moreover, let us look at international examples. Many UK residents who have to travel to Switzerland for an assisted death do not have six months or less to live. If we end up with a six-month limit, we will still see people having to travel to Switzerland or other jurisdictions to ensure that they have access to an assisted death. I worry how people in this country would feel about that —particularly those families who might wish to accompany their loved ones on that journey, with the legal consequences that could follow.
Recent polling shows that two thirds of Brits support an amendment that would allow people with neuro-degenerative diseases access to an assisted death. We know that 85% of people living with multiple system atrophy who gave their views in an MSA Trust survey support such a change in the law. This is not a minor or niche concern. Every year, motor neurone disease alone kills 2,200 people in the UK, which is six people per day. Some 45% of people living with MND say they would consider an assisted death if the law changed. It is not a hypothetical scenario: these are real people, making real choices about how they wish to live and die.
My amendment would not overload the system. Experience from overseas tells us that jurisdictions such as Victoria and other Australian states already have a 12-month system for neurodegenerative conditions, and it works. New Zealand, which maintains a six-month limit, has seen people unable to qualify, and is looking at what it can do to ensure greater access. We must also listen to the written and oral evidence from expert witnesses. Professor Meredith Blake and Chloe Furst testified to the importance of a 12-month eligibility period, not just for fairness but for the practicality of allowing patients to navigate the process in time.
Everyone wants to see a Bill that is about dignity. If it is truly about that, we must ensure that it works for those who need it most. It is not about opening the floodgates or trying to expand the criteria. It is about ensuring equal access. From speaking to colleagues across the Committee, I know that a lot of thought and consideration has gone into this issue. With that in mind, I will not push the amendment to a vote, but it is important that the voices of people with neurodegenerative diseases are considered as part of the process.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mr Dowd.
I rise in support of amendment 234. I acknowledge the point made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough about not pushing it to a Division, but it is important to hear why it would benefit the Bill if it was agreed to. It would allow a terminally ill person with a neurodegenerative illness, disease or condition who has fewer than 12 months left to live—rather than six—the right to choose an assisted death. I speak as a humanist, because I am very alive to many members of the public, and some MPs, wanting a wider scope of eligibility to cover intolerable suffering. In fact, some want no timescales, and an amendment has been tabled for that. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, who introduced the Bill, has had people speak to her and say the Bill needs to go further.
Like all of us, I want to make this a good Act that will have strong safeguards while allowing people choice at the end of life, and I want it to command the support of the House. I reflected on whether we need to have such a wide definition to cover intolerable suffering, and I thought that a change to 12 months for those with neurodegenerative diseases would be a good way to reflect the breadth of voices we have heard in debates on the Bill. It is an appropriate compromise. One of the things we have seen over the course of our Committee debates is the real pulling apart and consideration of what this legislation will mean in practice.
As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough set out so well, a 12-month timescale for those with neurodegenerative diseases would mean that people could make decisions while they still have mental capacity. As he rightly said, their condition would so often see a cognitive decline before six months. The Motor Neurone Disease Association—another organisation that supports people living with terminal neurodegenerative diseases—highlighted problems with the six-month criteria and the inequity that arises.
Again, I reference the testimony of medical practitioners from Australia, where some states have eligibility criteria for assisted dying that includes an illness, disease or condition that is expected to cause death within 12 months. It is out there in practice, so it is not a new concept. Professor Meredith Blake said in oral evidence:
“Queensland legislation is different: it sets a 12-month period of expected death, and the reason for that approach was in response to feedback from people living with neurodegenerative disease that they felt that they were being put in a different position to people suffering from, or experiencing, other terminal illnesses.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 211, Q270.]
I will draw my remarks to a close, but there is a personal reason why it is important to me that we reflect on 12-month eligibility: the case of Diane Pretty. Diane Pretty was from Luton, albeit she lived in the neighbouring constituency, and some 25 years ago she was diagnosed with motor neurone disease. She tried to change the law then so that she could access assisted dying, such was the pain and suffering that she endured because of her terminal illness. What she said is fundamental and at the heart of what we are trying to do here, 25 years later:
“I want to have a quick death, without suffering, at home and surrounded by my family.”
In the end, Diane Pretty was not successful, and she died aged 43 on 11 May 2002. She did not have a choice. She could not choose the death she wanted. Much has been said about rushing the Bill, but that was over 20 years ago, so the debate has been going on for many years. That is why I speak in support of amendment 234, so that those with neurodegenerative terminal illnesses, whose death is reasonably expected within 12 months, can access assisted death.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
I will speak to amendments 9 and 10, which were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool). Members will spot the trend: I have been speaking in favour of a lot of her amendments.
Amendments 9 and 10 would make sure the Bill does what it aims to do: ensure that assisted death is available only to those who are genuinely at the end of life. Under clause 2, a person is terminally ill if they have a prognosis of less than six months and if they have
“an inevitably progressive illness, disease or medical condition which cannot be reversed by treatment”.
That wording gives rise to a risk of unintended cases meeting eligibility criteria.
In Oregon, conditions such as anorexia, diabetes, arthritis, HIV/AIDS and hernias have all qualified for assisted death. That is partly because the Oregon law uses the language of “irreversible”, just as the Bill says
“cannot be reversed by treatment”.
Conditions like diabetes arguably cannot ever be “reversed”, which suggests something more akin to “cured”; they can only be managed. The definition of terminal illness is now broader than it was ever intended to be.
Tom Gordon
Prior to being elected to Parliament, I worked for a type 1 diabetes charity—I feel like I have been saying that a lot recently. When we talk about diabetes, we often do not consider the fact that there are different types, including type 1, type 2 and gestational. They are not all akin, or the same. Furthermore, the NHS in its own language has referred to it as “a lifelong condition”, rather than a disease or anything that is terminal. How would the hon. Lady reflect on that?
Rebecca Paul
I thank the hon. Member for that thoughtful intervention, and I completely concede that it is not entirely clear, and there are different sources that describe it differently, which, for a non-medical person like myself, makes it difficult. There are certain websites, including NHS England, that may reference it as “progressive”, but equally I am sure that there are other sources that do not describe it in the same way. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough makes a really good point, and he will see that I quite often talk about things arguably being the case; I am not saying that it definitely is—I am just highlighting that there is a risk, because if people disagree on whether it is progressive, that is when we have an issue. I see this as an opportunity to tighten up any of that potential risk.
I would say the ordinary person on the street would not expect diabetes to ever fall within the definition of a terminal illness, yet there is a risk that it could do, for the reasons I have explained. That means that the drafting of clause 2 is not quite tight enough in my view.
Kim Leadbeater
Just before the hon. Lady moves on, we may actually have come to a very sensible position based on the other amendments we have been discussing—amendments 399 to 401. I have done a little bit of googling, and diabetes generally is referred to as a “condition”. It might be referred to in other ways as well, but maybe that would be another reason for us all to support amendments 399 to 401.
Rebecca Paul
I thank the hon. Lady for that extremely good news. That would definitely be helpful and provide some reassurance.
Amendments 9 and 10 are essential to ensure that those people who are never intended to eligible for assisted dying under this Bill are kept outside of it. Amendment 9 seeks to ensure that it is not just illnesses that can be reversed by treatment, but illnesses where the progress can be controlled or substantially slowed by treatment, that are ineligible—diabetes being the classic case, which can be slowed and controlled by treatment. Amendment 10 further bolsters that by ensuring that treatments that improve prognosis are not disregarded under clause 2(1)(a).
The problem that we have with clause 2 in its current form is that it fails to distinguish between those who are truly at the end of their life and those who only become terminal if they do not access treatment. There is no requirement for a person to be receiving medical care when their prognosis is assessed, which means that many manageable but irreversible conditions—like diabetes, potentially, and chronic kidney disease—could qualify as terminal if treatment is stopped. Let us take the example of someone with type 1 diabetes, like my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), who tabled these amendments. If she were to stop taking her insulin, she might meet the criteria for terminal illness under the Bill and qualify for an assisted death—I mean, I certainly hope she would not. Without treatment, type 1 diabetes could arguably be an inevitably progressive and irreversible condition that would result in death within weeks or months.
Dr Opher
There is nothing inevitable about a diabetic getting worse; they just need to take the right treatment, so I would say that “inevitable” is a key word. I respect what the hon. Lady is saying about the amendments, and they do have some value, but I do think it is covered by the current language—
“inevitably progressive…disease…which cannot be reversed.”
I think “inevitable” and “cannot be reversed” are enough of a safeguard to make this a good clause.
Rebecca Paul
I know the hon. Member has a huge amount of experience on this matter given his career, so I thank him for that contribution.
It must not be forgotten that it is the nature of such illnesses for there to be periods of unwellness, when people are at their lowest ebb, and it is our job to protect them from something that could sound appealing at that moment in time. The crux of this issue is that—subject to the point that the hon. Member for Spen Valley made about the improvements that we may now see following the amendments that we have just discussed—the Bill makes no distinction between a condition that is inevitably fatal and one that could be substantially slowed with treatment.
Dr Shastri-Hurst
My hon. Friend is making a valid argument, but I want to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Stroud. He talked about illnesses that are inevitably progressive and cannot be reversed by treatment. For type 1 diabetes—I think that is what my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) is addressing, as opposed to other forms of diabetes—a person either has insulin or does not.
The Chair
Order. Interventions should be pretty short, and Members really should be asking a question of the Member who has the floor, not making a mini-statement. Will they stick to that, please?
Dr Shastri-Hurst
Forgive me, Chair. I will come to the point. If the person does not have insulin, the diabetes could be treated by administering it. Does my hon. Friend accept that, in those circumstances, it would fall within this clause?
Rebecca Paul
I thank my hon. Friend—another doctor. I would suggest that diabetes cannot be reversed, but can be managed with treatment. All I am trying to do is make sure that that piece is picked up. I think we all agree that we would not expect diabetes to fall within the terminal illness diagnosis.
No fewer than 15 clinicians and medical researchers mentioned diabetes in written evidence. Other conditions are mentioned too. Two consultant physicians—Rosemarie Anthony-Pillai and DP Whitehouse—say that those on medication for heart failure could qualify if they stopped taking their medication. Dr David Randall, a consultant nephrologist at the Royal London Hospital, sets out in written evidence the example of a young man who has benefited from a kidney transplant but stopped his immunosuppression medication. That would lead to transplant rejection and, likely, death within a few months. Would he qualify as terminally ill if we were not to agree to these amendments?
Lewis Atkinson
The examples that the hon. Lady gives of the refusal of life-preserving treatment—for example, stopping insulin—would inevitably lead to death, so why does she believe that anyone in such a situation would need to seek voluntary assisted dying?
Rebecca Paul
I am sharing the content of written evidence. People working in this arena—medical professionals and clinicians—have taken the time to submit written evidence, which suggests that they see a risk, so this is something that we need to think about. The hon. Gentleman could be right when he asks why someone would seek assisted death in that situation, but it is more about if someone technically qualifies. Obviously, we are still yet to get through the Bill, and there is lots for us to debate, but we want to ensure that people are not put on that pathway if they are not actually terminally ill and their condition can be managed. People could be in a low place, and we need to provide support. This comes back to my point about the balance of best interests. It is really difficult to set the right level, but we need to think about best interests and protect people at their lowest point.
In Oregon, conditions such as anorexia, diabetes, arthritis and hernias have qualified for assisted death, not because they are inherently fatal but because treatment was refused or was unaffordable. We also need to think about situations such as supply chain issues with certain treatments. Situations that we do not want to happen could arise, and we need to think about what that means for this Bill.
Some lawyers and doctors in the US have advised patients on how to bypass the terminal illness criteria by refusing food and water until they become terminal—we have talked about that quite a lot today. There is some evidence of that happening. Cody Sontag, an Oregon woman with early-stage dementia, had few symptoms and was not eligible for assisted death, but after she refused food and water for a few days, her doctor ruled that she met the six-month prognosis requirement.
It is important that we carefully consider young women suffering with eating disorders, but I appreciate we have spoken about that group a lot today, so I will be brief. In Chelsea Roff’s evidence, she set out that at least 60 people around the world have been euthanised or assisted in suicide where anorexia nervosa has been listed by name as a terminal condition. In 100% of the cases, the people were women, a third were between the ages of 18 and 30, and two thirds were under the age of 40. Roff said,
“I have to emphasise that these were young women who did not have failing organs and did not have comorbid terminal conditions…they had decades of life ahead of them.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 139, Q175.]
UK courts have already ruled that treatment can be withdrawn from young women with anorexia, acknowledging that the likely result will be their death, after doctors framed their condition as terminal or untreatable. These examples powerfully demonstrate why it is vital these amendments are accepted, so that these conditions do not lead to a person qualifying for assisted death, if they can be managed sufficiently with treatment. In oral evidence, Dr Miro Griffiths asked us,
“What constitutes six months left to live, particularly if you are engaging with technological devices, medical assistance and so on? For example, I have a progressive condition that continuously makes me weaker and has respiratory complications and so on. If I remove the ventilator that I use at night, if I remove my other medical devices and if I stop my engagement with therapeutic services, does that constitute me having a terminal illness, because my rapid acceleration towards death becomes more evident?”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 29 January 2025; c. 142-143, Q179.]
In written evidence, Pathfinders Neuromuscular Alliance warned that for those with conditions like muscular dystrophy, access to treatment is essential. It said,
“It would not be unreasonable therefore to suggest an individual with neuromuscular respiratory failure could die within six months—and yet they might also live 20 to 30 additional years in this state.”
In written evidence, a group of leading physicians and researchers, including experts from John Hopkins University and the Royal College of Psychiatrists said,
“The Bill’s definition of terminal may not adequately distinguish between a condition that is inevitably fatal and one that only becomes terminal without adequate care.”
They added,
“Under this Bill, patients with incurable but treatable conditions could become terminal if they are unable to access timely treatment or choose to forego life-sustaining care.”
It is therefore vital that the definition of terminal illness is tightened to avoid unintended consequences. These amendments would ensure that the Bill applies only to those who are generally at the end of life, without prospect of recovery. I urge the Committee to give consideration to accepting them.
Naz Shah
First, I will speak to amendments 9 and 10, then to amendment 234, and then to my own amendments 48 and 402. I hope it is in order to note that the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), as the hon. Member for Reigate already mentioned, is a type 1 diabetes sufferer. Amendments 9 and 10 both concern matters of which she has a personal understanding.
Amendment 9 would mean that an illness, disease or medical condition, the progress of which can be managed or controlled by treatment, would not be characterised as a terminal illness. The amendment provides that instead of saying that the illness cannot be “reversed” by treatment, the Bill should say that its progress cannot be “controlled or substantially slowed”. The amendment is clearly a most important one. It seeks to prevent illnesses that can, in fact, be treated effectively from being classified as terminal illnesses.
The amendment would work to mitigate two very serious risks posed by the Bill. First, it would make it more difficult for someone who, for whatever reason, wished for an assisted death to qualify for that process by failing to follow a reasonable course of treatment. I do not say that the amendment would make it impossible for anyone not to do so, but it is an important safeguard. It would also provide a safeguard against the expansion of those conditions that would qualify people for assisted death.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley and members of the Committee have repeatedly praised the Oregon law, but we surely do not want to follow that example in every way, since we know that in Oregon, sufferers of anorexia have been able to access assisted dying. Again, I do not say that the amendment would make it impossible to expand the list of conditions, but it would make it harder. My hon. Friend has said repeatedly that she wants the Bill to have the strongest safeguards of any assisted dying law in the world, so I hope that she will join me in voting for amendment 9.
Naz Shah
I agree very strongly with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friends the Members for Spen Valley and for Penistone and Stocksbridge, and I hope that the Committee can later return to the state of palliative care in this country.
I underline that the matter of the six-month prognosis was not some minor detail on Second Reading; rather, it was a central plank of the arguments made by those who said that we should pass the Bill because its safeguards were the toughest of any assisted dying law in the world. It is less than three months since my hon. Friends spoke those words, and yet we are already discussing an amendment that would remove the six-month prognosis.
Kim Leadbeater
We need to be fair to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who has said that he will not press the amendment to a Division. Indeed, it would not be something that I would support if he did do so, for the reasons that my hon. Friend has stated. I also think that we need to give him credit for ensuring that the voices of people with neurodegenerative conditions, such as MND, Parkinson’s and Huntingdon’s, are heard. They are an important part of this debate, whatever our views might be on the tightness that is needed in the Bill.
Naz Shah
I thank my hon. Friend, and my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge, for making it clear that they would not vote for the amendment. I also thank the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough for bringing forward an amendment that discusses those issues. However, whether it is withdrawn or not, it is an amendment that we are debating and talking to.
The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who tabled the amendment, no doubt feels very strongly that the conditions of patients with neurodegenerative diseases make a case for relaxing the six-month prognosis to 12. There may well be a good case for doing so, but we can only consider the case for extending the prognosis to 12 months because of the challenges created by neurodegenerative diseases if we have first considered that extremely complex subject.
We cannot say that the Committee has studied the difficult subject of neurodegenerative diseases and how they would affect the administration of the Bill. We have not heard from witnesses on the subject, and we have not been able to ask them questions. We did solicit evidence on whether neurodegenerative diseases would affect the ability to self-administer lethal drugs, but we have not had time to study the written evidence.
I appreciate that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is not going to press the amendment to a Division, which leaves some of what I wrote earlier obsolete. I appreciate the hon. Member’s efforts. We are sent here by our constituents to represent them to the best of our ability. I certainly try to do that, and I know my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley always tries to do that—I have no doubt that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and all others are trying to do that. We vow to represent our constituents, and had the amendment gone to a Division I would not have been able to support it, simply because we cannot make those difficult decisions without being properly informed. We cannot make up our minds to change the Bill because of a complex set of diseases.
Jack Abbott
Just as a point of clarification, I remember asking one of the witnesses at our oral evidence sessions about this very issue—Sir Nicholas Mostyn, an esteemed judge who has written and spoken about the issue extensively. We asked his views about neurodegenerative diseases and extending the time to 12 months, so it was something that we were aware of and discussed as a Committee. In fairness to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, it has not come completely out of the blue.
Naz Shah
I agree that we did hear that, but we did not hear from experts in the Bill, and at that point it was not discussed. While I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s point that we did speak to Sir Nicholas Mostyn, we did not have further evidence, and this measure was not in the Bill when we took evidence from those witnesses.
Tom Gordon
I find this a little bit baffling, because we had a comprehensive list of witnesses that we were able to circulate in advance. The format in which those oral evidence sessions were held was really helpful and informative. We were able to ask questions, and as the hon. Member for Ipswich mentioned, we were interacting with people and families. We heard from Pat, who gave oral evidence about his sister who had to go to Dignitas. Again, it was not just a small figure; a number of people brought this issue up. Could the hon. Member reflect on that?
Naz Shah
The crux for me is that at Second Reading, when the Bill was voted on, many Members cited that one of the central planks to that debate at the time was the six-month prognosis. The amendment would increase that to 12 months. As I have said, my concerns are that we are only three months on from that conversation and we are already trying to expand the Bill, which is why I would not support the amendment. I have said quite a bit on amendment 234, so I will leave it.
I will now speak to amendment 48, which I tabled. Under the current wording of the Bill, a person is terminally ill if their death
“can reasonably be expected within 6 months.”
My amendment would change that so that for a person to be considered terminally ill their death would have to be
“expected with reasonable certainty within 6 months, even if the person were to undergo all recommended treatment”.
One of the risks that confronts the Bill is that of misdiagnosis. That is not some remote possibility. Let me go into detail. As hon. Members know from the evidence brought before the Committee, prognosis is not a precise science. Even with physical illnesses, determining life expectancy is highly unreliable. Government data from the Department for Work and Pensions reveals that one in five people given six months to live are still alive after three years. A study spanning 16 years found that doctors wrongly predict how long terminally ill patients will survive in half of cases. Out of 6,495 patients who were predicted to die within six to 12 months, more than half—3,516, to be precise—lived longer than expected. If the Government themselves cannot accurately determine terminal illness for benefits, how can we rely on such predictions to justify ending lives?
Studies cited in written evidence submitted to the Committee have found that clinicians are routinely inconsistent and inaccurate in their prognostic assessments, often underestimating survival. Professor Katherine Sleeman, a palliative care specialist, underlined that point in her evidence to the Committee. Doctors face considerable difficulty in prognosing whether somebody is in the last six months of their life. Professor Sleeman cites studies based on large samples of patients for whom doctors prognosed life expectancy. The studies found that 47% of the patients whom they predicted to have six months to live in fact lived for longer than that—in some cases considerably longer.
I would argue that there is a danger in using the standard of prognosis currently in the Bill. The current research into doctors’ prognoses indicates that almost half of their estimates that a patient has six months to live are incorrect. We do not want people to choose assisted dying on the basis that they have only six months to live when a very high proportion of them will in fact live longer if they are not given assistance to die by taking a lethal drug or drugs.
My amendment would hold doctors to a higher standard of certainty. Under that measure, they would be explicitly held to prognosing that death would occur with “reasonable certainty” within six months, and that that would be true even if the patient underwent all recommended treatment.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
I think we all accept that prognosis is quite difficult, but one reason why I think this is fundamentally important is that a member of my constituency Labour party was given a prognosis of 12 months in 2012. Last year, they were out delivering leaflets for me in the general election. That is why it is so important that we make sure we get this right. I am sure that my hon. Friend has examples of her own. Is that what is guiding her to press this amendment?
Naz Shah
It is absolutely what is guiding me. I am sure we all know people who were told that they had six months to live and have lived a lot longer. We have heard stories of people who were told that they had six months to live and lived beyond 20 years more. We have heard lots of tragic cases, for example in the world of Dr Jamilla Hussain, that would really benefit from the Bill’s being available to them. But equally, there are other families whose loved ones have survived—and not just survived, but thrived for years and years. In fact, a close friend of mine, who happens to be a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, was diagnosed not to live very long. It was an emotional time for her daughters. Eighteen and a half years later, she is still alive, well and thriving.
Naz Shah
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Actually, there is nothing in the Bill that suggests that. We can only imagine and try to empathise as much as we possibly can with any person who has been given a diagnosis of six months to live. In that six-month process, they might not wait; as my hon. Friend, who is a doctor himself, has said, this is about autonomy. They might not wait until they get to a position where there is a lot of suffering; they might not wait to see those six months out. They might decide they do not want to take that risk, when actually they might have lived another 15 years, another year or another two years. That is the point of this amendment.
Kim Leadbeater
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech and it is good to have this debate. May I ask her opinion on two things? One is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud has alluded to, the research around the world shows that between 30% and 40% of people who sign up for assisted death never actually do it, because they do get better or because the treatment makes their condition manageable—or because they have a death in a different way. What are her thoughts on that? The other thing to point out is the number of people who we know, sadly, are taking their own lives because they are terminally ill at the moment. I go back to the point that I make quite regularly: no one is monitoring that—
The Chair
Order. As I said before, these are interventions seeking clarification. They are not mini-speeches.
Kim Leadbeater
Just to clarify, my understanding is that it is between 600 and 700 people who take their own lives; it is suicide.
Naz Shah
If we take that number, then that 30% or 40% who do not take that decision is maybe a few hundred people. However, the truth from Professor Sleeman’s evidence is that we are talking about thousands of people who are misdiagnosed every single year. She was talking about 3,516 who lived longer than expected. Yes, I recognise and value my hon. Friend’s comment that 30% or 40% of people do not take up assisted dying, but—perhaps I will talk about this when I move on to the next amendment—there is also a risk. If we go back to the Bill promoter’s intention to make the wording tighter, then surely this is a safeguard that she would support, just to ensure that we are making it as tight as we possibly can.
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
Can my hon. Friend clarify for me what she means by “reasonable certainty”, and how that differs from the clause as drafted? Can she also explain why, in her amendments, normal language around the burden of proof, such as “on the balance of probabilities” or “beyond reasonable doubt” is not used?
Naz Shah
First, this is not an issue for a tribunal, where it would be on the balance of probabilities; it is not an issue for a court of law or a criminal court, where we would be using proof beyond reasonable doubt. What I am trying to demonstrate is that doctors, in those diagnoses where they do get it right, have much more certainty. It might be that people have six months to live because they have different types of cancer. I am certainly not a clinician or an oncologist, but I know from the evidence we have had and from speaking to people that some people’s diseases—the specialists know better—have a trajectory of plateauing out and then dropping right at the end and some have a jagged kind of decline. Some of those diseases can be predicted with much more clarity than others. On the surface of it, in September, it might be the case for somebody that that is within the time—as for one lady who was told that she would not have more than six months to live. She is the founder of the Music of Black Origin awards and I was with her last week. She was absolutely fighting; she was not supposed to make it to that day. It is for the medics to decide—it is not for me to decide—but I would like medics to have much more certainty than they currently do, so that we would not have 47% of cases being misdiagnosed. That is what I am trying to get to, but I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.
I argue that there is still a danger of using the standard prognosis that is currently in the Bill. The current research into doctors’ prognoses indicates that about half of their estimates are incorrect. My amendment would hold doctors to a higher standard of certainty. Under the measure, they would be explicitly held to a prognosis that death would occur with reasonable certainty within six months, and that that would have to be true even if the patient underwent all recommended treatment.
To go back to my hon. Friend’s intervention, this amendment is about raising the bar for how our medics make decisions. I submit that it would be a stronger test than the one currently included in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has frequently stated that she wishes to create a Bill with the toughest safeguards in the world. I keep coming back to that, because the whole purpose of speaking to all these amendments is to put in opportunities to try to strengthen the Bill. By their nature, all these amendments reflect hon. Members’ concerns. This amendment would tighten the prognostic standard required of doctors and would therefore contribute towards tightening the Bill’s safeguards. I hope that hon. Members support it.
Finally, I turn to amendment 402. I will repeat a lot about anorexia, but it is an important amendment. I have tabled it for a simple but extremely important purpose: to prevent people from qualifying for assisted dying by stopping eating and drinking to the degree that they develop severe malnutrition, such that a doctor would give them a prognosis of six months to live. It specifically aims to protect people with severe eating disorders, including anorexia nervosa, and would also protect people with a severe wish, as one of the psychiatrists who testified before the Committee put it, to “hasten death”. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley, and all other Committee members, will support this amendment.
Let us make no mistake: the Bill, as currently drafted, has a horrible loophole that all of us should seek to close. We know that anorexia sufferers and other people with eating disorders can and do stop eating to the point where they are dying of malnutrition. We should not allow such people to qualify for assisted death. Unfortunately, that is not a hypothetical danger; it is happening.
We know from the evidence that the Committee has received that that has happened in other countries. A group of eight experts on eating disorders submitted written evidence TIAB54 to the Committee some weeks ago. The experts included Chelsea Roff, who has been referred to many times in this Committee, and who gave clear testimony before the Committee, as well as seven medical doctors from hospitals in the UK, the US and Canada.
I hope that all Committee members have read the evidence, but I would understand if they had not, because we have had nearly 400 pieces of evidence to go through and very little time to read it. It seems to me, however, that if we are trying to write the best possible Bill, with the strongest possible safeguards, we have to pay the written evidence of experts the attention that it deserves. In their written evidence, that group of experts said:
“Patients with severe eating disorders frequently experience profound psychological distress and may express a desire to die. While this may appear to reflect a clear and informed wish, it is often a symptom of their psychiatric condition, which is remediable with appropriate treatment.”
The experts found that at least 60 patients with eating disorders received assisted death in several jurisdictions worldwide, including the US, Canada, the Netherlands and Belgium. I stress the phrase “at least 60” because we cannot be entirely sure that that is the full total. It is sadly the case that some jurisdictions are much more painstaking and transparent in the data they publish on assisted death than others.
In itself, it is tragic that people died in that way, but two things surely make the fact even worse. There are certainly men with eating disorders, but this is a problem that disproportionately affects women and girls. We know that the incidence of anorexia nervosa is much higher among women than among men in every age group. That is tragic. In every case we know of where a person with an eating disorder received an assisted death, that person has been a woman. I say it again: we cannot allow the Bill, as currently written, to stand. The Labour Government was elected with a mandate to reduce violence against women and girls. We surely cannot pursue that goal while at the same time increasing the vulnerability of women and girls who have eating disorders. There is nothing in the Bill as it currently stands that would stop doctors signing off on assisted death for someone who had starved themselves into malnutrition.
The courts in England and Wales have already begun accepting that some people with anorexia have reached a terminal stage. In the Court of Protection case, The NHS Trust v. L & Others, which took place in 2012, a 29-year-old with severe anorexia was described in the ruling as follows:
“The prospects of her recovery overall approach zero…given that it is extremely unlikely that Ms L will recover from her anorexia…in best interests to move to palliative care if L…in terminal stage of her illness.”
The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire raised the Court of Protection. There are 10 cases where the Court of Protection has made rulings. Of them, only one case, in 2012, ruled that the young lady could be force-fed.
Kit Malthouse
My understanding is that it is the other way around. In all but one case, force-feeding was decided by the courts. In the case the hon. Lady is referring to, L, the court did wrestle over that particular issue and realised that, such was the advanced stage of the patient’s condition and the complexities of force-feeding, it could not quite bring itself to authorise it. My understanding is that in all bar one case force-feeding has been authorised.
Naz Shah
Actually, it was the other way around and I am happy to provide a reference to the right hon. Gentleman. Nine cases found lack of capacity, but still not in the best interest. One of the girls was 19 years old. The judge found that they lacked capacity to make decisions about their treatment. The question of whether they had the capacity to decide to end their life is completely different and not something we have asked judges to rule on before. The judge’s ruling clearly implied the capacity to refuse force-feeding even if it resulted in their death. I am happy to provide the references for that. It was against their best interest to force-feed them. Tragically, in nine of the 10 cases the judges accepted that that would inevitably lead to the deaths of those young girls.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has repeatedly stressed that her Bill is modelled on the Death with Dignity law in Oregon.
The Chair
Order. With the greatest respect to Members, this is not a dialogue; this is a debate. This is not chit-chat. It is a very serious issue and interventions of that nature are not helpful.
Kim Leadbeater
On a point of order, Mr Dowd. If something is said that we know not to be correct, what should we do?
The Chair
That is ultimately a matter of opinion. If the hon. Lady wishes to ask the hon. Member for Bradford West a question and get clarity from her, that is fine, but this is becoming a dialogue. People cannot hear what is being said. I want the Committee to be run in an appropriate fashion. We have rules of debate in the House and I am trying to apply them. Otherwise, there lies perdition and chaos.
Naz Shah
I am happy to withdraw that comment, given the welcome intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley. When intervening on me in a previous sitting of the Committee, she stressed that most of the assisted deaths of people with eating disorders took place in the Netherlands and Belgium. The survey that Ms Roff and her colleagues carried out did find that the Netherlands and Belgium had more assisted deaths of people with eating disorders than Oregon, but it also found that Oregon itself had more than one such case. California and Colorado have also accepted people with eating disorders as subjects for assisted death. I remind hon. Members that, as I noted earlier, Oregon has a considerably smaller population than England and Wales. In 2023, the last year for which we have full data, Oregon had a population of just 4.25 million. By contrast, England and Wales had a population of 60.85 million—more than 14 times higher.
Perhaps it is the case that Oregon has had two assisted deaths for anorexia sufferers, as one witness told the Committee. In England and Wales, we have 14 times the population of Oregon. If it became legal for sufferers of advanced-stage anorexia to take their lives by assisted dying, we would almost certainly have more cases than Oregon.
Dr Opher
Does my hon. Friend not believe that an eating disorder is reversible? Under the Bill’s provisions, if someone has a condition that can be reversed by treatment, they would not be appropriate for assisted dying. Is she saying that eating disorders are not reversible?
Naz Shah
Absolutely not. That is not the point that I am making. Eating disorders are reversible, but it has been found that where this kind of legislation has been enacted, across the globe, somebody who has anorexia and decides not to eat then falls within the scope of assisted dying because it becomes a terminal illness.
Danny Kruger
I do not want to cut off the hon. Lady in full flow, but I want to echo her points. The hon. Member for Stroud has made his point before and we have had an exchange on it. There is quite a lot of research, to which I refer him, that shows how people in the UK, being treated by the NHS, are having diagnoses of terminal anorexia. It is happening. I refer him to Professor Agnes Ayton, the campaigner Hope Virgo and the eating disorders all-party parliamentary group in this place, which is looking at that. It seems bizarre to us, because of course someone can resume eating, but the fact is that anorexia is treated as a terminal illness in parts of the NHS today.
Dr Opher
Actually, there is a lot of debate about whether terminal states of eating disorders actually exist or not, so they cannot be said to be a real thing in that way. Some people in the profession think they certainly do not exist, so I would contest the point made by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire.
Naz Shah
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, but the truth of the matter is we have 10 cases that have gone to the Court of Protection. In nine of those 10 cases, judges ruled that the young people—women and girls, one was only 19—did have the capacity not to take treatment.
Kit Malthouse
Just to clarify, what I said earlier was slightly incorrect—I misread my briefing. While the hon. Lady may be right that the court decided not to proceed with force-feeding, a number of those applications were by the individual to stop the force-feeding. While the court decided that, on balance, that was the right thing to do, in all those cases since 2012 the individual was not found to have capacity to make decisions about their own condition; the decision was made by the court for them. That means that, under the terms of the Bill, they would not qualify. Some of those cases were quite complicated. A number of them, as I read it—
The Chair
To some extent, there is an issue here of repetition. Standing Order No. 42 gives me the power to stop potential repetition. I do not want to use it—I do not want to interfere with the debate—but I am afraid we are getting to the point of repetition. If I need to invoke Standing Order No. 42, I will.
Naz Shah
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention, but my understanding is that the judge found that those individuals lacked capacity to make decisions about their treatment; whether they had the capacity to decide to end their life is a completely different test. I apologise in advance for repeating this, but it is not something that we have tested. They had the capacity to refuse. The judge ruled that they could not be force-fed. Tragically, in nine cases, while not force-feeding those young women would lead to their death, the judge insisted that force-feeding would not be in their best interests. That is what happened in those cases.
Kit Malthouse
I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that in the seminal case that the hon. Lady is talking about, the case of The NHS Trust vs. L, the court decided not to force-feed L because the prognosis was that force-feeding would precipitate her death.
Naz Shah
I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. I have talked about that case, and the court concluded:
“The prospects of her recovery overall approach zero… Given that it is extremely unlikely that Ms L will recover from her anorexia it is…in her best interests to”
move to palliative care, as it was considered a terminal illness. In some ways, that makes my point for me: she was diagnosed as terminally ill. The purpose of the amendment is to close that loophole. The majority of these cases are young girls and young women. I do not want them to get to a stage where they qualify under the Bill because they have a terminal illness due to refusing food, because that can be treated. That is the point that I am trying to make.
Let us say that only one or two people with anorexia have an assisted death if the Bill becomes law without my amendment. I hope that every member of the Committee would agree that even one such death would be unacceptable. Some might say, “Oh, but we must not make the perfect the enemy of the good.” That has been said in the debate, or sentiments have been expressed that reflect that sentence.
That is a good argument to make when we are trying to persuade our teenagers to finish their homework for school and so on. It does not wash for me when we are trying to create a Bill with the strongest possible safeguards for vulnerable adults, and it is too close to the arguments made in favour of brutal actions across the globe. We say things like, “To make an omelette, you’ve got to crack a few eggs.” If we want to make the Bill the best it can be, we cannot use such arguments. Perfection is not the enemy of the good—perfection is absolutely what we should be pursuing in this Committee.
Reference was made to one of the witnesses who gave oral evidence. I remember being aghast at the idea that these two people who died in Oregon were somehow a red herring and that there had been only two. It was really disappointing, and I was extremely angry at that comment. That is not something we should be doing or the standard we should be setting. We cannot be saying that.
There is nothing good about letting people who have sadly reached an advanced state of malnutrition be given assisted dying. Surely we can agree on that. If this Bill does not include my safeguard, it will do two things. First, it will increase the dangers of anorexia. People already develop anorexia to such a degree that they perish of malnutrition. Allowing such people to apply for assisted dying will mean that more severe anorexics die. If we do not adopt my safeguard, we run the further risk that those who are not anorexic, but wish to hasten death, stop eating in order to qualify for an assisted death. Both of those would be truly malign. I would hope all Members of the Committee will accept my amendment to protect those who would otherwise be at risk of starving themselves to an assisted death.
I also want to bring to the Committee’s attention a public letter that has been released this afternoon by nearly 40 individuals who work in the field of eating disorders. They have said, on the amendment to which I am speaking:
“This amendment states that mental illness alone does not qualify as a terminal illness, but as the legal text (“Nothing in this subsection…”) makes clear it has no effect beyond restating that the condition must meet the requirements of clause 2(1). If a doctor holds that a mental illness meets the test in clause 2(1) for terminal illness, this amendment will do nothing to prevent that.”
They further say:
“Eating disorders are treatable. They are life-threatening when left untreated or poorly treated, but this risk is preventable, and deaths from eating disorders are not inevitable. As campaigners, clinicians, charities, and organisations working with those affected, we urge the committee to take these concerns seriously and ensure this bill does not put people with eating disorders at risk of premature death under the guise of assisted dying.”
On my amendment 402, they say:
“Amendment 402: Explicitly states that a person cannot be deemed terminally ill because they have stopped eating or drinking.”
On amendment 48, they say:
“Amendment 48: Clarifies that a person is only considered terminally ill if their death is reasonably certain within six months, even with all recommended treatment.”
They are supporting those amendments, 9, 10, 48, 402 and 11. On that note, I will finish.
Sarah Olney
I rise briefly to speak against amendment 234 in the name of my good and hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. I will keep it brief as I know he is not going to press to a vote.
First, the Bill that was voted on on Second Reading was a Bill for terminally ill adults in the last six months of their lives. I do not believe attempting to amend the scope of the Bill in Committee is what the House has asked us to do. I think the House voted for a Bill that was specifically for people within the last six months of their lives and that to be amending it—although I accept he is not putting it to a vote—is not in order.
Secondly, I want to reflect on Professor Sir Chris Whitty’s oral evidence to the Committee about how difficult it is to determine when somebody is within six months of the end of their life and how much more difficult it would be to determine whether someone is within the last 12 months of their life, notwithstanding that we are talking about a very specific category of people. For me, that really does give rise to the fear that we would not be able to make a specific determination on whether somebody was in the last 12 months of their life. There would be a risk that people actually have many years left to live. In the case of motor neurone disease, for example, we have seen prognoses of between two and five years, so we risk shortening people’s lives unduly. Furthermore, people might not want to make the prognosis, and therefore people who would like to have the right to end their life in their final 12 months because they have a neurodegenerative disorder might be denied that right, because it is impossible to come to such a determination.
Danny Kruger
I will be as quick as I can be. I recognise the powerful contributions that have been made on a number of the amendments. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Broxtowe, who made a very interesting speech in support of her amendment 123. I was struck by her point that we should do what we can to reflect the reality of clinical situations in people’s lives. I very much respect the power of the arguments she made. My concern is that by changing “inevitably” to “typically”, her amendment, although it might reflect reality more closely, would widen the scope of eligibility. I am afraid I will not support her amendment, but she made an important speech about how things actually work.
I will speak briefly in support of amendment 282 in the name of the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), and of amendments 48 and 402 in the name of the hon. Member for Bradford West. At the end, I will refer quickly to the amendments in the names of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer). All those amendments, with exception of the last ones, fit the Bill to the campaign—they make the Bill more accurately applicable to the people whom the campaigners have been campaigning for and whom everyone has the most sympathy with.
Amendment 282 in the name of the hon. Member for York Central would restrict eligibility to people with a one-month diagnosis only. I stress that the amendment is probing and I do not propose to press it to a vote on her behalf. She tabled it and I am speaking to it to make the point that, if we are serious about the Bill being for people who are dying and not for people who are not—for people at the very end of their life, as we hear so often—we need to be much stricter about the period of prognosis. I will not repeat points that have been made by other hon. Members, but the fact is that the six-month test is literally as good as tossing a coin. It has a less than 50% accuracy. In particular for advanced cancers and neurological conditions, accuracy is very low.
Jack Abbott
A line has to be drawn in the sand somewhere. Will the hon. Member define what an adequate timeline would look like for him to be satisfied?
Danny Kruger
The hon. Member invites me to suggest that I think it would be possible to draw a safe safeguard. I do not. I think that one month is better than six months, because with one month we can have more accuracy and doctors are more genuinely right when they say that someone is close to death at that point, while six months is much more inaccurate and 12 months is notoriously inaccurate. If we restrict the Bill by using a time limit, that limit should be as close to death as possible in my view.
Kim Leadbeater
Does the hon. Member agree that if we were to reduce it to one month, there would be absolutely no way to have the robust process set out in the Bill—or, indeed, I would argue, to have any sort of robust process?
Danny Kruger
I accept that, which is why amendment 282 is probing only. It is trying to demonstrate the point. I recognise that even the expedited process is likely to take up to a month to get through, so that would be difficult. Nevertheless, if our intention is to restrict this to people who are literally in their last days, which is frequently what we hear, I think it would be appropriate to restrict the time.
Danny Kruger
I am not. I think we have allowed six months to creep into common legal parlance because of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992; we now recognise in law that it is possible to have certain rights and entitlements on the basis of a six-month prognosis. I presume that is the basis of it. It does feel like a reasonable period, and I understand the rationale for it, but given the difficulty of prognosis and the intense seriousness of what we are doing, I think it is inappropriate and dangerous.
Another way of achieving greater safety—less precise but perhaps more generous to people who want an assisted death—is to tighten the definition of terminal illness to mean those whom doctors think it is reasonably certain, rather than reasonably expected, will die within six months. That is the intent of amendment 48 tabled the hon. Member for Bradford West. The amendment also insists that the condition is terminal even with “all recommended treatment”, so that somebody could not make themselves eligible by refusing treatment. That is a very important point that the hon. Lady is trying to insist on.
By the way, that does not mean—and I hope people will not conclude that it does—that someone is required to have every treatment that might be possible, including invasive and unpleasant chemotherapy. The point is that it would have to be treatment recommended by the doctor: if the doctor recommends it, then it is appropriate. A doctor might be offering chemotherapy, but they would not be recommending it in all circumstances.
For the avoidance of doubt—an important phrase— I think that the hon. Lady’s amendment 402 is very important too. Just in case nutrition is not seen as treatment—perhaps it is arguable that it may not be—it is very important that we specify explicitly that declining food or drink does not qualify someone for an assisted death.
Naz Shah
Does the hon. Member agree that one point that is really important in this afternoon’s debate is that a person has a right to refuse treatment, and indeed food and water, if they have capacity, but that malnutrition is practically reversible? The argument has been made by doctors in Oregon around the voluntary stopping of eating and drinking that doctors cannot legally force a person with capacity to eat, and if they refuse food, their condition can be considered irreversible and terminal. That is the crux of the point. Does he agree with me?
Danny Kruger
I think so. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that there is this difficult loophole that somebody may have capacity and be refusing food and drink and would therefore potentially be eligible. In the Bill as it stands, we have an expedited process for people whose prognosis is only a month. There, the 14-day waiting period could be reduced to just 48 hours. If a person stopped eating and drinking, their death would almost certainly happen within a month. In other words, a person who is not terminally ill could make themselves eligible for an assisted death within 48 hours simply by refusing sustenance. It is very important that we recognise that and explicitly exclude it.
I will refer quickly to other jurisdictions where this specific situation occurs and the voluntary stopping of eating and drinking is used to qualify for legal drugs. A peer-reviewed article in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society discusses this case—it may be the one referred to earlier. The authors noted that if anyone can access VSED—voluntary stopping of eating and drinking—then anyone can qualify for medical assistance in dying. In Colorado, 12 people qualified for assisted suicide based on a diagnosis of severe malnutrition.
The American Clinicians Academy on Medical Aid in Dying, an organisation of doctors who provide assisted suicide, acknowledges this loophole. Its guidance states that
“there is nothing in the letter of the law”
to prevent voluntary stopping of eating and drinking from being used in this way. It adds that that would
“essentially eliminate the criteria of terminal illness,”
because a person could always qualify as having terminal illness if they stopped eating and drinking. That is obviously not what the Bill’s sponsor and drafters wish. I hope they will consider accepting the amendment to close that loophole.
I will not repeat points made very eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate, but I echo the need to ensure that the Bill is not for conditions that, although they cannot be reversed by treatment, can nevertheless be controlled or substantially slowed. I will therefore support the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough and to the people he speaks for in tabling amendment 234. I recognise absolutely that the MND Association has pointed out that the six-month rule would not work for all MND sufferers. It successfully persuaded the last Government to change the rules on benefits in recognition of that point, and its evidence to us, it has requested a clear and workable definition for assisted suicide. It was not very clear on what that would be, and there are practical problems with extending to 12 months, specifically the one we have with six months—the difficulty of prognosis, which would be twice as bad. I also refer to the evidence from Professor Sleeman, who made the point that a non-neurologist would find it particularly difficult to make an accurate 12-month prognosis for MND.
The main reason to object to the principle of the amendment—I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is not moving it, but it is an important principle to discuss—is that it makes no sense at all to have two different prognosis periods. Of course, we can see where it will go. The fact that the amendment has been tabled and selected, that it is in scope, and that people will support it in this Committee or beyond, or outside Parliament, is evidence of where things go. We saw it very clearly in the evidence we heard from witnesses from Australia, who pointed out that there is no logical reason to have two prognoses—one for cancer and one for neuro-degenerative disorders. Their response was, “Well, let’s make it 12 months for everyone,” and of course that is the way things would go.
I finish with a tribute to the great quixotic effort of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, who is not on the Committee. Runnymede is the home of Magna Carta; the spirit of liberalism lives on in my hon. Friend, a genuine liberal who wants to scrap the period of prognosis altogether, because he genuinely believes in absolute autonomy. I have been trying to make the Bill live up to its claim to be a Bill for safeguarding; he wants it to live up to its claim to be a Bill for autonomy. In principle—in logic—he is absolutely right. If we think that some people should have access to suicide assisted by the state, then why should person A get it and not person B? Needless to say, I disagree with him.
Lewis Atkinson
I rise to speak in favour of the current, tightly drawn eligibility criterion of a six-month terminal diagnosis. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West that that was a central plank of the Bill as introduced and as debated across the House on Second Reading. I therefore rise to speak against all the amendments tabled to the clause.
Dying people want to put their affairs in order. That includes thinking about the death that they want and how they want to spend their time with their family. Dying people do not want to die, but they do not have an option to live. I feel that the way we talk about death perhaps has not been fully reflected in the debate we have had on the amendments.
In my mind, the evidence from elsewhere is very clear that those who seek assisted dying seek approval for it, going through the safeguards—significant safeguards, as set out in the Bill—so that they can spend the remaining time with their family, with enhanced feelings of control and autonomy, removing some of the fear that causes them to ask, “What if I will have no way out of inevitable pain?” That does not mean, of course, that people wish to die more quickly. The fact that the Bill sets out a six-month eligibility criterion does not mean that people will rush to end their own lives as soon as it is possible to do so. It means that six months is the threshold at which they can start potentially exploring the options and getting through the onerous—rightly onerous—process of eight different stages of capacity checks, three different stages of approval, multiple doctors and so on, so that they have the option. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley set out earlier, a significant proportion of people who have been approved for assisted dying elsewhere do not take up that option, because their end of life is not painful—and that is fantastic—or can be managed through palliative care. That is something that we would all want. However, knowing that they have the option significantly increases their quality of life, their ability to relax with their families and their ability to spend time with their loved ones.
Naz Shah
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and I agree with what he says about autonomy. As I said earlier, autonomy does not necessarily have to lead to pain, and it could be that I do not want to get to that stage. People will never know whether they could have lived longer. Does he not agree?
Lewis Atkinson
Sensible amendments have been tabled elsewhere in the Bill—not to the clause that we are debating—that would strengthen the initial conversations and ensure that people make informed decisions and have access to, and conversations about, all the forms of support, psychological or otherwise. I think that those will address my hon. Friend’s point.
In terms of the eligibility criteria, Chris Whitty was clear that there is diagnostic uncertainty in both directions. He said that
“a significant minority of people die before they actually get to the point”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 37, Q15.]
of the six-month prognosis. Because of that uncertainty, if we attempted to make the criterion much less than six months, we would end up excluding people. From all the conversations I have had, it is clear that once people have a terminal diagnosis, they want to put their affairs in order; doing so means that they can enjoy their final months with their families. We must not reduce eligibility and limit access to those whose disease unfortunately progresses more quickly than they would like and the prognosis suggests. I therefore oppose amendment 48, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West.
The amendment talks about “recommended treatment”. In all my years in the NHS, shared decision making has been a key principle. No one other than the person in question can make the decision about what trade-off they are willing to accept. Invasive chemotherapy may have a 20% chance of elongating my life. Am I willing to accept a 20% chance? Am I willing to accept a 30% chance? What I decide is right for me may be different from what other individuals decide, so a doctor is not in a position to say, “You should accept this because it will give you a 10% chance,” or, “It will give you a certain level of pain that I’m willing to accept.” We each have to make those decisions ourselves.
Lewis Atkinson
No, I will make some progress.
I feel that the amendment risks pressuring people to accept courses of intervention against their will, and I do not think it is consistent with the important principles of autonomy and consent. Because of the safeguards, approvals and reflection periods built into the Bill, going through the process of approval will clearly take in excess of a month. That is why amendment 282, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for York Central, which would limit the eligibility to one month, is fundamentally not compatible with the safeguards in the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley made clear. To me, six months is absolutely the right balance. It reflects people’s wish to put their affairs in order and allows for prognostic uncertainty on the downside—someone given six months may actually only have two or three months to live—but it still allows the operation of robust safeguards and reflection periods.
I turn briefly to the other amendments. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe for the points she made. I share the concern that replacing “inevitably” with “typically” would risk weakening the definition of “terminal illness” and expanding access to other conditions. I fear that “typically progressive” is a weaker interpretation, so I cannot support the change, because I support a tightly drawn Bill with tightly drawn eligibility criteria. For the same reason, although I have sympathy for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, I think it goes beyond the scope of what the House discussed in November and the contours of the current debate.
Amendments 9 and 10 refer to disease being controlled or substantially slowed. Those are not recognised medico-legal terms. What is the definition of “substantially slowed”? Who would define it? Is it something that takes 20%, 50% or 100% longer? We talk about the risk of inserting undefined terms and of court interpretation, and I fear that introducing such an amendment would give rise to that.
The people best placed to make decisions about whether the treatment will suitably slow the progression of the disease are the dying people themselves. They are the only people who should do that—fully informed, of course, by their medical and clinical teams. Each of us, when the end is nigh—it will come to me, as it will to us all—has to make that decision ourselves, not on the basis of a recommendation mandated in law or some definition of “controlled” or “substantially slowed”. It feels that the legislature would be putting in primary legislation decisions that I should make about the treatment that I should accept, so I am not in favour of those amendments.
I finish with reference to amendment 402. Although earlier I wanted to make progress, I do not want to rule out any further interventions, if my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West or others would like to come in. I recognise the concern, and we need to talk about people with anorexia with the respect, dignity and seriousness they deserve. I have heard it said—I think my hon. Friend said it—that there is nothing in the Bill to stop that being the case, and I fundamentally disagree for many reasons. First, as the Bill sets out, capacity is checked eight times. The Court of Protection has repeatedly found that people with anorexia do not have the capacity to make decisions about stopping eating. Although a best interest test may have been made, that is not relevant, as set out in the Bill. People have to have the capacity to request an assisted death, checked eight times. My hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley has already set out that she is minded to accept—or will accept—amendment 6 to clause 9(3)(b), so that, if there is any doubt about capacity, a psychiatric opinion “must” be sought.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West, I considered the written evidence saying that, in instances of a patient with anorexia, psychiatric input is absolutely necessary. Absolutely—in every case where someone has anorexia, under an amended clause 9, psychiatric opinion must be sought as to capacity. That is before we get to the further set of amendments to clause 12.
Lewis Atkinson
That is not my understanding, and I have sought some clarification, including from Professor Hoyano, who provided oral evidence to us, and I believe that that was not her understanding either.
Given the “must” in clause 9 regarding psychiatric referral to a third tier panel—which, let us remind ourselves, is not in place in any of these jurisdictions from which figures are cited around potential deaths of people with anorexia—I feel there are significant safeguards. Furthermore, we have just agreed to amendment 399 tabled by the hon. Member for East Wiltshire, clarifying the “medical condition” piece, which provides a further safeguard.
I respect the need for us to consider these matters carefully, but I urge a degree of holistic thinking when we talk about individual clauses. Some of the statements being made—that there are no protections in place—just do not fly, to me, given the Bill as a whole.
Dr Tidball
My hon. Friend is correct in his interpretation of the judgments in those cases, but does he agree that the evidence given by Chris Whitty to clarify his statement was helpful in clarifying that the application of the test for capacity is heavily orientated towards the gravity and complexity of the decisions to be made? That is also underpinned, as my hon. Friend underlined, by the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley.
Lewis Atkinson
I do, and I thank my hon. Friend for bringing my attention to that; I was struggling to put my hands on it.
In my view, clause 2 does a difficult job very well in tightly drawing eligibility criteria so that the Bill does what it says on the face of it—that it allows access for terminally ill adults, at the end of their life. By having a six-month prognosis, rather than anything else, it allows individuals to put their lives in order and have the best last months of their lives possible. I therefore speak against the amendments and in favour of the clause as drafted.
Stephen Kinnock
As usual, I will make brief remarks on the legal and practical impact of amendments, while emphasising that the Government continue to remain neutral on the Bill and on assisted dying more broadly. This series of amendments, which I will take in turn, seeks to change the definition of “terminally ill”, either widening or narrowing the cohort of people able to access assisted dying services.
Amendment 123 would change what it is to be “terminally ill” for the purposes of the Bill from having an “inevitably” to a “typically” progressive illness, disease or medical condition that cannot be reversed by treatment. That would widen the pool of those able to access assisted dying services by reducing the level of certainty that a doctor must have that the illness, disease or medical condition in question is progressive—from one that is “inevitably” progressive to one that is “typically” progressive.
Amendment 9 seeks to amend the definition of “terminally ill” such that it would not include a person who has an inevitably progressive illness, disease or medical condition that can be reversed, controlled or substantially slowed by treatment. The effect of the amendment is that such a person would not be eligible for lawful assistance to voluntarily end their own life. Should the amendment be accepted, the effect would be to restrict the eligibility for assisted dying services to a narrower category of patients than is currently set out in the Bill. The amendment may make assessment of a person’s prognosis and eligibility under the Bill more extensive, as it would be likely to require an assessment of a broader range of treatment options.
Naz Shah
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central; I was actually incorrect. The girls did not have capacity, so he was correct. However, in the cases that went before the court, those nine girls did not have capacity yet the judge made a decision that they should not be force-fed to keep them alive, and they should be allowed to die. Perhaps the Minister could comment on how the amendment would not meet that criteria. Would it fix that loophole?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I am just talking about the amendment to reduce the time from six months to one month. I will come on to the issue of eating and drinking in a second.
As amendment 282 would reduce the time within which the person is expected to die from six months to one month, it would also limit the number of people with a terminal illness who would be eligible for assisted dying under this legislation. Furthermore, there may be very challenging workability issues in delivering a service within one month, given the other time-dependent safeguards elsewhere in the Bill.
Amendment 51 would remove the requirement for the patient to have a six-month prognosis to be defined as “terminally ill”. If agreed to, it would expand the pool of people eligible for lawful assistance to voluntarily end their own life beyond those with a life expectancy of six months or less. In other words, it would remove the timeframe requirement of when death can be reasonably be expected.
Amendment 234 would widen eligibility to include cases of neurodegenerative diseases, illnesses or medical conditions where a person is reasonably expected to die within 12 months. Matters such as this are for the Committee, and ultimately for Parliament, to decide, but it is clear that the effect of the amendment would be to broaden the number of people eligible for lawful assistance to voluntarily end their own life under this legislation.
Amendment 10 would provide that, if treatment exists for a person’s progressive illness, disease or medical condition that alters the overall prognosis of that person’s condition, they are not terminally ill and would not be eligible for assisted dying services.
Amendment 402 would exclude a person who would not otherwise meet the definition of “terminally ill”—namely, being diagnosed with an inevitably progressive illness with six months or less to live—if that person meets that definition as a result of stopping eating or drinking. The effect of the amendment would be to prevent a person from being defined as “terminally ill” as a result of their own actions of stopping eating or drinking, or both. The Government’s analysis suggests that this may also exclude people who are terminally ill under the definitions of the Bill and who are, for various reasons, unwilling or unable to eat or drink. For example, it may include those with conditions such as oesophageal cancers, which could result in their being unable to eat or drink.
Furthermore, it is unclear whether someone who is on intravenous fluids or being fed through a feeding tube would be considered to have stopped eating or drinking under the amendment. I think that addresses the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West, but she is welcome to intervene again if she would like to. The amendment could therefore lead to uncertainty over the person’s eligibility for assistance under the Bill.
The Government have taken a neutral position on the substantive policy questions relevant to how the law in this area could be changed. Questions around the definition of terminal illness and who should be eligible to access voluntary assisted dying under the legislation are matters for the Committee and for Parliament as a whole. However, I hope that these observations are helpful to the Committee in considering the Bill and the amendments tabled by various Members.
Kim Leadbeater
Colleagues will be pleased to know that, despite my copious notes, I do not intend to speak for very long, because I believe we have had a very thorough and robust debate on these issues. The Minister makes a valuable point on amendment 402, which I do not think anyone else raised. Coincidentally, it relates to the person in the Public Gallery this morning, whose mum had a horrible form of cancer and had to have her tongue removed. She would have stopped eating or drinking, but it was not a choice; it was an inevitable result of her condition. She would have been excluded from having an assisted death, which I am sure is not the intention of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford West.
We have had an excellent debate and covered a lot of ground. I do not intend to add anything more on this group of amendments. I will only say that if we get a move on, we might be able to get through clause 2 before we close at 5 o’clock.
Juliet Campbell
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 9, in clause 2, page 1, line 24, after “reversed” insert
“or the progress controlled or substantially slowed”.—(Rebecca Paul.)
This amendment would mean that illness, disease or medical condition etc, the progress of which can be managed or controlled by treatment are not characterised as terminal illness.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Danny Kruger
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 2, page 2, line 2, at end insert—
“(c) their illness, disease or medical condition is found on a list that the Secretary of State may by regulations specify.”
This amendment would require an illness, disease or medical condition to be specified in regulations that may be made by the Secretary of State to be considered a terminal illness under the Act.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 13, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, at end insert—
“(4) Regulations under subsection (1)(c) are subject to the affirmative procedure.
(5) The Secretary of State may, where they consider it appropriate, make regulations that expire after twelve months from their being made to include temporary additions to the list under subsection (1)(c).
(6) Regulations under subsection (5) are subject to the negative procedure.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 12 and specifies regulations under that amendment must be made by the affirmative procedure. Temporary additions could be made by regulations subject to the negative procedure.
Danny Kruger
I will be fairly brief in speaking to the amendments, but they go to the heart of things. We have tried to tighten the Bill by excluding medical conditions from the definition of a terminal illness; I am very pleased that the Committee has accepted that tightening. We have also sought to exclude illnesses that are consequent on mental disorders and disabilities; we have not succeeded with that tightening. We have further sought to tighten the Bill by circumscribing the prognosis period more precisely.
The amendments would tighten the Bill further by explicitly listing the illnesses that qualify. The argument is quite straightforward. The problem that we are trying to address is that, under the Bill, it will be up to doctors and potentially to the court—or a panel, if that is where we go—to decide whether a particular condition is terminal. It would be set by case law and by medical doctors deciding what conditions qualify.
Lewis Atkinson
I rise to speak briefly in opposition to the amendments. When the chief medical officer gave oral evidence to the Committee, the hon. Member for Richmond Park asked him:
“Is it possible to come up with a list of illnesses that are terminal that would qualify under the legislation?”
The response was very clear:
“If I am honest, I think it would be extremely difficult.”
It is difficult in both directions, because some illnesses or diseases can be terminal, but are not necessarily terminal. People can live with prostate cancer for many years. Setting out in the Bill a list of specific diseases or illnesses that would be eligible risks achieving exactly the opposite of the amendment’s intention. To quote Professor Whitty again:
“Equally, there are people who may not have a single disease that is going to lead to the path to death, but they have multiple diseases interacting…I therefore think it is quite difficult to specify that certain diseases are going to cause death and others are not, because in both directions that could be misleading.”––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 32, Q5.]
Further to the point that the hon. Member for East Wiltshire made about on judicial oversight, my understanding is that giving power to the Secretary of State to make a list that includes only some diseases is absolutely inviting action through the courts on the reasonableness of why one disease is on the list while others are not. We would end up in much more of a legal quagmire than we otherwise would. The safeguards that we have talked about, as to eligibility criteria, terminality and capacity, are in the Bill as drafted. Those are the safeguards that we need. A list would further muddy the water and would create confusion.
Stephen Kinnock
I have some brief comments to make. Amendments 12 and 13 seek to further define a terminal illness for the purpose of the Bill; I will set out some details about their effect. The amendments would add a requirement that a list of a terminal illnesses for which people are eligible to seek assistance under the Bill be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State. The effect would be that only a person who has an illness, disease or medical condition listed in regulations, and who meets the other eligibility criteria, would be eligible to be provided with lawful assistance to voluntarily end their own life.
I draw the Committee’s attention to the chief medical officer’s oral evidence given on 28 January, which was well articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central. The CMO said that multiple diseases may interact, making it
“quite difficult to specify that certain diseases are going to cause death and others are not”.––[Official Report, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 32, Q5.]
It is also the case that many illnesses, diseases or conditions that may be terminal in one case may not be so in another. Committee members may therefore wish to consider where a focus on specific illnesses or diseases, rather than on the facts of an individual case, could aid clinicians in their decision making.
The amendments also include a discretionary power for the Secretary of State to make regulations that expire after 12 months in order to make temporary additions to the list of illnesses that meet the definition of terminal. It is not clear what types of illnesses, diseases or medical conditions are intended to be captured in such regulations. I hope that those observations on the purpose and effect of amendments 12 and 13 are helpful to the Committee in its considerations.
Danny Kruger
I sense that the wish of the Committee is probably not to accept the amendment, so I do not propose to press it to a Division, but we have just heard quite clearly, in response to the amendment, that the Bill is essentially permissive. Once again, we have declined to put clear parameters around the eligibility for this new law. We have heard specific conditions mentioned so many times in the course of the debates over the preceding months. It is a shame that we are not prepared to state those conditions clearly in the Bill, with the opportunity for Parliament to amend them over time.
I end by echoing a point that the hon. Member for Spen Valley made about the importance of good data. I hope that if the Bill passes, we will have the best data collection in the world. I am afraid to say that data collection is not good in other jurisdictions. Nevertheless, it is possible to see how often in Oregon, Australia, Canada, and Europe, albeit in a minority of cases, conditions that most people would not recognise as deserving of assisted dying, including anorexia, arthritis, hernias and diabetes, are listed as causes of death. Indeed, so is frailty, as I discussed earlier.
My fear is that if we pass the Bill, we too—if we do data collection properly—will have a shameful appendix to the annual report showing that people have had an assisted death for reasons that most people would regard as inappropriate. I will leave it there. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment made: 401, in clause 2, page 2, line 5, leave out “, disease or medical condition” and insert “or disease”.—(Danny Kruger.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 399.
Amendment proposed: 402, in clause 2, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
“(2) A person who would not otherwise meet the requirements of subsection (1), shall not be considered to meet those requirements as a result of stopping eating or drinking.”—(Naz Shah.)
This amendment means that someone who is not terminally ill within the meaning of subsection (1) cannot bring themselves within that definition by stopping eating or drinking or both.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Maternity Services
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered maternity services.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank all the Members in attendance for their interest in this important topic and the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time to debate maternity services in England.
On average, a baby is born in England every 56 seconds, over 1,500 babies each day, most of them delivered in an NHS setting with the help and support of a maternity department or at home with an NHS community midwife by their side. That is over 500,000 babies every year. I contributed to that statistic in 2014 and 2019 when I gave birth to my children at St Richard’s hospital in Chichester. Two very different births that I will not spend my valuable time in this debate reflecting on, because there are far more important voices that need to be heard and considered. A person is at their most vulnerable moment when they or their partner go into labour. We put our health, safety, and the safety of our unborn child into the hands of professionals who work in that setting—the midwives, obstetricians, anaesthetists, and neonatologists—to support us in the safe delivery of our child and get us all home safe. And in the majority of births that is the case.
However, several investigations have revealed fundamental flaws in how maternity care is delivered across England. A Care Quality Commission inspection of 131 maternity units found that 65% were not safe for women to give birth in, with studies showing that one fifth of all causes of stillbirth are potentially preventable. The Ockenden report, led by Donna Ockenden, investigated the maternity services at the Shrewsbury and Telford Hospital NHS Trust, but it also highlighted the flaws in maternity care across England. The report laid out immediate and essential actions which are key to reforming maternity services and ensuring that every mother and baby receive the care they deserve and should expect. In her report Donna reflected that sometimes that spotlight can feel harsh to staff on the front line, who are doing their very best in what are often extremely challenging circumstances.
In conversation with midwives and others working in the maternity care sector, I recognise that each one I spoke to entered the profession as a the result of a calling, vocation, or passion for supporting mothers to bring their babies into the world. They are frontline NHS staff who often go above and beyond the call of duty to support and care for their patients in those extraordinary hours and days. Midwives in particular spend significant time with expectant mothers, supporting them through all stages of pregnancy and birth. They see women at their most vulnerable. They act as therapists, teachers, friends and maternal figures. Yet across the country, staffing levels are inadequate. In 2023, midwives and support workers worked over 100,000 hours of unpaid overtime every week. The pressure and stress on them is immense and this leads to burnout, absenteeism, high staff turnover and the loss of experienced professionals from the field, and that ultimately puts patient safety at risk.
Jeremy Hunt (Godalming and Ash) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing forward this debate and the excellent and persuasive way that she is making her case. On burnout, does she agree that one of the biggest issues is that when a tragedy happens, midwives and obstetricians often feel that if they speak out the risk is that they or their institution will get sued, or that they could get fired from their jobs? Does she agree that litigation reform to try and change the rules of the game, so that people are able to be open when they think they have made a mistake and learn from those mistakes, is one of the most important ways that we could improve the record on patient safety, which is as much a concern to her as it is to me?
Jess Brown-Fuller
I agree wholeheartedly that we need to change the way that we do litigation, because NHS trusts often argue that they want to learn and grow from poor experiences, but the litigation system means that they rarely have the opportunity to do so, because everybody is so afraid to speak out. We need to change that culture within maternity services and the NHS as a whole.
As a country, we are training more midwives than ever before, yet retention remains a problem and the pandemic exacerbated an already difficult situation, with highly trained midwives with families or caring responsibilities leaving the profession too soon.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this debate here today. Frimley Park hospital in my constituency received an outstanding report from the Care Quality Commission in 2023, but it none the less identified that inadequate staffing remains one of the highest risks on the maternity register. That has daily implications; many midwives reported, for example, that daily checks were often incomplete, handovers were interrupted and not standardised, and mandatory training was often not completed.
Does my hon. Friend agree that to ensure high-quality maternity care, from admission to discharge, requires not only stringent oversight by trust boards, but far greater care for staff in the setting of the hospital, providing safe spaces where conversations can be had, handovers can take place, and nurses can rest? In that way, we will both retain and also hopefully recruit more of our vital nursing staff.
Jess Brown-Fuller
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; the key to providing strong maternity services that benefit both the staff and the patients is making sure that there is a full workforce so that they can do not just the “need to haves”, but the “nice to haves” in a maternity department, which can make such a difference to patients’ experiences when they are going through that service.
The retention issue that we have directly impacts training. Newly qualified and inexperienced midwives need experienced mentors, but if seasoned professionals leave, the next generation lacks the support necessary to transition into leadership roles. Midwives and other maternity staff must train together at every level to be fully equipped for every situation, and ensure that concerns can be escalated effectively. That is why the Ockenden report and the Royal College of Midwives seek a commitment to including midwives in the long-term workforce plan.
In 2017, bursaries for student nurses and midwives were ended, with the Royal College of Midwives warning that that decision threatened the future of our maternity services in England. It has led to one third of midwifery students having debts exceeding £40,000, with 80% of them knowing someone who has dropped out of their course due to financial hardship. Many also take on additional jobs to afford their studies, which detracts from their vital training. To mitigate those pressures on trainee midwives, I encourage the Government to explore alternative routes to support midwifery and nursing students, which have been laid out by the Royal College of Midwives, through new funding options or a scheme where student debt is forgiven after a defined period of service in the NHS.
A similar funding issue affects apprenticeship schemes in midwifery. Despite receiving overwhelmingly positive feedback from trusts across the country regarding the apprenticeship route, many trusts cannot afford to offer those positions due to a lack of backfill funds, so trusts often hand back their apprenticeship levy, as the scheme is undeliverable. I hope the Minister will work with her colleagues in the Department for Education to address this fundamental flaw in the delivery of level 6 and level 7 apprenticeships, which have proven to deliver the midwives of the future.
In preparing for today’s debate, I was invited to my local maternity unit at St Richard’s hospital in Chichester, where as I mentioned I had both of my children. University Hospitals Sussex had its maternity services inspected by the CQC in September 2021, which found all hospitals across the trust to be inadequate or requiring improvement. Although there has not been a formal inspection since, the trust assures me that all actions from the CQC have been completed, with the majority of the Ockenden immediate and essential actions implemented. However, to fully implement all the IEAs will require funding, which currently the trust does not have.
St Richard’s hospital confidently tells me that it is now fully staffed for the first time in a long time, and the director of maternity services is keen to look at how she can further improve patient experience and communication. I know Members across the House are keen to work with their NHS trusts constructively to ensure the best outcomes possible for their constituents. I was reassured by the senior leadership team, those working in the department, and the new parents on the ward, who I had the pleasure of congratulating. Introducing tiny babies to the world was probably the best moment of my recess—it was very bizarre for those parents when the MP walked in and said, “Can I say hello?” I am pleased that the trust is taking seriously its responsibility to provide a much improved service.
It would be a missed opportunity if I, as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for infant feeding, did not mention how we could do much more as a society to support mothers to breastfeed, if they choose to. The UK’s breastfeeding rates are among the lowest in the world. Only 1% of mothers exclusively breastfeed at six months, despite the World Health Organisation recommending exclusive breastfeeding for this period and continuation, alongside nutritious foods, for up to two years. Some 44% of mothers surveyed wished that they had breastfed for longer and would have done so if they had received better and more tailored support. New mothers need time, expertise and evidence-based information to make informed decisions on their feeding choices, and maternity services play a key role in establishing a feeding plan that works for mother and baby before they go home. But, across the country, community midwifery and health visiting services have been vaporised, so support is patchy and often delivered by volunteers or midwives in their spare time. I hope that the Government will support improved community services such as milk support groups, to give all women, regardless of their feeding choices, somewhere to turn when they need support.
I will take this opportunity, perhaps selfishly, to get on record the name of one of the coolest kids I ever met. Benedict Henry Goodfellow was an absolute dude—[Interruption.] I am not going to cry—and I am proud to call his mum, Steph, one of my close friends and the strongest woman I know. This debate is so important to me because Bendy needed 24-hour care since birth after a case of extreme birth trauma left him with devastating neurological damage. Bendy was loved by everyone who came into contact with him until he died, aged 10. The experience left Steph traumatised and profoundly changed. Bendy was born nearly 30 years ago and yet Steph and Ben’s story is just as relevant today. It should not be.
I am immensely grateful to Donna Ockenden for putting me in touch with families from across the country—including from Leeds, Nottingham, Shrewsbury and Sussex—ahead of this debate to hear their personal experiences of failures in maternity care.
Katie White (Leeds North West) (Lab)
As I am the Member for Leeds North West, the hon. Member may have spoken to my constituents, Dan and Fiona, who tragically lost their baby Aliona after only 27 minutes. Despite the fact that the inquest found a number of gross failings, the figures for Leeds, which came out only last night, are horrifying. Does the hon. Member agree that there are grounds for an independent review of maternity services in Leeds?
Jess Brown-Fuller
The hon. Member is absolutely right to raise the case of Dan and Fiona. I was lucky enough to have them give up their time to share their heartbreaking story with me. They are at the forefront of the fight for an independent inquiry in Leeds. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said that he would look at whether there is cause for an investigation but those families are still waiting to find out if that will go ahead.
I met with families like Dan and Fiona to ensure that the questions I ask the Minister today are the questions that those families would ask if they had the opportunity. I cannot begin to imagine how exhausting it is to relive the moments that their lives changed forever, over and over again, in the pursuit of better outcomes for the next family. I will include a number of their questions to the Minister in my closing remarks, but I reflect that the families who were able to share their experiences with me were, overwhelmingly, white, middle class, often highly educated and that many had medical backgrounds or academic careers before going through this trauma. Lord Darzi’s report found that black women are almost three times as likely to die in childbirth as white women and that neonatal mortality in the most deprived areas is more than double that in the least deprived. Who speaks up for those families? Who ensures transparency and accountability for those with a fundamental distrust of the medical profession, or those who have learning disabilities, or English as their second language, because those people are not supported in navigating the complex systems that are in place?
Negligence claims in obstetrics account for just 13% of the volume of litigation received by NHS Resolution in 2023-24 but cost over £1 billion every year—nearly 60% of the total cost of clinical negligence claims. Beyond financial costs, those failures carry a devastating human toll. If we truly invest in our maternity services, in both professionals and facilities, more than money is saved; lives are saved.
In conclusion, I would like to ask the following questions of the Minister. First, the previous Government were supportive of the Ockenden review, and previous health Ministers had made assurances that maternity services were going to get the support they desperately needed. I know the Secretary of State for Health is supportive of the Ockenden review and has met many bereaved parents since the general election. He has assured those parents that fixing maternity is a priority for the Government, and that actions would be outlined publicly before Christmas 2024. He came back shortly after Christmas saying they needed more time. That response is now two months overdue. Can the Minister assure me that those families will hear an update in the near future?
Do the Government support all the Ockenden report’s immediate and essential actions arising from the review into the Shrewsbury and Telford trust? How will the Government ensure that all integrated care boards and trusts across the UK implement all the actions? What support will be provided to the trusts to achieve that, and prevent a postcode lottery of maternity care?
If those IEAs are implemented, what will be the Government’s measure of success? We currently have no national data regarding preventable deaths. It is the charitable sector that has determined that more than 800 baby deaths a year could have been prevented. One of the IEAs is a long-term plan to secure a safe maternity workforce and improve training. Can we expect to see maternity care professionals, including neonatologists, obstetricians and anaesthetists, included alongside midwifery colleagues in the refresh of the 10-year workforce plan for the NHS?
An overriding theme in my conversations with bereaved parents was the CQC’s hesitancy to prosecute. Cases were often supported in the first instance, but families were then informed, just days before the three-year statute of limitations expired, that the CQC would no longer be seeking a prosecution, with the families having no time to appeal that decision. Does the Minister believe that a three-year statute of limitations is appropriate when families dealing with bereavement are often not even considering a case in the first 12 months?
Does the Minister have any concerns about the CQC’s ability as a regulator? Or does she agree with the parents that there is a reluctance to prosecute by the leadership of CQC when there have been failures in patient care? Does the Minister support calls from Sands and Tommy’s charities for all triage phonelines to be recorded, as currently they are not?
Finally, parents repeatedly reported to me that the bereavement care they received felt like a tick-box exercise, with a lot of focus on the mother and a lack of communication and support for the father, when both have suffered that bereavement. Does the Minister agree that communication could be vastly improved across maternity services in all cases, so that both parents have the opportunity to understand what happened in those most vulnerable hours?
I would like to finish by thanking every Member who has come to talk about this important issue. I also thank Donna Ockenden and all who contributed to the creation of the review. My greatest thanks go to all the families who gave up their time to share their stories with me, reminding me that those babies were people, not statistics. They are loved, they are missed, and they deserved better.
Dr Beccy Cooper (Worthing West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for calling this debate. As neighbouring parliamentarians on the south coast, we are both passionate champions of the health of our residents and want the best healthcare provision for all, and that includes maternity services.
Unfortunately, despite numerous reviews, plans and strategies, too many maternity services remain shockingly, stubbornly poor, as the hon. Member pointed out. Successive investigations into high-profile failures have described a pattern of dysfunctional and even dangerous cultures, with a failure to listen to families and missed opportunities to address known issues. As a result, too many mothers and babies have experienced substandard care and unacceptably poor outcomes.
In the past year, the number of maternity services in England receiving ratings of inadequate or requires improvement from the CQC increased from 54% to 67%. Of the 131 maternity services inspected from August 2022 to December 2023, only 4% were rated outstanding, and not one was rated outstanding for safety. In that context, we see stagnating progress on improving stillbirth and maternal mortality rates not seen in the UK for over 20 years.
As we have heard, black women are almost three times as likely, and Asian women almost twice as likely, as white women to die during birth or post-natally. Maternal mortality rates for women from the most socioeconomically deprived areas are twice those for women from the least deprived areas. Closing the black and Asian maternal mortality gap and tackling profound health inequalities such as those is rightly a priority for this Labour Government, and it is the reason I went into politics.
Poor outcomes exist, too, for the most vulnerable and marginalised women, such as refugees, LGBTQ+ women, prisoners, those who have been through the care system and those who have experienced domestic violence or sexual abuse. All of them are more likely to experience poorer maternity care and the resultant trauma. Poor standards in maternity services are part of a wider picture of a healthcare system that has not prioritised women’s reproductive health.
The Women and Equalities Committee highlights that gynaecological care waiting lists have grown faster than lists in any other specialty in recent years. As a public health professional, it saddens me to say this, but the NHS Confederation reports that the UK stands out as the country with the largest female health gap in the G20 and the 12th largest globally, with women spending three more years in ill health and disability compared with men. Those systemic failings underpin the poor outcomes and health inequalities that we see in maternity care.
As a public health doctor, I have worked in and led health teams, and as the proud MP for Worthing West, I have heard from dedicated staff across our local services. I understand that systemic issues fail staff as well as patients. In our hospital in Worthing, the maternity services are staffed by hard-working, capable healthcare professionals who want to get on with the job they have trained for. They are as frustrated and saddened as the rest of us when processes, equipment, staffing levels and governance are simply inadequate for the provision of excellent healthcare.
Our Government have pledged to recruit and train thousands more midwives, which is to be warmly welcomed. The forthcoming 10-year plan for the NHS is an opportunity to address the underlying problems of a deskilled and demoralised workforce, which impact maternity services. We must take action to improve midwife training and retention, address the numbers of qualified medical staff on maternity wards, improve patient voice and bring a relentless focus to safety and compassion.
There is an urgent need to transform the health and social care system. In doing so, we have a superb opportunity to look at innovative models of integrated and accessible “neighbourhood health” maternity services, delivered alongside hospital care. Finally, I welcome the recommendations of the APPG on birth trauma for a national maternity improvement strategy and a maternity commissioner to drive improved outcomes and rebuild our services.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I commend the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for setting the scene so well. I thank her for sharing her personal stories; nothing sets out an issue better than a personal story. I am my party’s health spokesperson, but it is always good to give a local perspective too. I look forward to the responses from the Minister and Opposition spokespersons—the trio here today seem to be in all the debates on this subject, and I thank them for their contributions.
Our maternity services in Northern Ireland are crucial and, arguably, among the most consistent services offered by the NHS. Although all our services are important, everyone must be born and must be given the best start in life, and it is through our wonderful NHS maternity services that we are able to succeed.
My constituency resides within the South Eastern health and social care trust, which offers both midwifery-led and consultant-led care, with a fantastic focus on personalised support for mothers through their pregnancy and after labour. The trust also provides antenatal clinics, home visits and care options for expecting mothers.
Back home in Northern Ireland, in October 2024, an independent review concluded that a co-ordinated system-wide change is needed to radically improve maternity care. There are problems with maternity care not just here on the mainland, but with us back home. The Minister does not have a responsibility for that, but she has an interest in all things pertinent to Northern Ireland. Whatever the subject matter, and whenever I ask her for help, as I always do, she always responds in a positive fashion, and I appreciate that.
There are clear inequalities in services across Northern Ireland. It is no secret that the health service has witnessed extreme difficulties over the last couple of decades. More must be done to support staff and to ensure safe and quality care, so that women and families feel supported through their journeys during pregnancy and labour.
One of my constituents gave birth to her first baby just last week, and I want to record what she said, because I think that that is important. Her experience was made by the incredible student midwives who supported her and held her hand the entire way. When my three boys were born—that was not yesterday—I was there with my wife. She held my hand, and the blood circulation in my hand got less and less as my dear, loving wife’s pain increased. I say that because we have to give some credit to the student midwives who are there for what they do.
The Department of Health and Social Care has increased the number of commissioned pre-registration nursing and midwifery university places from 680 in 2013 to 1,335 in 2023. Those are good figures, but unfortunately, due to budgetary constraints, the number of places returned to the baseline of 1,025 in 2023-24. So there was an increase sometime back, but the numbers have levelled out again.
Thousands of people across Northern Ireland apply to study nursing and midwifery each year. The number of midwifery training places is extremely limited, and demand often exceeds the number of available spots. The Royal College of Midwives has noticed a downward trend in midwifery applicants and has stated that that is a concern, expressing apprehension about the significant drop in the number of applicants. For the record, has the Minister had an opportunity—she probably has—to get the opinion of the Royal College of Midwives on where we are and how we could help?
We must look at why this is happening. It could be said that, because midwifery is a challenging field to get into, many do not see the point in applying directly for it. Again, what are the Minister’s thoughts on how we improve things? Additionally, some have stated that it is easier to progress in a career by going in at entry level, as opposed to starting university after school and trying to get a job after.
There must be ambitious reform of these services to ensure that we can support expectant mothers and give them memorable and positive experiences. We often hear of horror stories, and we must allow for the best start in life for babies and families.
To conclude, we have some of the best staff in our maternity wards, and their work and dedication must be recognised. They are hammered day and daily in their jobs, due to budgetary constraints and the inability to get the support they need. I look to the Minister and the Government to give a commitment to our NHS—and, more importantly, to those who work in it—that more will be done to properly fund our wonderful maternity services across the whole of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and to give families and parents the best possible start to their children’s lives. I request that the Minister have discussions with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland, Mike Nesbitt, on what we are doing back home, so that we can work better together.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing this important debate. I should note at the start my officership in the APPG for infant feeding and the APPG on single-parent families.
Women’s health is often an already under-prioritised area of our health system, with the UK found to have the largest female health gap in the G20, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) noted earlier. Women are falling through the gaps, which have been made worse by the past 14 years of austerity and reorganisations in the health system.
The situation facing midwifery and maternity services is even more dire. As a member of the Health and Social Care Committee I have met the Royal College of Midwives, which made clear its worries about the need for better investment in midwifery and maternity services, and its concerns about safe staffing levels in a workforce facing crisis.
Those real concerns are borne out by the national review of maternity services, which found that 47% of services were rated as requiring improvement on safety grounds. That is not to say there are not bright spots of positivity, and I have nothing but praise for the work of Calderdale’s maternity services, which were fantastic and supportive at the births of both my children. However, the national picture is one of services that are stretched and midwives who are working extra hours to plug the gaps. At the end of last year, figures showed that more midwives than before have left the profession after five years or less.
The story across the health service is, sadly, consistent, and that is the result of pressure in an NHS that Lord Darzi warned was on life support. That is why the NHS 10-year plan is even more vital and timely. It gives us not only a real opportunity to begin undoing 14 years of damage to our health service, but the chance to rebalance our health system and focus on different priorities that have been long neglected, be that maternity services or mental health. Women who access maternity services often do so at a time when they feel most vulnerable, and it is important that those services are there to protect them at that time.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on securing this hugely important debate. Today I will highlight both the excellence and the challenges of maternity services in my constituency of Epsom and Ewell.
Last year, the dedicated staff of Epsom and St Helier university hospitals delivered more than 3,400 babies. Their commitment to patient care is outstanding, with care being ranked No. 1 in London for patient experience. Both units have also achieved UNICEF UK baby friendly hospital initiative gold accreditation, reflecting their exceptional support for new mothers’ feeding choices. Those outcomes are testament to the experience, compassion and hard work of the staff, despite the conditions they work under.
Our maternity services are held back by infrastructure that is simply not fit for purpose. Some of the hospital buildings at Epsom and St Helier are older than the NHS itself. Those conditions make it harder to provide the high standards of care that mothers and babies deserve. At St Helier hospital, the maternity unit’s lift regularly breaks down, making it increasingly difficult to safely transfer maternity patients to intensive care or the main theatres. Both Epsom and St Helier hospitals lack waiting areas and suitable space to maintain privacy, making it harder to implement a nationally mandated triage system and to provide private spaces, which are vital for bereaved families.
Every year, the trust spends millions just on patching up these crumbling facilities, which is not sustainable. The cost of maintaining outdated buildings and equipment diverts critical resources away from the frontline. Furthermore, staff are stretched thin by running duplicate services across two sites, which affects patient outcomes. The promised new hospital in Sutton was meant to solve those problems by bringing together emergency care, maternity services and in-patient paediatrics in a modern, specialist facility. However, the Government have pushed construction back to at least 2032, leaving our community in limbo. Meanwhile, Epsom general hospital alone needs £44 million-worth of repairs, with 46% classed as high risk, meaning that failure to address them could lead to serious injury or major service disruption. If the UK is to be the safest place in the world to have a baby, we must do better.
Beyond the building, staffing remains a critical issue. A local midwife recently shared with me the reality of working in our maternity services. She described how the staffing problems in maternity continue to be dire. There simply are not enough midwives rostered each day to cover the work, which makes it unsafe for women and their babies, and creates an unsustainable working environment for those left behind. Midwives are working longer hours, starting early or leaving late, taking on more than they should just to ensure women are seen. This leads to burnout, and many midwives ultimately leave the profession as they feel that the stress and huge responsibilities are not matched by adequate support or fair pay.
As a woman, the midwife told me how deeply saddened she is that this is the service being offered to women in this country. The care a woman receives during childbirth has lifelong implications—not just for her, but for her children and for society as a whole. She worries that women’s choices, particularly around home births, are becoming increasingly sidelined. Women’s autonomy over their own bodies is becoming less relevant, and she fears what that means for the future of maternity care for our daughters and granddaughters. Her worries reflect those of so many across the country.
I have three children, all of whom were born successfully in London. I wanted a home birth for all of them. Sadly, we were only successful in having one home birth due to complications, but I am grateful that I had the choice. I thank Brierly midwives for that, but not every woman today has that choice.
The people of Epsom and Ewell, Leatherhead and Ashtead—and around the UK—deserve outstanding maternity care, unhampered by crumbling infrastructure, chronic understaffing and a lack of investment. As a first step, I urge the Government to release the full impact assessment of the delays to the new hospital programme and reconsider the decision. We cannot afford to let maternity services deteriorate any further. The safety of women, babies and midwives depends on it.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing this debate. Fundamentally, it is about giving kids the best start in life and giving mums the best care. There are few subjects of more importance to us, right across the House.
The evidence is clear that midwife-led maternity units are great for babies and mums. They are every bit as safe as the big hospitals we have heard many hon. Members talk about today, and one of the benefits they offer is the option of a more natural birth, with less intervention from health professionals, unless it is necessary. Mums who deliver in a midwife-led unit are less likely to need a caesarean or help from forceps or a vacuum. While those procedures can be life-saving, and we should thank the people who use them every day to support babies into this world, they come with downsides. Caesareans increase the risk for mums, including haemorrhage, blood clots and infections in the womb, and they take much longer to recover from. The potential side effects of forceps and vacuums are less severe but are, nonetheless, very real.
As the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) said, choice is important for mums. So that people can have the birth they want, we should make sure that, when they come to the end of their pregnancy, they can choose where they want to deliver—be that at home, in a more clinical setting if there are additional risks, or in a midwife-led unit.
In Lichfield, we were lucky enough to have a fantastic midwife-led maternity unit at Samuel Johnson community hospital. The unit was closed during the pandemic for reasons we all understand, given the national crisis, but it has never reopened. The closest maternity unit is at Queen’s hospital in Burton, 11 miles up the A38. When High Speed 2 is not destroying the transport infrastructure in my constituency, that is not necessarily a significant trip in an ambulance, but it presents barriers to those who do not have access to their own transport. It is currently the only option available to people in Lichfield.
However, mums in Lichfield will soon not be able to choose that midwife-led unit because it is on the chopping block. That would be a huge loss. The service gives women in Lichfield, Burntwood and the surrounding villages somewhere close to home to deliver in a calmer, quieter setting than the big hospital. Where that is appropriate, I think everybody in this room, and people much more widely, would want to support it.
Shutting the midwife-led unit would mean less choice for mums, and potentially worse outcomes for mums and babies. I have met many people whose children were born in that unit and who are so happy to have had the option. When I mentioned that I was taking part in this debate, one of my staff members said, without prompting, that she had had four kids—two in the clinical setting of a big hospital, and two at the Samuel Johnson community hospital. She was so much happier with her experience in the midwife-led unit. She was not, in any way, talking down what happened in the other hospital, but the more natural, quieter and more relaxed environment was a benefit as she was going through childbirth.
I thank everybody who works in maternity services, and I particularly thank those who champion midwife-led units.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing this important debate, which is particularly important to my constituents Charlotte and James.
In April 2019, Charlotte gave birth to a daughter, Norah. Norah was given the all-clear by a doctor but quickly became poorly. Despite concerning oxygen saturation results, Norah was not rushed to the neonatal intensive care unit. She died very suddenly that same night. Charlotte and James are still fighting for the truth about why their daughter died.
The UK should be the safest place in the world to have a baby. However, according to the Care Quality Commission’s most recent figures, nearly two thirds of England’s maternity services are not safe enough. We must see an end to understaffed maternity units, and I am sure the Minister will agree that addressing disparities in obstetric care is essential for a fair society.
Women and their babies deserve better. All pregnant women in my Eastleigh constituency and across the UK should have access to safe and fully resourced maternity care. However, according to NHS data and the Royal College of Midwives, the number of people in the maternity workforce is shrinking. Midwives and maternity support workers are working in excess of 100,000 hours a week in unpaid overtime. The result is that many staff experience stress and burnout, with some midwives saying that they feel uncared for at work, unable to take breaks to get a drink of water or use the loo, and—with the best will in the world—unable to deliver the kind of maternity care that women expect and deserve. How can the NHS be expected to deliver a higher quality of care with fewer, already very overworked staff? Health outcomes for mothers and babies will only decline if commitments in the workforce plan are not ambitious and funded.
I also highlight the often overlooked factor of mental health in maternity care. According to the Maternal Mental Health Alliance, one in five women experiences a perinatal mental health problem, and 70% will conceal or underplay maternal mental health difficulties. Tragically, suicide is the leading cause of maternal death in the first year after birth.
As we have heard, on average a baby is born in England every 56 seconds. The Royal College of Midwives states that no other NHS service has as much contact over a prolonged period with so many normally healthy individuals. With a properly staffed and resourced maternity service, there is great potential to use this period to ensure that, after leaving hospital, mothers are mentally in the best possible position to care for their newborns. I fully support the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto commitment to transforming perinatal mental health and offering more support for those who are pregnant, new mothers and those who sadly experience miscarriage or stillbirth.
It is welcome that maternity services are important to the Government, but I share the view of the Royal College of Midwives that this priority must be reflected in how maternity services feature in the 10-year health plan, with a decade of ambition and focus, as well as a commitment to proper funding.
Tom Rutland (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Lab)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing this important debate.
Maternity services are a vital part of our national health service. They are unique in that they are entrusted not only with the care of newborns at their most vulnerable and mothers at their time of greatest need, but also with ensuring that the wondrous process of bringing a new life into the world is a safe one. For many families, it is, and I thank those in our NHS who work tirelessly to deliver the best care they can, especially against the backdrop of 14 years of chronic underfunding of services and of conditions that are not acceptable in a modern healthcare system.
However, for too many families in East Worthing and Shoreham, and others served by hospitals in the University Hospitals Sussex NHS foundation trust, maternity services are not performing as they should, despite the hard work of many staff. All four maternity units in the trust have been determined by the CQC to be inadequate or requiring improvement, showing just how urgently that change is needed.
Behind each rating and category are the devastating experiences of real people. I have met families in my constituency who have had to endure the most tragic and unimaginable suffering as a result of having received inadequate care from the trust’s maternity services. Some families are living through the devastation of stillbirth. In one case, a baby with no underlying conditions, who in the eyes of all involved was completely healthy, tragically died. Numerous issues should have triggered additional monitoring and alternative care pathways, but they were never acted on. In that case, the trust admitted failures in care to the parents, but I am aware of failures in other cases.
Another family—who were, again, due to welcome into the world a healthy baby with no underlying health conditions—suffered horrendously because of misdiagnosis, delayed treatment and a missed opportunity for a caesarean. These errors were compounded by poor communication and note keeping, which resulted in clinical staff not being aware of earlier events, and yet another unimaginable tragedy taking place. Sadly, these families are not alone. A group of bereaved families in Sussex, who no doubt wish they had no reason to know each other, have come together to call for action to ensure that no expectant parents have to endure what they have gone through.
I am glad that our Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care have rightly prioritised maternity service improvements as part of their plan to change our NHS. They too feel the urgency for change that many of my constituents feel.
I am grateful to the families in my constituency who have channelled their grief into the courage to share their harrowing stories with me, and to the Health Secretary for meeting families previously in the care of the University Hospitals Sussex NHS foundation trust to hear their experiences and calls for action. We need action. With a new baby born every minute, we cannot delay or defer making our maternity services safe for all, including by tackling racial inequalities in care. The need is now and the urgency is clear.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on securing this important debate. We are here today because maternity services are not at the level that they need to be at. There are many, many fantastic services across the country, but we are here to highlight those that need urgent improvement to improve outcomes for all mothers, not just some.
The excellent report that the all-party parliamentary group for birth trauma produced last year is to be commended for the way that it highlighted the fact that, for a minority of women, the experience of childbirth is traumatic and has long-lasting consequences. The section about stillbirth and neonatal death includes a submission from one mother who reported:
“The scenes in theatre can only be described as chaotic and these along with subsequent events have left me traumatised and suffering with PTSD.”
I pay tribute to the Brontë birth centre in my constituency of Dewsbury and Batley, a midwife-led birthing centre in the Dewsbury and District hospital. It recently reopened in April after having been closed for two years because of staff shortages. Two of my children were born there more than 20 years ago, so it will always have a special place in my heart. I would not want my comments to be misconstrued as criticism of the services it provides.
We have heard about the difference between midwife-led and consultant-led services, and we have heard about positive examples of where midwife-led services are more appropriate and can deliver better care. I am not making a point about midwife-led versus consultant-led care: the APPG report also cites horror stories from women in childbirth where consultants were present. Rather, my point is that, in reviewing maternity provision and seeking to minimise the risk to women during childbirth, we should also ensure seamless obstetrician provision for midwife-led care if required. If mothers giving birth in the Brontë birth centre encounter complications that require more in-depth medical care—God forbid—they would need to be moved from Dewsbury to Wakefield, which is a journey of more than half an hour. That increases the risks to the mother and the unborn child, so I would like the Government to address that issue.
For many who have experienced emergency situations, the image painted earlier of sheer terror and panic is all too real. It is likely that maternity services will fail to meet the national maternity safety ambition to halve the 2010 rate of stillbirths by 2025—indeed, recent figures suggest the 20% decline in stillbirth deaths achieved between 2010 and 2020 is in reverse—so it is imperative that we explore every aspect of maternity provision to ensure it is as safe as it can be.
Although almost 61% of maternity services are rated good, only 1% are rated outstanding, and just under 38% are still rated as requiring improvement for safety. Improving maternity services in the NHS is a critical priority, and the many reports since 2010 have made several key recommendations to enhance care quality and safety. I would like the Minister to share what steps the Government are taking, or will take, to address workforce gaps where the need to recruit and retain more midwives and maternity staff is essential to provide adequate support for mothers and babies. What steps are the Government taking to reduce health inequalities, to tackle disparities in maternal health outcomes, particularly for black and ethnic minority women and those in deprived areas? How will the Government ensure that adequate funding—including the reinstatement of the bursaries for midwives and nurses—is available and allocated to deliver the best quality maternity services?
Enhancing maternal mental health support for women with long-term mental health conditions is crucial. Listening to women’s experiences is also key; the continuous gathering of feedback and acting on it are essential to improve care. What are the Government doing to implement anti-racism strategies so trusts can set clear standards of behaviour to support both staff and patients? If implemented, these improvements will help ensure that all mothers receive safe, high-quality care during pregnancy and birth.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on securing today’s debate. My constituents are watching at home and she eloquently set out the challenges that face our maternity services and the health of women across the UK, so I thank her for doing that so well.
When people in Redditch elect their Members of Parliament, they do so with a clear mandate on maternity services and the future of the Alexandra hospital. It would be remiss of me not to thank the shadow spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) who did a tour of service at our hospital in the earlier parts of his career—we thank him for that.
Our maternity services are famed for delivering one Harry Styles many years ago—[Interruption.] Yes, just the one Harry Styles. More seriously, in 2015 our maternity services were closed and relocated to Worcestershire Royal. That temporary relocation was made permanent in 2017. That is the only site delivering such services across our entire county. That means many of my residents are forced to travel to Worcester or Birmingham to get the services they need.
Although the hon. Member for Chichester was brave enough to share some of the stories that she has heard from her constituents, I am quite frankly not strong enough to retell some of the stories I have heard—of stillbirths and, frighteningly, of parents giving birth to their children on the roadside—in the way that they deserve. Since 2015, the initial promises to return those services to my constituency have been forgotten. Despite signatories totalling over 50,000 from the local community, no parameters for the return of such services have been discussed by the ICB.
I want safe services for my constituents, but although I am concerned by the current configuration of services, I am deeply concerned about the future of services in my constituency. Worcestershire Royal has significant constraints on growth. Worcestershire is set to deliver tens of thousands of new homes and huge population growth in the next 10 years, with pressures on services set to rise substantially. As this Government seek to rebuild and reconfigure our NHS, it is time for those services to meet the needs of the present and, most importantly, deliver the services of the future. I urge the Government to review the decisions taken on the centralisation of services that may have made sense in the past, but will not in the future.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
I am proud to represent Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire. My colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), could not be here, but, on the subject of centralisation, our nearest maternity hospital is in Inverness, which is four hours each way from parts of Sutherland, Argyll, and the Isle of Eigg—around Muck, which I am sure the hon. Member is, or should be, familiar with. I wonder whether the hon. Member could support our case that centralisation is becoming a real problem for expectant mothers, who suffer enormous complications because of distance, given that smaller regional hospitals are no longer providing maternity care?
Chris Bloore
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I am sorry to hear about the level of problems that mothers face his constituency. The hon. Member for Chichester started the debate saying that this is about services for women at their most vulnerable, when they are giving birth. It is clear from the experiences of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and mine that services are not meeting the needs of those women when they need them the most. That is the challenge that we should now take up.
I conclude by saying that, in the past, the reconfiguration of services has been based on a financial envelope and the challenges of staff shortages, and that has dictated many decisions, but now is the time, with the Darzi report and the eloquent speeches we have heard today, to build that service for the future. We should all strive to meet that challenge, even if that means making difficult financial decisions to invest in the long term, so that we can give women and families the support that they deserve.
Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)
There are three speakers, and we have five minutes to go.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing this important debate. I will keep this brief and not reiterate all the things that have been said before, but there are a couple of points I want to make about how important it is to talk about women at the most vulnerable point in their lives, as well as the most vulnerable point for the babies who are being born. There cannot be a more important time in their lives than the moment when they are born, which is why it is so important to talk about this. I speak as a woman and a mother, but also as a human being. We are discussing the birth of the human race; I do not think there is anything more profound than that.
However, I will focus on something that has not been raised very much today: the role of the CQC in keeping our maternity services safe. One of the hospitals that serves my constituency of Chelmsford is Broomfield hospital, the maternity services rating of which was downgraded to inadequate at the beginning of January. That on its own is shocking and worrying enough. I have met the staff at Broomfield hospital and been to the maternity services there. I want to give it help and support so that it can improve. However, what concerns me is that the CQC carried out its inspection in March last year and only released its report in January. That is utterly unacceptable. How can we be expected to hold our services to account and how can we help them to improve if we do not even know what is wrong with them in the first place?
It is the CQC’s job to tell us what is wrong with those services and lay it out bare so that we can learn from the things that go wrong and quickly put them right. It is not okay for the CQC to turn around and say “We have had technical difficulties with our new system and, therefore, we couldn’t get the report out”. That is not good enough. It is also not good enough for them to say “We shared some of our findings with the hospital, which is also making them public at the same time”. It is simply not good enough. We need to support the CQC to do much better.
I am conscious of time and I know other Members want to speak, but I want to underline the importance of the role of the CQC, as well as the leadership across all of the NHS. From the excellent job that the midwives and the support staff do in maternity centres to the leadership of the hospitals, including the chief executives and the ICBs, everyone has a role to play in improving maternity services. The CQC also has a huge role to play, and it must do better.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I will talk for about a minute. The Minister heard from me last autumn, when we had a debate about Gloucestershire’s maternity services. The background remains as it was before, but there is an important update. When I was elected, Cheltenham general hospital’s birth unit had been closed temporarily since Autumn 2022—I think we should now use the word “indefinitely”. That is simply not good enough. Cheltenham has a population of around 120,000 and it serves a much larger area. Since then, Gloucestershire Royal hospital’s maternity services have been downgraded to inadequate. They remain inadequate, and have done for a number of years.
There have been some really worrying bits of casework slipping into my inbox recently, which tells me that things are going wrong and there are ongoing issues with bad bleeds, which has been raised by the CQC. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) mentioned the CQC’s lag time. The CQC reported in January after a visit last spring, so there is clearly a long delay. I will end there to give my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) a minute, but I hope the Minister can respond on those points and provide an update on what is going on with Gloucestershire Royal hospital’s maternity services.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing the debate. She spoke movingly and eloquently, and reminded everyone that these are not just statistics, but people.
I will make three points very briefly. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) touched on maternal mental health. As the mental health spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, I was as shocked as anyone to know that the No. 1 cause of death for women in the 12 months post giving birth is taking their own life. That is tragic, and it is one reason why my team are organising an event in Parliament in April with the group Delivering Better to bring together women who have experienced mental health challenges during pregnancy and after childbirth. The event will provide a platform to share stories, raise awareness and discuss how we can improve support and services for mothers across the country.
I recently attended the 120th anniversary of the vet school at Liverpool, where I went to university. I spoke to the pro-vice-chancellor, Professor Louise Kenny, who is a consultant obstetrician and has done a lot of research on health during gestation and the months after birth, and we discussed the latest research. We have not touched on that today, but I will do so briefly now. Healthy gestation is the foundation of a person’s lifelong health, and it has a far greater impact than any lifestyle changes in adulthood. We need to look not just at birth itself, but at the care of the mother before birth—everything from stress to nutrition.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for securing this important debate and making such an excellent opening speech, in which she covered most of the ground that we need to cover.
It is important to acknowledge that the vast majority of babies arrive safely, despite the increasing number of complex pregnancies. My own experience of having a baby was 16 years ago, but I am sure that the thousands of women having babies now are having the same experience that I did. The staff of hospital maternity units make you feel simultaneously that you are the most important person ever to have given birth, and that you are the umpteenth person to have done so this week, they know exactly what they are doing and you can relax. I felt like that even when everything went wrong, which is a great testament to the professionalism of the staff at Wycombe general hospital all those years ago.
This is one of many debates on maternity services that I have attended in the last three years. The first followed the issuing of Donna Ockenden’s report on maternity services in Shrewsbury and Telford hospital trust, which serves my constituents, including Kayleigh and Colin Griffiths, who fought alongside Rhiannon Davies and Richard Stanton and others to give a voice to the many families who suffered as a result of the failings at the trust. But that was not the first scandal in NHS maternity services—Morecambe Bay had already been investigated and reported on by Dr Bill Kirkup—and, tragically, it was not the last either. Dr Kirkup has reviewed significant failings at East Kent, and Donna Ockenden is currently investigating a huge number of incidents at Nottingham. We have also heard the concerns of the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tom Rutland) and for Leeds North West (Katie White) about the state of services in Sussex and Leeds. I am sure that Members across the House are concerned that the tragedy at Shrewsbury and Telford will not be the last.
It makes me quite angry to say that that is not a surprise. We have heard that 65% of trusts were rated inadequate or requiring improvement when it comes to safety in maternity services in the latest CQC survey. That is despite the previous Government’s commitments from the Dispatch Box, which I believe were made in good faith, to deal with unsafe staffing levels and bring about cultural change across the country. The lack of action is unacceptable. Donna Ockenden described the Conservative Government as being “asleep at the wheel” when it came to making progress on the 15 immediate and essential actions she recommended for the whole of England in March 2022, despite their having accepted all those actions.
Each of the reviews into these heartbreaking tragedies has found the same recurring themes: poor management of incidents when things go wrong and, critically, a failure to learn from them, which is indicative of defensive management culture and sometimes toxic working arrangements, including a feeling among staff that they do not have the freedom to speak out and, when they do, inadequate protection for whistleblowers; failure to ensure safe and timely assessment at triage; reluctance to acknowledge the need for medicalisation for a C-section when one is in the best interests of the mother; unsuitable estates and a lack of access to equipment, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire); and, underpinning all these issues, unsafe staffing levels.
That last point is really important, because staff are experiencing burnout. They are leaving the service in high numbers, and are unable to deliver the care that they really want to deliver to mothers at their most vulnerable moment. There are no excuses now—the issues have been identified time and again—but there is evidence that we are going backwards on maternity care. The 2015 national maternity safety ambition to halve rates of stillbirths and neonatal and maternal deaths by 2025 has stalled and is unlikely to be met this year.
There is a shocking disparity of outcomes between different ethnic groups. Black women are more than twice as likely to die than white ones, and other ethnic groups also carry an unacceptably high risk. No one really understands why; there has been no research into it. There are clear links to deprivation, because people in deprived areas also carry a much higher risk, but translation difficulties, certain health conditions and, shamefully, even racism may all play a part in this shocking disparity. The women’s health strategy for England proposed to address these disparities, but it is impossible to point to any measurable progress. Poor maternity care can have a devastating impact on families, and it makes no sense for the taxpayer either. As we have heard, 60% of the value of clinical negligence claims is related to maternity services, and that costs more than £1 billion a year. It makes no sense not to address these issues.
It is important to acknowledge the work of charities such as Sands and Tommy’s and the work of a number of APPGs in this place over the last few years, including the baby loss, maternity, and birth trauma APPGs, all of which I was involved in. They have campaigned tirelessly for safe staffing levels and to improve care across England, and indeed the UK. This debate relates to England because health is a devolved matter, but the whole of the UK must strive to become the safest place in the world to have a baby.
Addressing disparities in obstetric care is essential for a fair society. The immediate and essential actions of the Ockenden report must be implemented at once, because if they are not, more families will face the trauma of a birth injury or worse. The actions included a commitment to safe staffing, and in 2022 the Government made a significant investment in staffing; it is essential that that is continued. The commitments made in the workforce plan must be backed by adequate funding, and include expansion of the wider maternity and neonatal workforce. The UK Government must renew the national maternity ambitions beyond 2025 to include all four nations, and include a clear baseline to measure progress. They must also address this critical issue of health disparities. In her 2022 report into Shrewsbury and Telford hospital trust, Donna Ockenden said:
“The impact of death or serious health complications suffered as a result of maternity care cannot be underestimated. The impact on the lives of families and loved ones is profound and permanent.”
In my first debate on this subject, in March 2022—the day that report was issued—everyone in the Chamber contributing said that the scandal at Shrewsbury and Telford should be the last. It was not. I hope the Minister will today commit to a strategy to ensure that maternity care scandals are ended on the watch of this Government.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I am pleased the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) pointed out that many people actually do have a good birth. I think that is really important, as there is a danger we scare potential mothers. There is good-quality care up and down the country, but it could be better.
The hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) pointed to my work. I never actually served in Redditch in the obs and gynae and the paeds there; my time was done in the early 2010s over at Worcester. One of my favourite times as a doctor was being on the elective C-section list, and seeing the mothers go in, having the music there, and seeing birth after birth. It was fantastic. I also experienced one of the worst things that I have ever had to do as a paediatrician—being handed a lifeless baby and trying to sort that out. Worse still was an emergency C-section after a baby went into the mother’s bladder. Both went off to the intensive care units, and I had to go and speak to the father, who was expecting a normal delivery, to tell him what was going on.
This is the reality of what happens, because having a baby does carry inherent risks. What we are talking about here is what we can do to mitigate them. I think that is the heart of what the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) so eloquently set out; this is about the safety of mitigation. Her story about Bendy and Steph will stick with many people, because that is exactly what this House and the NHS should be trying to avoid. The aim should be to mitigate as much risk as we can.
We have also heard talk about breastfeeding and post-partum mental health, which is really important. Those things should form part of a strategy. Not all patients receive a safe and timely assessment when they are being triaged, with instances of phone triage going unanswered and some women discharging themselves before even being seen or picked up, due to the delays. That was backed up by the Care Quality Commission, which found that unsafe practices in triage form the basis of 81% of the enforcement actions issued to providers and were found to be a safety concern in about a third of all inspections.
The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) pointed to the fantastic quality of care that exists, despite the conditions—we know that 18% of the NHS estate has been described as not fit for purpose and lacking the space for facilities. In my constituency, we have a plan to bring forward an improved maternity centre for Leicestershire. That, too, has been delayed in the future hospitals programme, but at least funding is coming forward to try to deal with that.
Looking at the record of the previous Government, from 2010 to 2022, the rate of stillbirth decreased by 19.3%, the neonatal mortality rate for babies born over 24 weeks gestational age of viability decreased by 36%, and maternal mortality decreased by 17%. In 2015, the then Government launched the national maternity safety ambition, which was to halve the 2010 rates of stillbirth, neonatal and maternal deaths, and brain injuries in babies occurring during or soon after birth by 2025. The current Government have not yet set out an updated ambition for the next decade, so I would appreciate it if the Minister would bring that forward.
As of December 2023, there were 2,361 full-time equivalent midwives working in NHS trusts and other core organisations. That was an increase of 3,700, or 18.9%, since 2010. On the other hand, the birth rate is falling while the number of midwives is rising. I recognise that births are taking place and are somewhat more complex than they used to be, due to things like diabetes, weight and age. It is really important that we have a plan to deal with that; I hope the Minister will comment on that going forward.
That leads me on to community midwives and continuity of care, which we know is inextricably linked to improved care. A report by Cochrane, a non-profit organisation that produces global research to improve health outcomes, showed that women who experience continuity of care—in other words, seeing the same midwife or teams of midwives in pregnancy—have far better outcomes. During the last Parliament, funding was provided for the implementation of continuity of care models. As of April 2024, an additional £186 million had been allocated to improve the quality of care for mothers and babies and to increase the number of available midwifes in post.
I further welcome the £6.8 million in funding provided by the previous Government to help to implement continuity of care for black and ethnic minority groups living in the most deprived areas. As we have heard in the debate, that is a real concern—the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), with her professional experience, pointed to the disparities we see in seeking behaviours among those from BAME backgrounds when it comes to having babies. We also saw that in our work on the Health Committee—I have asked the Minister to look at the two reports on litigation and the Ockenden report in the last Parliament. There is a lot of good cross-party work there that could help to inform current thinking.
Of course, far more remains to be done in the area of saving babies. NHS England published its own delivery plan for maternal and neonatal services in March 2023. Commitments included updating the “Saving babies’ lives” care bundle by 2024 and introducing a national maternity early warning score and updated newborn early warning trigger and tracker to follow up the babies in those cases. The “Saving babies’ lives” care bundle is helping to provide the best practice for providers to reduce neonatal mortality and is rightly a major component of NHS England’s maternal and neonatal services delivery plan. Will the Minister provide an update on the implementation of version 3 of the care bundle?
There are a few closing questions that I would like to pose. The maternal mortality gap has been reduced over the years, from five times to two times, but clearly we need to do more. What further action will the Government take to address the issue of the black and Asian maternal mortality gap, and what ambition will be set out? At the general election, the Government stood on a manifesto to recruit more midwives. Will the Government confirm how that fits into the long-term workforce plan? I am pleased that they have stuck with the previous Government’s plan, and are looking to amend it.
In the new operational planning guidance, NHS England has committed to implementing the key actions in the three-year delivery plan. Will the Minister update us on progress against some of those actions, including the commitment to introduce a national maternity early warning score system and an updated newborn early warning trigger and track tool? As part of their response to the East Kent review, the previous Government established a group overseeing maternity safety services nationwide chaired by my former colleague, Maria Caulfield. Will the Minister provide an update on the national oversight group’s work? Are she or any of her ministerial colleagues part of those discussions?
My final question is about litigation, which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt). Under his chairmanship, the Health and Social Care Committee produced a report looking at different maternity models, including in the likes of Japan, and at how can we reduce the cost for taxpayers while improving clinicians’ ability to have the honest discussions we need, and to feel that they can come forward and blow the whistle.
Birth is not about making babies; it is about making mothers—strong, competent and capable ones. We do that by supporting, respecting and informing mothers every step of the way. That is an admirable aim for this House and the NHS, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) for raising this extremely important issue. It touches so many of our constituents and so many families across our country, and I know how many of them she and other Members have spoken to. As the Secretary of State said, it is an issue that keeps him awake at night. The hon. Lady spoke very movingly about her friend Steph and Steph’s son, Bendy, whom I know she remembers very fondly. We have had too many decades of similar stories, but she did good service to her friend and Bendy today.
I will do my best to answer as many questions as possible—it has been a wide-ranging, respectful and thoughtful debate—but the Minister for Patient Safety, Baroness Merron, who leads on this issue for the Department, will be happy to write to colleagues where necessary.
The hon. Member for Chichester asked a number of questions at the end of her speech, and I hope that I will address most of them. I completely understand why she is pushing on behalf of the families that the Secretary of State met for the maternity services plan to be outlined. Families have waited long enough, but we want to make sure we get it right, so we are taking time within the Department to discuss the next steps with officials and ensure that any plans we put out are as strong and effective as possible; we have had too many plans that have not been. Those families will receive an update on the next steps very soon.
I will come on to some of the essential actions from previous reports, but I will re-emphasise that all Donna Ockenden’s recommendations were accepted and are being worked on. I will pick up on that later in my speech.
On workforce and training, we will publish in the summer the refreshed long-term workforce plan. That will set out how we will build a transformed health service over the next decade, and obviously it will include midwifery.
Karin Smyth
I will, but I will not be able to get through my speech if I keep giving way.
Helen Maguire
I will be very brief. La Retraite sixth form in London has a T-level qualification in health with midwifery, linked up with Guy’s and St Thomas’, and it is proving successful. Will the Minister consider working with the Secretary of State for Education to look at rolling that out throughout the country? It is proving really successful in getting new midwives into the system.
Karin Smyth
The hon. Lady raises something very close to my heart. I spoke frequently in opposition about apprenticeships and the need for the health service to work on that. I actually visited that centre with the chief nursing officer and met students there. It was a lovely visit; we had a fantastic morning with really enthusiastic young people who wanted to go into the profession. The hon. Lady makes an excellent point, and we will continue to work with Guy’s and St Thomas’ on that. Others could take note of what they are doing.
We understand the issues with the CQC. They are well documented and were further highlighted by the hon. Members for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) and for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman). We do not think now is the time to make changes to the statutory limitation power, because we want the CQC to prioritise improving its regulatory approach and focusing resources on the recovery plan in line with the Dash report. Once that is done and the CQC is working better, the Government have committed to reviewing that statute of limitation power.
With regard to phonelines, Sands and Tommy’s do fantastic work for bereaved parents across the country— I know that from my own Bristol South constituency. We are always open to new ideas and suggestions from the experience of people working on the ground. I will ask officials to consider recording triage phonelines as part of our longer-term work on maternity and neonatal services. Many hon. Members raised general points about communications. The hon. Member for Chichester was right to mention communication for parents—both mothers and fathers. That was a point well made, and I will pick it up later.
Donna Ockenden rightly commands huge respect across Government, parties and the NHS. She was right to say that previous Governments were “asleep at the wheel” on maternity care. We have heard already, but it is worth restating, that babies of black ethnicity are twice as likely to be stillborn as babies of white ethnicity. The maternity workforce is experiencing significant challenges and safety in maternity care is very far from where we want it to be.
Hon. Members highlighted their meetings with families. The Secretary of State and Baroness Merron have met a number of bereaved families over the past few months, as I know others have done. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tom Rutland) talked about the families he has met. He highlighted that when he talked to me recently about issues in his constituency.
As with so many issues in healthcare, there is no quick fix to the challenges we face. There have been too many high-profile independent reviews into maternity services over the past few years. With remarkable consistency, they all point to the same thing: a culture that belittles women, downplays concerns and puts reputations above all else, even patient safety. We know that is wrong and we know what needs to happen. It is now time to crack on and deliver.
We are making steady progress on recommendations from all 15 areas of the Shrewsbury and Telford review, such as workforce accountability and bereavement care. Much of that progress has been made through NHS England’s three-year delivery plan. The plan seeks to make maternity and neonatal care safer, fairer and more tailored to every woman’s needs, by setting out expectations for informed choice and personalised care planning, to improve women’s experience in labour and birth.
Some of the initiatives have been highlighted today. The saving babies’ lives care bundle, helping to reduce stillbirths and pre-term births, has been rolled out to every trust in England. I am pleased that all 150 maternity and neonatal units in England have signed up to the perinatal culture and leadership programme, an initiative to promote and sustain a culture of safety. There are also initiatives to reduce inequality. As I know from my constituency, women living in deprived areas are more likely to suffer adverse outcomes. It is right that local systems are trying to bridge the gap through equity and equality action plans.
We have set clear expectations for escalation and accountability through the three-year plan. We are supporting staff to hold up their hands when things go wrong, through the freedom to speak up initiative. The public can monitor the progress of the three-year plan against the Ockenden recommendations, through their local maternity and neonatal systems and integrated care boards. Local women and families, should they choose, can see what progress has been made, who is accountable and how the system is changing. NHS England is also investing £10 million every year to target the 10 most deprived areas of England.
Safety must be the watchword at every step of the journey. NHS Resolution’s maternity incentive scheme is rewarding NHS trusts that prove they are taking concrete steps to improve the quality of care for women, families and newborns. As highlighted by the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), since 2010 the neonatal mortality rate has shown steady signs of improvement, decreasing by a quarter for babies born after at least 24 weeks of pregnancy. The stillbirth rate in England has decreased by 22% and the overall rate of brain injuries occurring during or soon after birth has fallen by 3%.
We all know there is so much more to be done to improve outcomes for mothers and babies, and to ensure that they receive the safe care that they need. There are ongoing initiatives to ensure lessons are learned from every tragic event, to prevent similar events in future. Hospitals carry out internal perinatal mortality reviews, which aim to provide answers for bereaved parents about why their baby died, and give them some closure. The reviews also help hospitals to improve care and ensure we learn the lessons from every tragedy.
The maternity and newborn safety investigations programme conducts independent investigations of early neonatal deaths, intrapartum stillbirths and severe brain injury in babies after labour. All NHS trusts are required to report those incidents, carry out an independent investigation and make safety recommendations to improve services in future. For those parents who go through the heartbreak of losing a baby, we must do everything we can to support them in their grief. That is why the Government extended the baby loss certificates; as of last week, we have issued almost 100,000 to grieving parents. It is also why, through the three-year plan, we have made provision for seven-day bereavement care supported by investment, and why we will continue to support the work of Sands and Tommy’s, which do so much for bereaved mums and dads across the UK.
The hon. Member for Chichester rightly talked about the importance of workforce and meeting safe levels of staffing. Throughout the winter I have seen up close NHS staff doing their absolute best in appalling circumstances that were not of their own making. I know that however dedicated our NHS staff may be, they cannot provide the right care without the right support. That is why we are committed to tackling the retention and recruitment challenges in the NHS, and why work is under way to modernise NHS working cultures and make our hospitals more attractive for top talent. That includes a much stronger focus on health and wellbeing, more support for flexible working and a renewed commitment to tackling inequality and discrimination.
Bringing in the staff that we need will take time, but it is an absolute priority for this Government and for me personally. NHS England is leading a range of initiatives to boost retention of existing staff and ensure the NHS remains an attractive career choice for new recruits. I say to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that we are keen to work with all devolved Governments to ensure that and to share learning.
There is a dedicated programme for the retention of midwives, an issue highlighted by the hon. Member for Chichester and my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn). The initiative contains a range of measures, including a midwifery and nursing retention self-assessment tool, mentoring schemes, strengthened advice and support on pensions, and the embedding of flexible retirement options.
NHS England has also invested in retention leads for every maternity ward. Alongside investment in workforce capacity, that has shown promising signs of bringing down vacancy, leaver and turnover rates. The leaver rate declined from 10.3% in September 2023 to 9% in September last year. There has been progress, but we know that there is more to be done. As of November, there were a record number of midwives working in NHS trusts, with around 24,700 working full time, up by over 1,300 compared with the year before.
While all this work is going on, we are also doing the hard yards of fixing the foundations of our NHS and making it fit for the future. I am pleased that the National Institute for Health and Care Research has commissioned over 40 studies looking at how we can prevent pre-term births and improve care for babies and women. It has launched a £50 million funding call, challenging researchers and policymakers to come up with new ways of tackling maternity inequalities and poor pregnancy outcomes.
While that work is going on, we will continue to talk to staff about the 10-year plan. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is attending a staff event in Peterborough on Thursday, and I will be attending one next week. We want to know how we can better support our staff, ensure we unleash their potential and give patients the care they need. A central part of the 10-year plan will be our workforce—how we train them and provide the staff, technology and infrastructure the NHS needs to care for patients across our communities. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) is right to highlight the estate, which is also a problem in this area. We need to consider all policies, including those that impact maternity and neonatal care.
Over 95,000 people have responded to the consultation so far, and we want to hear from more. We have heard in this debate about midwifery-led care from my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), and about mental health support from the hon. Members for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis), for Winchester (Dr Chambers) and for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed). I hope that they contribute to the consultation.
I am conscious that I need to give the hon. Member for Chichester a few moments to wind up. We know that we will not be able to fix these issues overnight. We are committed to investing in safety, workforce retention and tackling inequalities, and we are making steady progress. As was highlighted, most women have safe care with a healthy baby, and are made to feel special at a very special moment. That is a testament to the staff. We need to make sure that that happens for all women, everywhere. A lot of work has been done. There is a lot left to be done, but I am confident that we will build a maternity and neonatal system that delivers for every woman.
Jess Brown-Fuller
I thank all Members from across the House for their constructive approach to the debate. It is clearly an area where there is passion in all parts of the House. I thank the Minister for her replies to the questions, and I am sure that a lot of Members will be writing follow-up letters to Baroness Merron asking for further detail on particular areas. I will forgive the Minister for her “crack on and deliver” pun.
The Minister mentioned that lessons are learned from every tragic event. I will finish by saying that the parents I spoke to did not feel like lessons were being learned from their tragic events, because nobody was asking them what had happened. If just one thing comes out of this debate, let us send this message to all NHS trusts and ICBs: “When there are tragic events, please don’t cover them up. Please contact the parents, because they want to talk to you and they want to make it better for parents in the future and the babies that we lost too soon.”
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered maternity services.
Thameslink Train Services
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the performance of Thameslink train services.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. Many of my constituents in Mid Bedfordshire rely on Thameslink services on the Bedford line to get to work or get into London for leisure. About 1.5 million passengers use Harlington and Flitwick stations in my constituency each year to meet friends, go shopping and take advantage of everything our capital has to offer. Commuters from the Flitwick and Harlington stations might also take advantage of the convenient connection that Thameslink offers to our local airport in Luton, or perhaps use the Thameslink direct connections to Gatwick airport, slightly further afield.
I have spent much of my career commuting to work on Thameslink services, so I know that many constituents in the eastern part of Mid Bedfordshire also rely on services from the Arlesey and Hitchin stations on the east coast main line, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), and many others use Thameslink services from stations including Bedford, Leagrave and Luton.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate. Like him, I have been a regular users of the Thameslink services in his constituency and mine, and, like many of my constituents, I have been consistently let down. My constituents’ two most common bugbears are the lack of drivers, which means that Thameslink cannot consistently put on the services it advertises—that seems the bare minimum—and the fact that when services go wrong, the emergency routes home via taxis and buses, which are so important in rural communities such as ours, are an afterthought. Does he agree that securing sufficient drivers for the line and getting back to putting passengers at the heart of our rail operations will be fundamental to delivering the rail services that my communities and his desperately need?
Blake Stephenson
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I thank him for joining this important debate for the communities across Bedfordshire that rely heavily on rail services for leisure and work. The disruption is also having a huge impact on our economy; I will come to that later in my speech.
Jim Shannon
I commend the hon. Gentleman for the work he has done for disabled people who use trains regularly. That should be happening everywhere in this great United Kingdom. Does he agree that disabled people—those who are in wheelchairs, and those who have mobility or vision issues—deserve the same quality of service no matter where they are in this United Kingdom?
Blake Stephenson
I could not agree more. Later, I will talk about the need for step-free access to Harlington and Flitwick stations, but that is necessary right across the country for the reasons the hon. Gentleman has set out.
In this debate, I will focus on the Thameslink services on the Bedford line and east coast main line, which my constituents use regularly. Since I first moved to Mid Bedfordshire more than a decade ago, I have been a regular user of Thameslink, but it feels to me and many of the constituents I speak to about it that something has gone wrong. Overcrowded, standing-room-only carriages have become the norm. Too often, the timetable is merely a guideline, not a rulebook for when trains will arrive. We pay more and more each year for services that deliver less and less: a season ticket from Flitwick into Farrington costs about £5,500 per year.
When this debate was selected, I launched a survey of local residents to hear about their experiences of travel on Thameslink. Fifty-seven per cent of respondents told me that they thought the service is poor, 80% told me that they had been impacted by a cancellation in the past month, and 88% told me that they had experienced a delay of more than 10 minutes. Those are not healthy statistics. I want to share some of the things that people in Mid Bedfordshire told me about the impact that the poor service is having on them. Callum from Flitwick told me:
“Trains are subject to delays or cancellations at very short notice. On one occasion I was on the platform and the train was cancelled with only one or two minutes’ notice before it was due to arrive, even though Thameslink must have known it hadn’t left the previous station (Bedford) at least 10 minutes before it was due to arrive at Flitwick.”
Tracey from Haynes would happily use the train from Flitwick to Gatwick, but it is too unreliable; they have to use the car instead. Kate told me that despite travelling just once or twice a week, she has had to make five delay repay claims in the past month. Stephanie from Flitwick told me:
“This train service is appalling. We very nearly missed our eurostar despite leaving hours to spare. It’s got the stage that we dread using the service and are always worried about being stranded in London.”
Ginette from Maulden noted:
“Flitwick is often cancelled as a return stop from London where there have been delays. This is usually only advised once we are on the train leading to frustrated passengers disembarking at Luton.”
I hope that these examples of the hundreds of comments that I have received from residents make the problem clear. Too often, Thameslink services are unreliable, late or cancelled, and too often my constituents are stranded when their stop is cancelled while they are sat on a Thameslink train. Too often, taking the train is simply not an option for people in Mid Bedfordshire. It should not be this way. For commuters in Flitwick and Harlington, the frustration of unreliable services is compounded by the frustration caused by Network Rail’s failure to deliver step-free access programmes at pace. If we want people to use the train, we must make it easier for them to do so.
For too long, things have not been getting better. In 2008, a commuter getting the 7.41 am train from Flitwick could expect to arrive at London St Pancras at 8.32 am. Nearly 20 years later, the timetable has no more stations, but commuters on the 7.41 am from Flitwick can expect to arrive at St Pancras two minutes later, at 8.34 am—and that is when the trains arrive on time. Too often, they do not arrive at all. In the past 100 days, 11% of the 7.41 am services from Flitwick have been cancelled, and 25% have arrived at St Pancras more than five minutes late. That compares reasonably favourably with the 7.43 am service, which has been cancelled 28% of the time and has arrived late 42% of the time. That is simply not good enough.
That is just the morning commute. The best performing return journey from St Pancras to Flitwick between 5 pm and 6.30 pm has been more than five minutes late 23% of the time in the past 100 days. For commuters in Harlington, the evening peak period sees three services that are more than five minutes late 50% or more of the time—three evening services more than five minutes late every other time a commuter uses them—and one service that is cancelled more than a quarter of the time.
We must do better than this, and we can. Investment through the Thameslink programme under the previous Government has seen the travel times from Arlesey to St Pancras drop from 47 minutes in 2008 to 40 minutes now. Here, at least, services have become much more convenient, with trains now running beyond St Pancras and into south London—and beyond. Of course, even here there have been problems with delays and cancellations, as the hon. Member for Hitchin knows too well, and the east coast main line section of Thameslink will face its own pressures, which I will address later.
The picture I have painted is of an underperforming service that is letting my constituents down, and I could cite plenty of other statistics to back that up. This matters to my constituents, who suffer the inconvenience of the service in their daily lives, but it should matter to the Government, in the big picture sense, too. Quick, reliable trains into London help us to improve UK productivity, with fewer working hours lost on station platforms and more workers at their desks, growing the economy. They also allow for better economic ties between places such as Mid Bedfordshire and our capital, and make it easier for local people to set up and run growing businesses. That helps to deliver on the Government’s mission for economic growth.
A well-performing Thameslink service is also vital to supporting the economic growth of the Oxford to Cambridge growth corridor, which is one of this Government’s central missions. Thameslink services already link London to Cambridge, but they will one day also link London with East West Rail at Cambridge, Tempsford and Bedford. If we want to maximise the return on investment of that infrastructure project, its connections into the wider train network need to be fast and reliable.
That takes me nicely to the next section of my speech. As an outcome from this debate, I would like to see not just a strategy to improve the Thameslink services we have today, but one that starts thinking about the Thameslink services we will need for tomorrow. On the Thameslink line, we have already seen the booming success that new onward connections can bring. Farringdon station, which is on the Elizabeth line, served just over 4.6 million passengers in 2010; today it serves 10 times that number. We know that Thameslink faces significant future pressures. If those pressures have even a fifth of the impact that the Elizabeth line has had on Farringdon, we will need to see serious forward planning to ensure that commuters travelling to and from Mid Bedfordshire can benefit from sufficient capacity to enjoy comfortable commutes.
Take the Bedford line specifically. In relatively short order, it could see additional pressure from Luton airport expansion, a Universal theme park at Kempston Hardwick, an interchange with East West Rail, a rail freight interchange in Sundon, and more than 10,000 more houses in my constituency of Mid Bedfordshire alone. I hope that within the next decade, we might see the Ryder cup come to Luton Hoo, bringing with it huge opportunities but also considerable pressures on the local transport network.
If we are to ensure that comfortable travel on the Bedford line is the norm and not the exception—I do not think that is too much to aspire to—then we must start doing the long-term legwork now to put the capacity in place, because at the moment the capacity is simply not there. Overcrowded trains at peak times are now the norm, not the exception. The timetable shows that. Anyone who goes on the Thameslink website will see that the vast majority of morning and evening commuter services are filled with the red of standing-room-only trains.
We need more capacity now so that my constituents do not have to resign themselves to a cramped, standing commute every day. However, we particularly need more capacity on the Bedford line to cope with the challenges of tomorrow. Do not misunderstand me; I know that work is already being done on that. I met with people from Thameslink recently and I set out some of the challenges that my constituents and I foresee arising over the coming years. I know from my discussions with the Mayor of Bedford that significant progress is being made on the construction of Wixams station, which will serve the new town of Wixams in my constituency. However, with the Government pressing ahead with their nationalisation agenda, it will be Ministers who will oversee much of the future planning in that area, so it is incumbent on Ministers to understand the challenges and opportunities facing our communities.
It is so important that we get it right. It is important for commuters using the stations at Flitwick, Harlington and, hopefully soon, Wixams to get into work in the morning. It is important for all the growing businesses in Mid Bedfordshire, which rely on a good rail connection to do business in London and across our region. It is also vital for the Government’s growth agenda.
If we want to take advantage of the potential expansion of Luton airport, and use it to grow the economy, we must get people there comfortably and quickly. If we want to get the best bang for the taxpayer’s buck on East West Rail, we need a Thameslink service that is reliable enough for people to be able to count on making their connection train at Bedford. If we want to take advantage of the economic game changer that is the planned Universal theme park at Kempston Hardwick, we must provide sufficient transport capacity to get people there. More generally, if we would like to grow the tourism economy in Bedfordshire, as I would, a Thameslink service that works is a vital part of the jigsaw. People will not visit our towns and villages, spend money in our shops or enjoy a pint in our pubs if we make the process of getting there difficult and uncomfortable.
Of course, as I said earlier, it is not just the Bedford line that my constituents in Mid Bedfordshire rely on; for many commuters in the eastern part of my constituency, the Thameslink services at Arlesey and Hitchin play a crucial role in their daily commutes. That line is not immune from pressures of its own. Planned housing growth, all the way down the line, will have a significant impact on capacity pressures over the coming years, as will the line’s own interchange with East West Rail at Tempsford and the potential housing growth that the Government might like to put forward there. Significant development at Tempsford would require concentrated efforts to increase capacity, in particular to avoid services into London becoming standing room only further down the line.
Any increase in capacity on that line is made much more challenging by the limitations placed on the services by the Digswell viaduct and Welwyn North station, where the line bottlenecks and drops from four tracks to two. When Ministers take full control over the services on that line, they will need to have a plan for how the network will cope with the future development plans being pushed forward elsewhere in Government.
As I conclude, I will touch on the Government’s plan for rail nationalisation. I say “plan”, but at the moment I am unclear whether that is the right word. If I have understood correctly the various announcements made so far on rail, the Government will be nationalising Govia Thameslink, but they cannot say when they will do that. There will be a central, unified rail system under Great British Railways, except in areas where mayors have requested rail powers under English devolution plans. Great British Railways will be directly accountable to Ministers and mayors, but there will also be a new quango, the rail watchdog, presumably to make sure that Ministers and mayors are doing their job and improving passenger experience. The watchdog will refer poor performance to a regulator, not Ministers. The Labour party’s manifesto set out that one focus of nationalisation was affordability, but Ministers are now briefing that the savings are minimal and fares are likely to keep going up.
My constituents need a clear plan to improve our rail network. So far, it is far from clear how, if at all, the Government’s renationalisation plans will do that. I look forward to hearing the Minister set out exactly how they plan to make services more reliable, to expand capacity and to keep fares down, now and in the future. That is what our constituents deserve from the Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing the debate and providing this opportunity to discuss the performance of Thameslink services, and I thank the hon. Members who interjected to make points, which I will try to address in my response.
The Government recognise the crucial role that the rail network plays in supporting economic development, housing and employment growth, tourism, and environmental benefits. That is why we have made fixing Britain’s railway our top transport priority. We need to improve services for passengers and deliver better value for money for the taxpayer.
I recognise that performance on Thameslink, operated by Govia Thameslink Railway, has not been where we expect it to be, and passengers deserve better. Thameslink passengers have faced recent disruption caused by a variety of Network Rail infrastructure incidents, as well as a high level of cancellations due to train crew availability, particularly during the final few months of last year. I know that cancellations, especially those made close to the time of travel, can be very inconvenient for passengers, disrupting their lives and making it difficult for them to travel with confidence.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Just this morning, commuters in Ashwell in North East Hertfordshire, which is also served by Thameslink, wrote to me about the challenges that they are experiencing because of a lack of reliability and expensive fares on the line, and how those challenges are increasingly cutting them off from work and education opportunities. Could my hon. Friend the Minister address what steps the Government will take to improve fares and reliability on those routes as they bring Thameslink into public ownership?
Simon Lightwood
We are rewiring Britain’s railways to end decades of poor service, waste and timetable chaos. A unified, simplified railway will put passengers first, raise living standards and boost growth, as part of our plan for change. We will hear more about that when the railways Bill comes before Parliament.
Disruption due to train crew availability remains a priority for my Department. The Department’s officials are closely monitoring train crew availability levels and the actions that GTR is taking to improve, which will provide greater resilience in this area. I am pleased that there has been some improved performance in that area this year, but that must be sustained and improved on further. The Department has also commissioned work to understand, in detail, the impact of train crew availability on performance. That will look at issues such as staffing levels, recruitment, training, overtime and planning efficiency. It will outline recommendations to address those issues in the short, medium and long term.
On disruption due to infrastructure incidents, GTR and Network Rail continue to work closely to improve the reliability of the infrastructure used by Thameslink services to help to reduce associated delays and cancellations. A programme is currently under way to upgrade the overhead wires on the midland main line, and the central London Thameslink core had most of its rails replaced over the Christmas break, which will help to prevent track faults.
The Government are focused on restoring rail performance. We have been clear that rail services have been failing our passengers. The Rail Minister has met GTR and Network Rail to ensure that they are delivering on their plans to address Thameslink’s poor performance. Department officials, the Rail Minister and I will continue to closely review Thameslink’s progress for a sustained recovery in performance to deliver the punctual, reliable services that passengers and taxpayers deserve.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I apologise for being an interloper from the west midlands. The Minister rightly and importantly mentioned passengers being failed, but the fragmentation of our network has meant that we have been failing not only passengers but businesses, particularly those that want to invest in constituencies such as Redditch. Improved services are improved not only for passengers but for businesses deciding where they may relocate and invest.
Simon Lightwood
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We must ensure that passengers are at the core of what we deliver, but the knock-on effect on businesses is also important. GBR will also focus on freight: how do we get some of the cargo transported by our roads on to our trains?
My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) talked about the need for more train crew. GTR is particularly vulnerable to the effect of train crew availability issues—the problem tends to be the availability, rather than the number, of train crew—and of all Thameslink’s cancellations, 50% are attributed to train crew. That is largely due to historical terms and conditions and legacy agreements that mean that there is a high level of reliance on rest-day working.
I will close by confirming that this Government will continue to put passengers at the heart of what we do and deliver a railway of which, in its 200th year, we can be proud once again. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire again and acknowledge the importance of this matter to him and his constituents.
Question put and agreed to.
SEND Education Support
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered SEND education support.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am grateful for having secured this important debate, and welcome the opportunity to discuss special educational needs and disabilities support, especially how it is failing and how it can be improved. I am pleased too that so many Members are present to contribute. I have no doubt that those MPs who, like me, are new to this House will have been blown away by the scale of the SEND crisis in their constituencies. Parents are quite literally crying out for help, and we must listen to them and act.
In this debate we will hear about the national crisis, as well as the many local failures experienced right across the country, and the devastating human impacts that the crisis is having on young people and their families. But while I have the Minister’s attention, and before I get into the detail, I want to set out two important points. First, tackling our nation’s SEND crisis must be a national priority—much like rebuilding our NHS or tackling the housing crisis. We must be determined to rebuild our SEND support as a nation, and build a system that works for our children. Sitting alongside that, we must plan for the sustainable funding of the SEND system.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
SEND children are falling through the cracks. I have been told by a school in my constituency that it is experiencing a crisis, and is self-funding its own education, health and care needs assessments. As a result, it is facing an incredible deficit in funding. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is crucial for the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education to work together to deliver EHC assessments to ensure that our schools do not end up in unsustainable financial positions?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I agree, and I will talk about those points later in my speech.
Secondly, I will highlight the severe challenges for SEND that are faced in rural areas, such as my constituency of Suffolk Coastal. I am keen that the Minister visits my rural constituency to see, up close and at first hand, how rural education and the rural SEND crisis differs from that of our urban neighbours.
Let me start today’s debate by setting out the scale of the SEND crisis. As the recent report from the National Audit Office highlighted, the crisis is severe and growing. There has been a 140% increase in children with education, health and care plans—or an equivalent statement of SEND needs—from 2015 to 2024. The total number of children and young people with SEND today is estimated to be 1.9 million. Despite that growth in demand, the NAO has raised real concerns that there has been no consistent improvement in outcomes for children and young people with SEND since 2019. Without drastic action, a full belt-and-braces review of SEND and a real determination to see improvements, we will only see SEND provision get even worse.
Funding is one part of the problem. With growing demand we need a sustainable funding plan—one that is able to tackle, and grow with, that demand—but, much like the issues facing our NHS, the answer does not lie just in funding. We need a belt-and-braces review that seeks to get to the heart of the challenges and build provision around current and future needs. I would like to see a national conversation about SEND, bringing in the voices of parents and young people and giving them the opportunity to share their experiences. Far too many families and young people have felt marginalised, silenced and kicked to the sidelines when they have battled hard to get the support their children are entitled to.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
In 2023, a report by Warwickshire county council revealed that only 9% of education, health and care plans in Warwickshire go to children with special needs in North Warwickshire, compared with 31% in Warwick, which has a lower rate of child poverty. A year later, Conservative Warwickshire county councillors made derogatory comments about SEND children and their parents. I am concerned about the effect of those councillors’ attitudes on the provision of support for SEND children across the county, especially in more deprived areas such as mine. Is my hon. Friend concerned that this is an example of a trend across the country, where families in more deprived areas are unable to get the support they need?
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that they need to be succinct and short with interventions.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I thank my hon. Friend for her timely intervention. I am about to give a similar example from my area. In Suffolk, the county council has failed to deliver 60% of outstanding care plans for SEND within the 20-week timeframe. Compare that with the national average of 50% and we can see that Suffolk is struggling.
The recent Care Quality Commission report for Suffolk, published last year, identified
“widespread and/or systemic failings”
across the local area partnership. It has the lowest possible rating, which means that the inspection identified failings that have
“a significant negative impact on the experiences and outcomes of children and young people”.
Suffolk county council responded with a blueprint, published in January this year, which it says is a forensic road map for change, but, as we sit here, there are parents in Suffolk and across the country who have been let down and are in desperate need of help. In January, I launched a survey in Suffolk Coastal asking parents and young people to share their experiences. That survey has shown some awful and tragic statistics, laying bare the true toll on families and young people of the SEND crisis in Suffolk.
More than 100 families from Suffolk Coastal filled in my survey and the report will be out next month. I would like to share some of that detail now. More than 50% of the children who filled in the survey have missed out on school because their SEND needs could not be met; 13% have been off school for more than a year. The impact that is having on young people’s education cannot be overstated. More than 30% who responded did not have an up-to-date EHCP in place, and one in 10 had been waiting more than a year to get that EHCP.
Six parents who responded to my survey have had to take their cases to a tribunal to attempt to get their children the right SEND provision. Many told me that they have had to use their personal savings, borrow money from friends and family or take out a loan to pay for legal support they need. That cannot be fair or right.
Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. She speaks to the heart of the issue. It is often only people with the means, resources and time who can become experts in the service they are trying to access, a right that is enshrined in the Children and Families Act 2014. Will she join me in encouraging the Government’s instinct that, in moving to a more inclusive mainstream education system, we cannot simply say, “Everyone in,” without protecting the necessary resources centrally when we issue those instructions?
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. As time is tight, I remind Members to keep interventions succinct.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I believe it should be part of a wider conversation that includes today’s debate, and I hope the Minister will respond to it.
I submitted a freedom of information request to Suffolk county council and received information back yesterday. Over the past five years, between 2019 and 2024, 920 appeals were logged against Suffolk county council. It has not told me how many of those went to tribunal, but it did supply the breakdown of the figures. Except for a drop in 2020, which I suspect can be accounted for by the covid lockdown, the numbers have risen year on year. In 2019, there were 103 cases, and by 2024, there were 286 cases. The most staggering fact my survey revealed is the cost of the crisis to families. More than one in two families told me that the SEND crisis is affecting their families’ mental health. They are struggling as they battle to provide their children with the support they are entitled to.
I have two examples of families in my constituency. The first is that of Jacob, who is an example of how hard the situation is for so many parents in Suffolk Coastal. His parents are incredible, working two jobs each. They are young and doing everything in their power to provide for him. Jacob is just four and is already being let down. He has autistic spectrum disorder—ASD—and, though he has an EHCP in place, his parents have to fight “tooth and nail” to attempt to get him to the right school.
As his dad told me,
“We don’t choose to be parents of a child with SEN. However, this is our child, and I feel he is being treated like a number rather than a human being.”
It is equally tragic to say that Jacob has had a head start in many ways, because he has an up-to-date EHCP in place. I could tell countless harrowing stories about the delays and issues that parents in my constituency face just to get an EHCP completed.
The way the system is failing our children is equally highlighted by my constituent Tiffany, a young girl in year 6—another student with a brilliant mum advocating for her. She has struggled in the extreme with mental health issues. She has missed out on schooling for two years as she battled a serious and severe mental health breakdown, which caused her to spend long periods in hospital, all before she turned 10. It should be no surprise that, while she was battling for her health, she lost out on schooling. Despite having an up-to-date EHCP, she has been told that she cannot stay in the special school that has accepted her because she is too far behind academically. Somewhat absurdly, she is now expected to enter mainstream education in year 7, despite all the challenges that she has faced. Her mum asked me:
“Why should anyone with mental health issues be denied the support they require to access an education?”
I could give many more heartbreaking examples, but I want to give others Members time to do the same. Before I end, let me highlight again the complexities of SEND in rural areas such as my constituency of Suffolk Coastal. Rural areas are made up of small villages and tiny market towns. Such schools often teach mixed age groups, and teachers work across more than one year group. In one of my schools, years 6, 5, 4 and 3 are taught together. The transition from a tiny primary to a very large secondary school can be incredibly challenging for a child with SEND—or indeed any child. That produces a spike of SEND cases in year 7. Our SEND provision should therefore take the challenges in rural areas into consideration, and help schools and children with the transition from primary to secondary school. There are some great examples in my constituency of secondary schools working with feeder village schools from years 5 and 6 to try to bridge that transition and directly target children with SEND during that process.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
For those who do not know, the hon. Lady is my constituency neighbour in Suffolk, and I think she is doing a fantastic job of highlighting the complexities faced by people such as Jacob and Tiffany—I see them in my inbox too. She has done a fantastic job of talking about the problems, and she is beginning to talk about the solutions. What does she think about universal early intervention programmes, which have been demonstrated to reduce cost at the acute end of the system in the long term? Will she join me in pushing for universal access to early language programmes in schools in Suffolk?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The example of Jacob, a small boy aged just four, shows that interventions need to happen in the early years—right from the very start.
The model of secondary schools working with primary schools should be looked at nationally. I again call on the Minister to visit Suffolk Coastal to see that in greater detail.
Several hon. Members rose—
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. A lot of Members want to speak, so I will have to impose a time limit. I will first call Iain Duncan Smith, and then could Members bob for a few seconds longer than they would normally so that we can get everybody’s name on the list?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
It is very good to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I will obey your strictures and try to keep this brief. I want to focus on a very narrow aspect of special educational needs. I congratulate the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) on securing this debate. As we can see, many Members have issues with the supply of SEND education support.
I want to focus on something that originated in a special educational needs school in my constituency called Whitefield, which has calming rooms. I have been to see the Education Secretary about this issue, because I discovered, thanks to a BBC programme, that there is no regulation as to the nature of calming rooms in special educational needs schools and what happens in them. For the most part, those schools are very good, but when it comes to calming rooms there is a big variety of capability and, for that matter, quality. Children in that school were locked away in calming rooms. I would have thought that that was illegal, but it is not in special educational needs schools. What happens in those rooms makes the children’s behaviour worse. If they are suffering in one way or another, that suffering gets worse, particularly when they suffer from autism. What happens in those rooms becomes abusive, as has been captured on video.
A survey has shown that more than 500 schools use this kind of lock-in for children with severe autism. The videos I have seen show some of them in cages, and some of them being put in what we would consider to be padded cells, with no visits for long periods of time.
I simply want to put this point to the Minister. I have seen the Secretary of State and put it to her that this issue needs to be looked at and embraced in some kind of guidance or regulation, so that the rooms, if they have to be used, are used sparingly, and that there are regulations about the times that people should visit, to make sure that children are okay in them. Frankly, the rooms should be an absolute last resort, and should be used only very briefly. They are now definitely being abused in different schools. That is the one point I want to make.
I ask the Minister to take this issue up again with the Secretary of State, so that at the next legislative opportunity, Ministers can sit down and figure out how we regulate this. These children often have no voice for themselves, for obvious reasons, and their parents now find their behaviour even worse, and do not know whether their children have been locked into a calming room, such as I have seen and been horrified by. We must make that change so that those with very severe autism who go to special needs schools will not have to suffer as though they were criminals or prisoners—and in ways that we would not even treat those.
Several hon. Members rose—
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call Andrew Lewin, I will put an advisory two-minute limit on speeches. If that is not followed, I will impose a two-minute limit. I am sure colleagues will want to ensure that time is available for all others present.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
It is the nature of being an MP that we are rightly expected to manage a wide range of issues, but one constant since being elected has been the frequency with which I have been contacted by constituents about the crisis in SEND provision. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) on being a champion for families in her constituency, and I am pleased that she has secured this debate.
The themes are consistent: extremely long turnaround times to obtain an EHCP, compounded by even longer waiting times to secure a place at a desired school, and exasperated parents who are leaving employment to care for children who have not been found a place in the system. Most important of all, far too many children are suffering because the right support is not being made available to them. Constituents told me of a case in which Hertfordshire county council allocated a family seven different officers in the time it took to finalise a place for an EHCP. Another story was of a parent who had no choice but to give up their job to become a full-time carer for their child, as they wait for an appropriate school place. I could recite countless more examples from Welwyn Hatfield. My message to all local families is that we need concerted action at both local and national level to turn around the system.
I am conscious of the little time that I have today, so I put on the record how pleased I am that this Labour Government have recognised the scale of the challenge and made a £1 billion commitment to SEND across the country. It is imperative that Hertfordshire receives our fair share of that money. What gives me confidence is having met all the local school leaders who are doing everything in their power to help, from specialist providers at Lakeside and James Marks academy in Welwyn Garden City to Southfield school in Hatfield. The changes they are making are a source of hope, but we all have a moral imperative to turn the situation around both locally and nationally.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) on securing this hugely important debate.
As has just been noted, this is an issue about which we all receive a huge amount of correspondence every day, from parents who are at their wits’ end. Supporting children and young people with special educational needs is not an act of charity; it is a fundamental responsibility of government, and yet we find that parents are repeatedly battling to access the complicated system. I will briefly give an overview of Dr Warwick-Sanders, a constituent I met in Winchester recently. He is a psychiatrist and his wife is also a medical professional. Their son was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in 2002 and referred to the child and adolescent mental health service. Despite being medical professionals, they said that they just did not know where to turn for help. Although CAMHS is the cornerstone for child mental health services, it has a shocking 150 week wait in our area. Dr Warwick-Sanders’ son is stuck in a system where the ADHD medication he needs is out of reach until an assessment is completed. He said, “If medical professionals like me cannot navigate the system, what hope do others have?”
If we are to give every child the opportunity to reach their full potential, we must prioritise our investment in SEND services. My question for the Minister is, how do we streamline this process for accessing support so that everyone—including medical professionals, but also people who have no experience of dealing with such organisations —can get the help they need, when they need it?
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) on continuing to keep this important issue on the parliamentary agenda. For many of us, this is a defining issue that motivated us to stand for election; to try and bring about meaningful change on behalf of SEND families who are living with a constant fight for recognition of the challenges they face, for a diagnosis, for mental health support and for the right educational setting.
I could use double or triple my speaking time today describing the cases that come across my desk week after week of children who are not just struggling to get the right support today, but whose lives could have been different if their needs had been identified and met early. Instead, I am going to go through some of the things that I believe—and that parents and professionals I have met with over the last eight months believe—will make the difference and start to bring this broken system under control. I will limit myself to two things, and I hope the Minister will respond and take it as read that I welcome the steps she has already taken to deliver a more inclusive system.
First, there is much more to be done in partnership with the NHS. The time it takes to get a diagnosis for autism or ADHD varies wildly across the country and has vastly increased in recent years. Meanwhile, access to child and adolescent mental health services is now being rationed in a way that means only the most serious referrals are expected, with the perverse effect that children who are not seen get worse. There will be no fix to the SEND crisis that does not also address the crisis in CAMHS, so I urge the Minister to continue to work closely with her colleagues in the Department for Health and Social Care and get school-based mental health support rolled out as quickly as possible.
Secondly, although the fix to the SEND crisis is not all about money, that does not mean that money does not need to be spent—particularly on capital. The reality is, although we need more inclusivity, we also need co-located provision in mainstream schools and more alternative provision. In my constituency in particular, we have a big shortage in specialist social, emotional and mental health difficulties places which is affecting life chances today—the cost of which will be borne by other parts of the state in future.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) on so passionately describing the issues for her constituents—but these are replicated for all of us. I will give some statistics from Northern Ireland to add to the support that I give to the hon. Lady and others. There are some 11,000 children in special education—an increase of 70% in the past 10 years—and 8% of those children have special educational needs.
I do not know how many meetings I have attended with parents who are worried about their children. It has become an incredibly important issue. It is a mammoth take for the Minister here—it is good to see her in her place and I wish her well—as it is a mammoth take for those back home as well. I honestly believe that every child is a precious gift from God, born with a unique personality and a purpose to fulfil—each is valued, is important and matters. That is why I support the Minister in coming forward.
I want to put it on the record that the Education Department in Northern Ireland, which I represent, has committed to a vision where,
“Every child and young person is happy, learning and succeeding.”
That aspiration is no different for our children who face additional challenges to accessing learning. Reform is urgent and essential to deliver that vision, ensure inclusion, and improve outcomes for learners who require additional support. The SEN reform agenda is an ambitious framework for change and takes a whole-system approach to tackling the issues underpinning current challenges in the system.
What do we need? We need two things: first, early diagnosis for those who have educational issues, and secondly, plenty of staff members who can take on the issues and can respond quickly. My request to the Minister is—I know she probably does this without me asking her—will she discuss with our Education Minister back home to see how best we can deliver this for all of those in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? That was a five-minute speech done in two minutes.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Thank you for keeping to the two minutes, more or less. We should continue that trend.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. Last week, I had the privilege and opportunity to meet with the parents of some students from Hexham Priory school, which supports children with severe learning disabilities in my constituency in the county of Northumberland. One thing that comes to mind when speaking to those parents—as one of them put it to me—is that they are constantly fighting for their child, not just for their education, but for their ability to access swimming pools, leisure centres and other provision that we all take for granted when we are speaking to other children in our constituency.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
On that point, I want to emphasise that the parents and carers who I speak to in Hyndburn and Haslingden are bruised and burnt out—my hon. Friend talked about the constant fight and the adversarial nature of the system. I also keep hearing concerns from the parents and teachers in the system about some fear around the reforms that are coming, because they feel that might happen without them. Would my hon. Friend agree that is really important that the Government work with parents, teachers and carers as they develop those reforms, and that there is a real two-way conversation as we bring forward what is needed?
Joe Morris
My hon. Friend knows, as I think we all do, the strength of feeling from SEND parents, staff and teachers, who have been burnt out over 14 years of failure on SEND. I certainly have my frustrations with Northumberland county council’s wrong-headed, misguided and deluded approach to the SEND crisis in my county. That particularly comes across with the lack of provision in the west of Northumberland, when I am constantly confronted by families travelling from Haltwhistle, which is—for those here who are not familiar with the geography of my constituency—in the extreme west of Northumberland, all the way to the coast to Ashington, which is often a journey that exceeds 90 minutes either way. Accessing that provision is incredibly hard and draining.
I want to put on record my thanks to the parents and staff at Hexham Priory school, who provide that supportive and caring environment, to local charities such as Mencap, and to individuals who constantly reach out to my office—I know that there were 11 places, for which 72 applied. This is a crisis that we must work to address.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) on securing this really important debate.
Education is, and always will be, one of my top priorities. I am lucky enough to have visited many of my schools in South West Hertfordshire to see the excellent work that teachers are doing to ensure that every one of the children in my constituency has a good or excellent education. However, the statutory framework around parent choice should be working for schools, not against them. In my constituency, 17% of children have special educational needs, and I regularly receive correspondence and surgery requests from parents and constituents who are going through the process of trying to get an education, health and care plan for their child, or are dealing with the implementation of one.
I am glad that Hertfordshire county council has made progress in this area and is continuing to do so. It is important that progress continues to be made. As someone who is dyslexic, I understand at first hand the frustrations posed by special educational needs and learning disabilities, and how important it is that those with SEND have the support they need to succeed in school.
From conversations with schools in my area and officers at Hertfordshire county council, it is clear that the parent choice framework needs to change. Schools are gaining reputations for being good at educating children with special needs. That is something that all schools should strive for, but it has led to a higher concentration of children with EHCPs in some schools and very low numbers in others, placing a financial burden and additional pressure on the schools that provide such valuable support for children who need it. That should not be the case. All schools should be able to support children with special educational needs; it should not be left to a select few. Every parent wants the best education for their children, and that would allow all schools to continue to provide a top-quality education for all. I urge the Minister to consider changes to the statutory framework.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) for securing this important debate.
Early in my career, I had the privilege of working for the disability charity Scope, where I successfully campaigned for increased funding for the schools access initiative to improve access to mainstream education. Ever since then, I have been a strong believer that, wherever possible, children with specialist needs should have them met in mainstream schools that support them and everything should be done to facilitate that. While I still believe in mainstream inclusion, I recognise that the demand is great and the complexity of need has increased and changed.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
On the point about access, does the hon. Member agree that it is really important that children are able to get to school in the first place? Private providers of SEND transport have reported that the increase in national insurance contributions will greatly impact their ability to get children to school, because they will have to run at a loss and might have to relinquish some of the contracts. That will put local authorities at risk of not meeting their statutory duties to ensure that children with SEN can access that transport.
Ms Minns
I am sure that the Minister will address that point in her closing remarks, but I want to focus on the need, and the ability to get into a specialist school in the first instance.
James Rennie school in my constituency is rated outstanding and does incredible work for children aged three to 19, but not everyone who needs a school like James Rennie is able to access one. The school has seen a huge increase in demand in recent years from families whose children have specialist needs. At the moment, it is already operating well above its published admission number, something it has achieved only by converting spare space into classrooms, and there is still more demand. For this September, it already has 43 known applications—25% of the children already in the school.
James Rennie is not alone. Department for Education figures from March last year show that there are approximately 4,000 more pupils on the rolls of specialist schools than their reported capacity. Will the Minister address the need that we now have for more specialist schools? Let us be clear: there are 1.5 million SEND children in this country, including the 202 at James Rennie in Carlisle. All of us, in every part of the House, have a duty to ensure that we do not fail them.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) on securing this vital debate. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am an NHS optometrist. I rise to highlight two critical issues: the severe gap in transport provision for post-16 students, and the additional challenges faced by children with visual impairment in the SEND system.
No parent of a SEND child willingly chooses to send them miles away for education. They do so because there is a lack of local provision. Until the age of 16, local authorities cover the cost of transportation, but beyond that, families are expected to finance it themselves —an expectation that is, frankly, unrealistic. I have spoken to parents who are on the brink of crisis, including Ruth and Esther from Still SEND 16+. Some are considering giving up their work to personally manage their child’s school commute, pushing them into benefits and ultimately costing the state more than simply providing transport would. A consultation has already shown that 29% of affected young people may be forced to abandon education. Will the Government consider making post-16 SEND transport statutory, ensuring that young people do not have to choose between education and affordability?
I also wish to raise the additional challenge faced by children with a visual impairment within the SEND framework. Across the UK, 41,000 children and young people rely on specialist visual impairment education services. Half of them have additional SEND needs, yet local disparities in provision mean that many do not receive the support they require. The Royal National Institute of Blind People has called for urgent reforms. I echo that. The curriculum framework for children and young people with visual impairment must be embedded in all SEND policies. The Government commitment to recruit 6,500 expert teachers must include funding for additional registered qualified habitation specialists and qualified visual impairment specialist teachers, and all teacher training and special educational needs co-ordinator courses must include mandatory visual impairment awareness training to improve inclusivity in mainstream schools.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) on securing today’s debate. I draw the attention of the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in respect of support from support staff unions. I also wish to make a non-financial declaration of interest, which is that my partner is a member of the Department’s expert advisory panel on SEND. However, the views I express are my own.
In the House we often talk about SEND funding and funding is important, but we also need to talk about SEND spending. The reality is that much money in the system is not spent well and that there are providers who charge too much for too little. In other aspects of education —children’s homes and other parts of the sector—we look at overcharging. The pirates of the high needs exist in SEND as well. I see it in my constituency and I see it in the cases parents and families bring to the SEND surgeries I run. I hope that when legislation is brought forward in this area, those problems will be addressed.
In a former role, I submitted a freedom of information request to all local education authorities. Two thirds could not answer a simple question about average spend on EHCPs in their area. Indeed, no such duty exists under the 2014 Act. If we are to drive up standards we need accountability for the money that is being spent, because parents are furious at the money that is not available to their children.
I will make just one more brief point, because time is so short. Much could be done in schools to improve the sensory environment—I believe this point has been partially raised already. When I was a SEND pupil, such simple adjustments as flexible lighting and variable noise levels would have made a huge difference to classroom management and learning support. I hope that when school design standards are next looked at, minimum expectations for inclusion by design can be set.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) for securing this important debate and for powerfully setting out so many of the failures that families in my constituency will be all too familiar with.
There is nothing more heartbreaking than speaking to people in my constituency who have been let down by the national failures of the SEND system: the young person who has been out of school for far too long, with all the impact that has on their mental health and development, just because there is no school suitable for them in our local area; the family who have often had to step back from work to fight for the bare minimum legal entitlement of support that their young person needs to thrive at school; or the far too many of our schools that, despite going above and beyond, know they are not being set up to succeed when it comes to supporting far too many pupils with additional needs.
When she described the system as “lose, lose, lose”, the last Conservative Education Secretary could not have been more right. In my local area, those painful failures are absolutely present at the local authority level too, whether in Hertfordshire county council’s shocking failure to deliver EHCP plans, laid bare by Ofsted in recent years, or in Central Bedfordshire council’s planning failures when it comes to specialist places, which is causing chaos for some of my local schools. From Ivel Valley school, whose redevelopment is now in doubt, to local schools that found out that their inclusion centre was being paused when developers did not turn up when they were meant to, it is clear that councils need to do much, much better with the tools already in their grasp.
As a former teacher and local authority lead, I know that national change is needed too. The extra money prioritised in the Budget—£1 billion for the high needs block and £750 million for adaptations—is crucial, but much wider work is needed. We need clear accountability frameworks for local authorities and schools that hold them much more accountable for SEND and inclusion. Whatever the school structure, driving up standards should never come at the expense of an inclusive approach to admissions and exclusions.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I share my hon. Friend’s concern that far too many children in our part of the world miss out on years of education as a result of this crisis. In setting out many of the reforms we need to see, will he join me in urging the Minister to bring forward those reforms as swiftly as possible and to provide a clear timeline so that parents in our constituencies can look forward to them?
Alistair Strathern
Absolutely. It is really welcome that this has been a priority, right at the heart of the Government’s early decision making on education, and we need the pace to continue.
It is clear that much further work will be needed on workforce planning. It is fantastic that we finally have a Government who are taking an interest in this issue and commissioning a survey to understand where the workforce shortages are, but it will be crucial for them to put in money to support the resolution of the challenges, especially in edge-of-London constituencies like mine, where all too often the resource is dragged into other authorities as a result of London weighting. We need to make sure that health partners are playing an ambitious role, too. Deprioritising health budgets is a false economy that only leads to increased pressures on education budgets.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your leadership, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) for securing this important debate. My area of Norfolk has unique challenges as well as the common challenges we have heard about from many Members. Between 2019 and 2024, we saw a 74.5% increase in the number of EHC plans issued, and it is rising faster than the national average.
I want to touch on a few of the systemic problems I see in my area. Hon. Members have mentioned health. In Norfolk there are more than 10,000 children on waiting lists for an autism or ADHD assessment, and the average waiting time is seven years. That is totally unacceptable. Can the Minister tell us what is being done with the Department of Health and Social Care to expedite that process?
When members of the public contact me, whether because they are being told that, since the specialist provision is within 3 miles, they must walk there and transport will not be funded, or whether it is to tell me about the thousands of pounds being poured into tribunal processes by Norfolk county council, my feeling is overwhelmingly that the system is failing them. We have an adversarial system in which parents and children are not being listened to. We also have a real challenge in Norfolk with the expense of transport, which costs the local authority a huge amount but forces children to travel miles.
There is a school sitting empty in Norwich North that could be turned into a special school. I have been campaigning for that with local councillors for almost four years, but bureaucracy seems to be getting in the way. I do not understand why the simple transfer of a lease is impeding the provision of an extra specialist school for our children. We really need to look at how we can expedite the use of facilities that could be repurposed.
I also hear from constituents that when they are told there is no place for their child in a specialist resource base, they are not told the reasons why. My constituent Joanne was told that there is no right to appeal, so she has been left with no understanding of why her child cannot have the place she desperately needs. I agree that we need clear guidelines for families. We also need a co-production model, so that parents are not just talking to a system, but being included in the system right from the very start, through delivery for our young people.
I welcome the steps that the Government have taken so far. I know that we will take so many more. Ultimately, speed is of the essence.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) for securing this important debate. This issue resonates deeply with families in Dudley and across the nation.
We all know that too many families are navigating a SEND system that is too difficult. Assessments are taking too long, support is inconsistent, and local authorities are under huge pressure to meet the increasing demand. Schools are struggling with managing children with no diagnosis and supporting those with a diagnosis. In the 2024 autumn Budget, £1 billion of specifically allocated SEND funding was announced. That investment is vital to tackle the challenges that parents and schools face every day.
Dudley is no exception to the issues that have been raised. The number of children with education, health and care plans has risen significantly, reflecting the growing need for specialist support. We must confront the fact that too many families and schools feel that they have to fight the system just to get the right support for their children. My constituent Catherine Beaman has had to set up her own SEND support group in Sedgley, as there is no wraparound service. That simply is not right. While funding is increasing and reforms are under way, families want to feel that our children will get the support they deserve. I ask the Government to move faster and more efficiently to improve the system.
I believe that an early diagnosis is key for our children to get the best start in life, but support is required throughout an individual’s lifetime. I ask the Minister to develop a cross-departmental strategy on SEND for the future of our children.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) for securing this important debate. I have been contacted time and again by parents in Gloucester who are desperate for support for their children. They have been failed by the system and their children have been left to suffer as a result. The message from parents is clear: they want more support, a reduction in the waiting times for EHCPs, and a system where every plan is processed quickly, fairly and effectively.
It is clear that the last Government failed to invest, failed to plan and failed an entire generation of our children and their parents. They created a postcode lottery whereby parents are forced to battle the system rather than being supported by it. That is one of the biggest challenges facing parents in my area: a system that denies their child’s needs and puts the presumption on saying no, rather than asking how it can best support children.
The repercussions are staggering. In the past decade, decision times on EHCPs increased by 140%, with two in five taking more than six months to process. In Gloucester, only 35% of EHCP decisions were issued within the 20-week target. That is a disgrace, and it is yet again up to the Labour Government to fix the Tory mess.
I understand that there are no quick fixes and there is no magic wand that can undo 14 years of neglect, but I welcome the Government’s £1 billion uplift in SEND funding and the £740 million to create new specialist places in mainstream schools, as well as the commitment to train 400 new educational psychologists and retain these professionals. Will the Minister outline the steps the Government are taking to improve the EHCP process so that families feel supported through it? These measures will ensure that we do not repeat the failures of the last Government. We will be the voice of change, breaking down the barriers to give SEND children better support. These children face so many hurdles in their lives, and it is time we ensured that they have a brighter future and are supported.
Baggy Shanker (Derby South) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) for securing this incredibly important debate. When we came into government we knew we were going to inherit a mess after years of chaos under the Conservatives. Unfortunately, special educational needs provision has been a particularly shocking example of the real consequences for families and individuals who are lost in a system that has been mismanaged, neglected and starved of funding. Put simply, SEND provision was at crisis point.
I pay tribute to the incredible teachers and teaching assistants who work so hard to support every child, in every school, in every classroom. Whenever I visit schools in Derby, I see how dedicated they are to helping children, despite their limited resources. But teachers feel guilty because while they focus their attention on the children with special educational needs, they are unable to support the rest of their classes who, with a little more help, could go on to achieve so much more. Every child deserves the tools they need to succeed, but children cannot succeed when they are deprived of the basic support they need in the classroom.
In my constituency, one of the challenges we face is the availability of appropriate SEND school placements. I welcome the steps that the local council is taking to address that shortage. It is creating 70 more SEND places at the Kingsmead school in Alvaston, as part of a broader plan to create more than 200 additional specialist places for the city’s schools over the next two years.
But there is only so much that local authorities are able to do. Funding, support and reform from central Government is crucial, and I am pleased that we have an Education Secretary who is committed to sorting out SEND as one of her top priorities. It is the Conservative party that broke our SEND system, but I say to every parent who is currently struggling to advocate for their child to access the support they need: it is the Labour Government who will work to fix it.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) and congratulate her on securing this debate. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to my partner’s interests.
Given the time limit, I will focus on one case in my constituency, out of so many. It is not new, but a decade-long issue on which we have been fighting for one child. We tried to submit this child’s assessment when she was three years of age, but it was unsuccessful. Only following an Ofsted intervention at Warwickshire county council did she finally get a diagnosis of autism, six years later. No directives were made for other special needs.
She is now in secondary school and, eight years on, she is still awaiting diagnosis of and support for ADHD and other complex needs. Her mum constantly has to fight, and has engaged proactively with every intervention she has been offered, such as early help. When her mum last inquired to find out how long they would have to wait, she was told the waiting list is still measured in years, not in months or weeks. After first displaying diagnosable traits at three, there is every chance that this child may leave her education without fully understanding her needs.
The impact on the family has been profound, and the impact on the mental health of this child has been traumatic. Her mother found a notebook detailing her suicide plans when she was in year 6. After sleepless nights worrying, she finally got a mental health assessment weeks later and was told that she did not present a risk as she had not identified the tree or rope she would use to hang herself. This is disgusting and a complete failure. No family should have to go through this.
Jim Shannon
Everybody brings a personal story to this place, and the hon. Lady has brought a very personal story. It is obvious to all of us here that the hon. Lady is a compassionate MP and understands the issues for her constituents, and she has portrayed that very well. She is assiduous and honest, and we thank her for that.
Jodie Gosling
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me a moment to compose myself. Children should not be seen as a tick list of diagnosis criteria. We need a SEND system that deals with children and families holistically, that listens to their voices and that tackles the root causes.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) for securing this debate. I know she is doing all she can to improve SEND provision in her constituency and in the wider county of Suffolk.
SEND issues in my South West Norfolk constituency are a constant in my inbox. After 14 years of neglect, families are at the end of their tether and are desperate for support. The size of the task facing the Government in repairing trust in the SEND system is clear and frankly daunting. As my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal mentioned, we must not forget that in areas like Suffolk and Norfolk the challenges are exacerbated because of rurality and difficulties accessing services that are often miles away.
I have been here before to speak about SEND, and have spoken to the Minister a number of times, but today I want to make a particular point about tribunals. Many county councils are losing scores of tribunal cases. In Norfolk, the Conservative-controlled county council is losing 98% of all tribunal cases—there seem to be no real consequences to the failure to act in the first place—and has racked up a bill of almost £1 million in legal costs in one financial year fighting SEND cases. Money that could have been spent on providing services for families is used to pay legal bills. Local authorities usually engage solicitors and barristers, which was never the intention for SEND tribunals. The way they were set up was supposed to mean that neither side needed legal representation.
I urge the Minister to speak to the concerns about tribunals specifically. I recognise that solving the crisis in SEND will not happen overnight, but I am encouraged by the Government’s action so far and by the additional money.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) for securing this important debate and for her excellent speech.
As colleagues from all parties have said, the system for young people with special educational needs in England is not working for schools, for councils and, most importantly, for the young people who so desperately need support. This is yet another area where, as the commentator Sam Freedman who worked at the Department of Education put it, the previous Government
“chose to go slow in coming up with solutions so as to avoid difficult or expensive decisions before the election.”
It has been left to the new Labour Government to fix it. I welcome the steps taken so far, with £1 billion infused into the SEND budget in October and £740 million announced to create thousands of specialist places, including in mainstream schools.
In my Dartford constituency, Kent county council has been unable to respond properly to the families seeking the help that their children need. I hear regularly of EHCP annual reviews taking many times longer than the 12 weeks they should take, including one case in which an annual review is yet to be processed over a year after it took place. I hear of caseworkers leaving the service and families not being told, leaving parents asking for assistance but not being heard. I hear complaints about EHCP decisions going months without an answer. There are frustrating waits to correct errors and multi-year waits for other forms of assessment.
Too many vulnerable young people are missing crucial years of education when they are needed most. There are no quick fixes, but the Government have an opportunity, as we all do, to bring forward much-needed reforms that will improve outcomes over time. So many families are depending on it. Let us work with the Government to ensure it happens.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) on securing this important debate.
Another week, another debate on SEND. Since the start of this Parliament, barely a week has gone by when we have not had questions or debates, either in this Chamber or the main Chamber, on special educational needs and disability provision. From what we have heard today—I particularly thank the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) for her courage in sharing her constituent’s moving story—we know that every Member’s inbox is bulging with casework from constituents about the dire crisis in SEND, which is why these debates are so oversubscribed. We are also getting report after report. In the last few months, the National Audit Office, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Public Accounts Committee have all come out with the same damning verdict about a broken system, with money coming in but outcomes for children going down.
These are some of our most vulnerable children and young people, and we as a society must do our best to meet their needs. We know that families face a postcode lottery, with delays that can last months or even years and vulnerable children missing out on the support that they deserve and need. With special schools full, mainstream schools struggling to provide appropriate support because their budgets are so overstretched, and spiralling high-needs deficits leaving many local authorities on the brink of bankruptcy, it is clear that urgent reform is needed.
As we heard in a Westminster Hall debate just a few weeks ago, the process to get an education, health and care plan is often far too lengthy and far too adversarial. Families are increasingly forced to take their cases to tribunal, with the number of cases doubling since 2014. Local authorities lose almost all those cases, wasting annually over £70 million of public money that could be spent on supporting children and young people rather than fighting unnecessary legal battles. Given the huge rise in demand for support, and the previous Conservative Government’s failure to keep up with that demand, local authorities are too often struggling to meet their statutory responsibilities, forcing families to navigate a broken system to secure even the most basic support. As the former Education Secretary Gillian Keegan described it, it is a “lose, lose, lose” system for all.
Ministers have repeatedly, and quite rightly, stressed the need for mainstream schools to be more inclusive in order to meet the rising need for special needs support. I recently visited Stanley school in my Twickenham constituency which, like two other nearby primary schools, has a specialist resource provision. Children with complex needs are able to spend time with dedicated teaching assistants for support, but they have the opportunity to play, socialise and participate, where appropriate, in lessons and other activities with children in the school who are not part of the SRP.
As the hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) referenced, we are seeing falling rolls in schools and space opening up. SRPs will be a key intervention in our approach to ensuring that mainstream schools can be more inclusive. However, finding and keeping the staff to support children in SRPs or other mainstream settings—or indeed in special school settings—is an ongoing challenge. SRPs need to be properly funded but, as things stand, the headteacher at Stanley explained to me, the maths just does not add up for him. He explained that his wider school budget is having to plug the shortfall in SRP funding. If we are to tempt schools to have SRPs, we are going to have to make sure that they have the resources to provide that SRP.
Support staff costs have risen over the past two years, with unfunded pay increases and increases in employer’s national insurance contributions on the horizon. We know that local authorities, health services and schools are all struggling to recruit the number of staff that they need to meet growing demand—both to undertake assessments in the first place, when a child might be eligible for an EHCP, and then to meet that need in school.
A national survey of headteachers found that only 1% of senior school leaders believed that they had enough funding to meet the needs of pupils with SEND. A report by London Councils on SEND inclusion in schools found that stakeholders from across the sector said that they would be able to be more inclusive if they had more funding. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for increased funding for local authorities to reduce the financial burden on schools. We know that the £6,000 per pupil notional SEND budget, which each school is meant to allocate before applying for an EHCP, is, frankly, a fiction in today’s school finances, given the pressures on budgets up and down the country.
When I visited Stanley the other week, and when I visited a beautiful new school, Belmont school in Durham, last week, I was told by both headteachers that for many mainstream schools, the disincentive to take on children with SEND is the way that standard assessment tests and other public exam results are reported. Frankly, certain young people in those mainstream settings are not in a position to sit their SATs or GCSEs, yet their results, which will essentially be nil, are reported in the schools’ performance measures, which are available publicly. In a competitive schooling environment, where parents vote with their feet for the schools that typically have the highest grades, that sadly results in an incentive for too many schools to actively avoid taking SEND children on to their rolls. There are schools that are doing the right thing and including those children, but, as the Minister is considering how to make mainstream school more inclusive, I wonder what consideration she and other Ministers have given to this issue.
I would like to spend a moment focusing on special schools. For children for whom a mainstream setting is not right, special schools should, and in many cases do, provide the necessary educational support. However, we know that in May 2023, two thirds of special schools were at or over capacity, and the impact of that is children with complex needs being inappropriately accommodated in the mainstream, where their needs cannot be met, which sometimes has a detrimental impact on other pupils and, indeed, staff. Many parents in those situations feel forced to home school. We know that parents who feel that they have had no option but to home school are concerned about what some of the provisions of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will mean for their being able to ensure that their child is in an appropriate environment.
The lack of specialist provision is being played out in the eye-watering SEND transport costs that local authorities are having to fund to send children out of area. Add to that the cost of private special schools, which are being funded by the taxpayer. I will return to that subject in a moment, but I want to take this moment to welcome the provision in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that will allow local authorities to open new special schools. For too long, local authorities that have identified a need, and that want to bid for funding and open special schools, have been turned down. A number of applications from local authorities that wanted to open special schools were turned down during the previous Parliament by the previous Government, so I welcome that change in the Bill.
Returning to private special schools, many private SEND schools provide an excellent education and are run as not-for-profit charities. However, the Minister is aware—I have raised this issue previously, not least in Committee on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill—that private equity firms and other profiteering companies are increasingly entering the special school market, as they see it, at an extortionate cost. Councils are spending £1.3 billion on independent and non-maintained special schools, which is more than double what they spent just a few years earlier. The cost of an independent special school place is, on average, double the cost of a state special school place. Some private equity companies running these schools are making a profit of 20%-plus. Typically, the private equity-owned providers, not the other private sector providers, have the highest level of profitability in the sector. I feel that our most vulnerable children and our local authorities are being held to ransom by some of these companies, which are not behaving in the best interests of our children.
Mr Mohindra
Is the hon. Lady suggesting that we ban private equity companies from being involved in the sector?
Munira Wilson
No. As a Liberal—I have said this many a time—I believe in a mixed economy in many of our public services. I was about to make the point that the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill contains important measures to stop profiteering in children’s social care. When I proposed an amendment in Committee to extend the profit cap to special schools, I explained that the private equity companies that are making a ridiculous amount of profit in the children’s social care sector are also running private special schools. Some are not making a huge profit, but I do not think a 20%-plus profit margin in a taxpayer-funded system is acceptable, which is why my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I proposed an amendment to the Bill to extend the profit cap to special schools. I was disappointed that Labour Members and Ministers voted against it, but I again urge them to consider the proposal. We know we are in a cash-constrained environment—we hear every day from Ministers, not least the Chancellor, about how little money there is—but savings can be found in this area, and we can invest them back into our most vulnerable children.
My final proposal for Ministers, which the Minister has heard me talk about before, is that for our most complex children, we need a national body for SEND to fund those with exceptionally high needs who face a postcode lottery of provision across the country, and pose a particular risk to local authorities where those needs arise. That body could also have oversight of standards and budgets across the country.
I know that SEND is high on the Minister’s agenda. We are still waiting to hear how the £1 billion announced in the Budget will be allocated, but I fear that, given the £2.7 billion of local authority SEND deficits, it will disappear into a black hole. We have been promised reforms later this year, but our children cannot afford to wait. Children missing out on an education will never get that time back. Every child, no matter their needs or background, should be given the opportunity to thrive and fulfil their potential, yet too many children with SEND are simply not getting that right now.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) on securing this important debate. As Members have said, we seem to discuss SEND in this House pretty much on a weekly basis, and rightly so.
I am the vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for special educational needs and disabilities, and I do cross-party work with colleagues in this Chamber and beyond to ensure the experiences of constituents are heard in this place. I, too, have a number of special schools in my constituency—both state and independent.
Hon. Members will have to forgive me for not talking about every single contribution that was made today. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for his comments about sensory and calming rooms, and I hope the Minister will take them into account. Likewise, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), whose commitment to education in his constituency is obvious. I hope the Minister will consider the statutory changes that he asked for. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling), whose moving and heartbreaking story touched us all and will have resonance with all our constituents.
Clearly, special educational needs and disabilities are extraordinarily important. That casework fills my postbag, and a lot of it comes from my predecessors, which demonstrates how long some of these cases can go on for. The Conservative Government’s reforms, through the Children and Families Act 2014, marked a significant shift in raising awareness, changing the narrative and addressing educational shortfalls in the system that, under a previous Administration, had failed to adequately make legislative changes for SEND children. The Act created EHCPs, a vital tool for allowing parents to receive the support that they need for their children in the education system.
Only a minority of SEND pupils actually have an EHCP. According to data from the Department for Education for 2023-24, 1.6 million pupils in England had SEND conditions. Of those, 1.2 million received SEND support without an EHCP, meaning that 400,000 had an EHCP. Therefore, my first question to the Minister is: in her plans, what happens to the other 75% of SEND pupils?
Nearly 17% of independent school pupils are receiving SEND support, but only 6% of those have a formal EHCP. I want to quote the Prime Minister, who shared the Government’s supposed plan for SEND pupils who do not have an EHCP, or are in the process of acquiring one. In June, the Prime Minister told LBC listeners that:
“Where there isn’t a plan, then that exemption doesn’t apply.”
Will the Minister confirm that the 93,000 children in the independent system who receive SEND support with no formal EHCP are not included in her plans, as the Prime Minister outlined in June?
The 2014 Act was a step change. Now, we need a further step change from this Government. In the Public Accounts Committee’s recently published inquiry into the SEND emergency, it was revealed that the Department for Education does not fully understand the root causes behind the surge in demand for EHCPs. In my area, between 2019 and 2024, EHCPs increased by 63% in Surrey and 93% in Hampshire—well above the national average. In the Committee’s inquiry, the Department admitted that it had not adequately examined the barriers to promoting inclusivity in mainstream schools.
That is particularly concerning for the three SEND schools in my constituency—the Ridgeway school, Hollywater school, which is currently expanding due to Hampshire county council’s funding, and the Abbey school —which are now under extreme pressure from the exodus of children, once educated in the independent sector, who are now entering the mainstream system. I am also worried by the lack of provision and support given to independent special educational schools, which is affecting three schools in my constituency: More House, Undershaw and Pathways. Those three schools educate nearly 1,000 children with complex SEND needs, and, without these independent schools, my local state schools will crumble under the pressure.
While the Government’s £1 billion for SEND is entirely welcome—this funding injection will be a positive boost for local authorities—we have seen that the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Education are not listening to those parents of children who do not have an EHCP and are educated in the independent sector. Therefore, I ask the Minister—
Gregory Stafford
I am under a lot of time pressure, and I want the proposer of the motion to be able to get in, so I will not. I have to leave time for the Minister too, and I really want to hear her answers to my questions.
As I was saying, I would therefore be grateful for the Minister’s confirmation that she has engaged with parents and teachers in this situation. And what steps is she taking to ensure that vulnerable children do not suffer the greatest because of this Government’s policy?
Despite the—I have to say—utter nonsense we heard from the hon. Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre), the Conservative Government launched a review of the SEND system in 2019 to end the postcode lottery, and committed an extra £700 million in the year 2020-21, an 11% increase on the year prior. Moreover, to ensure that children and young people received the most appropriate support for their needs, the national SEND and alternative provision implementation board was established.
Gregory Stafford
I am not going to give way, sorry. That created a national system with new, clear standards under the Green Paper, and a consultation that set out the Conservatives’ commitment to delivering the support that children with SEND truly need.
To oversee those vital changes, the SEND system leadership board brought together sector leaders across education, health and social care to drive improvements. The Local Government Association has warned, however, that without proper reform, SEND provision will deteriorate and become financially unviable. A 2024 National Audit Office report echoed those concerns, highlighting the 140% rise in EHCPs since 2015 and warning that the system will become financially unsustainable if unchanged.
Information from the Children and Young People Select Committee last year indicated that there were 2,784 children and young people waiting for autism and ADHD assessments in East Hampshire in my constituency, with waiting times averaging around two years. During that time, children and their families are unable to access the necessary provisions, and that negatively affects their quality of life and puts pressure on local schools. That situation increases the risk of adverse outcomes in educational attainment, mental health and future employment.
I am working closely with local organisations such as SEN Talk CIC, which is a charity founded by a constituent of mine. I have seen its profound impact: 92% of children participating in its programmes report a positive change in their lives, and 80% gain valuable lifelong skills. That is just one of the great initiatives that support many children in my constituency, particularly SEND pupils who are home educated. Although home education is not right for every child, it is a fundamental right that is employed by parents across the UK to give them a hands-on approach to their children’s education.
I have spoken to Kate from Nurtured Neuro Kids and others who have expressed their considerable concerns about the impact that the Government’s rushed Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will have on SEND children who are educated from home. They are very upset by the lack of positive acknowledgment from the Education Secretary of the important work that they do to take the strain from the mainstream system, and the lack of consultation or consideration for Conservative amendments that would have protected their work. It is therefore important for constituents such as Kate to be assured that the Government will take steps to ensure that all children with speech and language needs get the help they deserve.
It is clearly a wise and welcome decision for the Government to continue the Nuffield early language intervention programme, which provides crucial support to children with speech and language needs. We must acknowledge, however, that there remains significant disparity in access to funding and support, regardless of the region or the individual specialist needs of the child. Every child who struggles with speech and language must have access to support, regardless of where they live.
Despite a relatively collegiate debate, a number of Members—I pick out the hon. Members for Derby South (Baggy Shanker) and for Gloucester—have seen fit to blame the Conservative record and point out Conservative councils’ record in this area. Of the three councils with the highest appeal rates for EHCPs, however, two are Liberal Democrat and one is Labour, so I gently say to Government Members that this is a nationwide problem. Rather than point scoring, it would be better for hon. Members to work together, so that those unfair decisions, and the impact they have on families, are quickly resolved. The comments from the hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) were particularly uncharitable. I point out to him that in the spring Budget statement, the last Government committed to 15 special schools, with which this Government are not continuing.
I urge the Minister to address the root causes of the problems in the SEND system, including funding and the decision to tax independent schools. Proper reform of the system, including reform of the EHCP process, would give children a proper educational choice. Without it, we risk what the Public Accounts Committee called a “lost generation of children”.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
I ask the Minister to leave a minute or so at the end, so that the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal can wind up.
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) on securing this incredibly important debate, and on the way in which she set out her constituents’ case. Like many other hon. Members in the Chamber, she clearly has a keen interest in the support and services that are made available to children and young people with SEND.
I also thank hon. Members from both sides of the House, including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for recognising that work is needed to put right the terrible situation currently faced by far too many children in the system, and that we need to improve it. Doing so is a vital part of the Government’s opportunity mission. We want to break the link between background and opportunity, and that means giving every child, including children with special educational needs and disabilities, the very best start in life.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
On the point about giving children the best start at the earliest stage, what are the Minister’s thoughts on properly integrating family hubs into education, health and local authorities, to ensure seamless support for children with SEND?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The Government are committed to expanding the work of the family hubs to ensure that every community has support to create that earliest intervention. Many hon. Members have mentioned the importance of early intervention. We agree that it is vital, but I will come to that in more detail. She tempts me down a different path from the one I was going down.
I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal that addressing challenges in the SEND system is a priority for me, for the Department for Education and for the Government. We recognise that this is a whole-Government effort, including the Department of Health and Social Care, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Transport. Many hon. Members raised challenges around school transport. It is a priority to fix that system and get the best outcomes for every child. I also reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal that I would be delighted to visit her constituency, which I hope can be arranged.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
More than one in three SEND children in Oldham is diagnosed with autism or a neurodivergent condition, which is above the national average. We know that there are implications for educational attainment and work. Has there been an assessment of the increase in children with autism or neurodivergent conditions? If so, what were its conclusions?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The additional recognition of special educational needs and disabilities has highlighted not only the extent of the challenge to ensure the best offer for all children, including those with SEND, but that we should give every child the best education, regardless of their special educational needs and disabilities. Our ability to identify aids us to have the infrastructure and support in place to ensure that every child has the best start in life. I will talk in more detail about how we do that, as many hon. Members have asked.
We have reached the point of recognising the challenge, although the surprising contribution of the Conservative Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), was a caveat to that. In the context of this debate, where we recognise that there is a shared challenge, his contribution seemed to skip from 2014 to the present day, as though the previous 10 years had not happened. It bore no recognition of that, despite his former Secretary of State for Education, Gillian Keegan, acknowledging that the system presided over in the10 years prior to 2024 was “lose, lose, lose”. I agree that we should not be arguing about who created the challenges; we should be getting down and resolving the challenges together. I did not think that the hon. Gentleman’s contribution was respectful of the positive contributions that other Members from both sides of the House had made.
Alex McIntyre
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for having the confidence and courage to accept interventions, unlike some hon. Members. Does she agree that the shadow Minister’s comments showed how out of touch the Conservative party is? Parents have been in tears in my surgeries due to the system that the Conservatives left behind.
Catherine McKinnell
I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. I am happy to take interventions, but I have to cover a lot of issues that hon. Members have raised. I hope that, in the time we have left, I have the opportunity to do so.
I know we all agree that every child deserves the opportunity to achieve, thrive and succeed. Where possible, as highlighted by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns), that should be within a mainstream setting with their friends. However, we are aware that there are significant challenges currently in achieving that. That is why we are prioritising early intervention, which a number of hon. Members have raised, and inclusive provision within mainstream settings.
We know that providing early intervention prevents unmet needs from escalating and supports children to achieve their goals and thrive alongside their peers. We are really committed to working to deliver that for every child in every community. We are doing so by increasing high needs funding by £1 billion, which brings the total funding to £11.9 billion. Suffolk county council is allocated £124 million through the high needs funding block. That is an increase of £10.3 million and a 9% increase per head for two to 18-year-olds.
We know that the high needs funding formula needs to be looked at. It has been largely unchanged because we needed to prioritise making sure that we create a fair funding system, and direct funding to where it is needed and can make the biggest impact. That is why we are allocating funding towards capital to ensure that we have places available where they are needed. The £740 million of high needs capital can be used by local authorities—we will announce the allocations in due course—to deliver new places within mainstream settings, special schools and other specialist settings, and to improve the suitability and accessibility of current buildings. It will also help to tackle the issue of transport, which many hon. Members have raised. If we have mainstream availability of specialist support within a local community, there will be no need to travel such distances.
Catherine McKinnell
I am sorry; I will not be able to respond to hon. Members’ queries and concerns if I give way again.
EHCP timeliness was raised by a number of hon. Members, including by my hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) and for Dartford (Jim Dickson), whose contribution was excellent, and the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra). We monitor the timeliness of ECHPs, but there is a balance to be struck between issuing them within the timeframes required, which we need to see, and making sure that they achieve the outcome that we want—namely, better opportunities for the children that they are intended to serve. We will continue to monitor that and work with local authorities to improve it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal will be aware of the key role that alternative provision settings such as pupil referral units play in supporting vulnerable children and young people with SEND. We want them to work together with mainstream settings to make sure that we have targeted interventions and support to improve behaviour and attendance and to reduce the risk of exclusions, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin raised.
Speech and language is an important opportunity to intervene at the earliest possible stage for children. We know that children need to find their voice and that an increasing number of children are starting school without having had the support to do that previously. That is why we have prioritised the early language and support for every child programme. We are trialling new and better ways to ensure that we can reach communication needs in early years and primary schools.
I am very conscious of time. I want to let the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) know that I take on board the concerns that he raised. The abuse that he described is abhorrent and disturbing, and not within the current regulations or rules. We are running a consultation on the use of reasonable force, which is open until 29 April 2025 and contributions are welcome.
I am afraid that I have to draw to a close. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed; they made the case for their constituents well. I recognise the work of all those in our education, health and care systems who work with our children and young people with SEND in Suffolk and across the country. We need to deliver the very best for our children and young people, and to give them the best start in life. I am sure that, together, with this determined effort, we can do that.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I thank the Minister for her comments. It is great to hear that this issue continues to be a national priority. Members on both sides of the House will continue to work with the Government to ensure that each of our regions can deliver and help to fulfil that goal. I thank all hon. Members for contributing and look forward to welcoming them to Suffolk Coastal to see it at first hand.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered SEND education support.
Affordable Rural Housing
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
I call Olivia Bailey to move the motion. 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 in a 30-minute debate. I call Olivia Bailey.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the provision of affordable rural housing.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I am delighted to have secured this important debate, and I look forward to hearing from my colleagues and my hon. Friend the Minister over the next 30 minutes.
My Reading West and Mid Berkshire constituency boasts the very best of the English countryside. We have many beautiful rural villages and hamlets, many nestled in the north Wessex downs national landscape, formerly known as an area of outstanding natural beauty. They are villages full of families who have lived there for generations, but unfortunately villages now under threat due to a lack of affordable housing. There are many barriers to affordable housing in those villages: some are a consequence of the national landscape designation, but others are a consequence of a lack of political will. In west Berkshire people have been let down by Conservative and then Liberal Democrat administrations that offer warm words about the future of our villages, but are unwilling to take the action necessary and do the hard work to secure not massive developments in our villages, but small developments, with the support of the community, of houses at an affordable price.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady. This is a massive subject for my constituents, as it is for hers. For those who have lived in the countryside, who were born in the countryside and whose grannies, granddads and great grannies all live in the countryside, when it comes to affordable houses they have a real problem. Does she agree that perhaps we need legislation to ensure that those who are born in the countryside can stay in the countryside, in housing that is affordable for them?
Olivia Bailey
I thank the hon. Member; I agree that this is about keeping generations of families together and I will talk more about that later in my speech.
As I said, people have been let down by Conservative and then Liberal Democrat administrations, which have been bodging the local plan process, trying to pass the buck and avoid the hard work needed to secure the vibrant villages that we were promised.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
In response to what the hon. Lady has just said, I would like to congratulate the Liberal Democrat-led South Hams district council, which has just contributed £623,000 to support a community housing project that will offer 39 new energy-efficient, 100% social rented homes for people with a local connection, including a community garden and orchard and a community building that will be delivered once the homes are complete. Does she agree that that is the kind of development that we need to see?
Olivia Bailey
I am delighted that the hon. Member has had an opportunity to congratulate her council, and I thank her for her intervention.
With a lack of supply come skyrocketing house prices. In the five years to 2022, house prices in the countryside increased at close to twice the rate of those in urban areas. We need only look at the nine houses currently for sale in Upper Basildon in my constituency: four are on the market for more than £1.25 million and only one at under half a million pounds. Across the villages in my constituency, there are very few properties available for private rent, and the small number that are available are simply unaffordable for many.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Twigg. In North Warwickshire, private rents grew to an average of £898 in January this year—an increase of 11% from the previous year. Young people are prevented from starting their careers in North Warwickshire because those rent increases are unaffordable, and many of my young constituents are having to move away because of the lack of affordable housing. Does my hon. Friend agree that increased rental costs and a lack of social housing in rural areas prevent local economic growth and pose insurmountable challenges for young families in our rural areas?
Olivia Bailey
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. Simply put, these costs price people out of the community. One constituent in Bradfield shared her story with me. Her daughter would love to be able to stay in the village that she grew up in, but there are no affordable houses that are the right size for her young family. Eventually, she is likely to have to move away—a story repeated across my constituency.
Without affordable housing, schools close because there are not enough children to fill a class; pubs shut their doors because there are not enough punters to buy pints; and services for the elderly stop operating because there is nobody to volunteer. We simply cannot have a community without people, and those people need affordable homes.
I am delighted that the Government are committed to building the housing we need and to boosting home ownership, providing over £5 billion total housing investment in 2025-26 and a £500 million top-up to the affordable homes programme, and building an ambitious 1.5 million homes with the infrastructure that they need. I am also pleased that the Government are paying particular attention to housing in rural communities, giving local authorities flexible but ambitious targets for affordable housing development, recognising the value of rural exception sites and community-led development, and committing to look at how national policy can promote affordable rural housing.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Mr Twigg. In my constituency we have some villages, such as Dent, where 40% of the homes are second homes or Airbnb-type short-term lets. I also have concerns for Morecambe, with the Eden Project coming there. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should look at the licensing and regulation of short-term lets as part of the solution to the rural housing crisis?
Olivia Bailey
I am pleased that the Government are acting to level the playing field for first-time buyers, and I am sure that the Minister will elaborate further on that in his statement today.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Twigg. Similarly, in my constituency, the county council has built just 15,000 homes since 2013 and only 3,700 affordable homes, yet 2,000 people are in urgent need of housing. I am also delighted by this Government’s commitment to building 1.5 million homes, and I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that it would be fantastic to see an allocation within that for rural areas in the country.
Olivia Bailey
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend that we need more affordable housing in our rural areas; that is what I am seeking to address with this debate.
I will focus first on rural exception sites, which allow the delivery of small developments of affordable housing on the edges of rural communities, solely for local people. The role of rural housing enablers to deliver those are crucial, and I consider Connecting Communities in Berkshire to be the gold standard there. The team works in partnership with developers, landowners, local authorities, parish councils and local people to try to build truly affordable housing in rural exception sites. It is currently working to deliver affordable housing in Beenham, identifying housing need and suitable land in partnership with the parish council and the local community.
The Government are committed to funding the rural housing enabler programme until the end of March, and I know my constituents would welcome an update on its future from the Minister today. More widely, I also ask the Minister to provide an update on how he plans to promote exception sites as he prepares to consult on national development management policies in the coming months.
We also need to consider the impact of affordable and social housing stock being sold off by developers and moving out of the hands of the local community. I welcome the Government’s focus on the needs of social renters in the revised national planning policy framework and the commitment to explore how national policy can support social housing.
Sadly, constituents have shared with me that Sovereign, which owns a significant proportion of social housing in West Berkshire, has been selling off older properties in West Berkshire’s villages, which means that swathes of perfectly usable social housing stock is going into the private sector to be sold or rented at unaffordable prices. Housing that could be offered for social rent to local people who cannot afford to buy in their village is now being bought up and taken out of the community. I share the frustration of parish councils, who are working to increase the amount of affordable housing available through developing rural exception sites, when they see a social landlord putting existing affordable properties in the village up for sale. Will the Minister consider this particular problem as he consults on national policy to support the delivery of social housing?
Rural communities in Reading West and Mid Berkshire are at a turning point. They desperately need affordable housing in their local areas and they finally have a Labour Government laser-focused on delivering the housing that this country needs, focusing on policy reforms that enable local authorities to build the affordable homes that will keep communities together and supporting the work of organisations such as Connecting Communities in Berkshire and local parish councils such as Beenham. These communities need a local council to match that ambition.
I look forward to working with the Lib Dems in West Berkshire council to deliver vibrant villages, ending the era of bodged planning processes, internal politics and inaction, the era of being aware of the issue and acknowledging that something must be done, but being unwilling to take the action to tackle it. I am incredibly optimistic that we can achieve that, having seen the brilliant work that people in my constituency are doing to secure the future of their villages. I am confident that this Labour Government can and will deliver for them. From Beech Hill to Mortimer, from Beenham to Compton, from Hampstead Norreys to East and West llsley, and from Upper Bucklebury to Upper Basildon, we can build the affordable housing that is so vital for these beautiful villages to continue thriving far into the future.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
May I just check that the Member has sought permission to speak?
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
indicated assent.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) on securing this debate on the important topic of the affordability of housing in our rural communities. I represent a seaside community; around 30% of my constituency is coastal villages, where we acutely feel the pressures of the rural housing crisis. As other Members have spoken about, our community has seen the rise of Airbnbs and second homes, putting on real pressure and pushing up rental prices and house prices in our community. We have not seen enough affordable homes built in our communities. The situation now facing our villages and rural areas is that many young people find that they cannot afford to live in the villages they grew up in and are forced to move away from family.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
My constituency faces a chronic lack of housing as well, which disproportionately impacts young people; they face a future where they cannot afford to live in the place where they grew up. Some 8.4% of all residential properties in the dales are not the primary homes of residents. Does my hon. Friend recognise the significant impact that second homes and holiday lets have on housing supply and prices in rural areas?
Helena Dollimore
That is a pressure that many of our rural communities face. There is definitely a contribution that holiday lets can make to the local tourism economy, but many of us agree that we need to get the right balance between supporting tourism and providing homes for local families.
It is so often the case that many local people in the rural areas of my constituency cannot afford to rent or buy in the areas they grew up in and are forced to move further away. We also see that, when developments do happen in those villages, too often new-build developments are given the green light with zero affordable homes on those sites. Just last year, in Peasmarsh in my constituency, 41 homes were given the green light on a greenfield site, with zero affordable homes. We see developers using loopholes around viability to wriggle out of their responsibility to deliver affordable housing, and too often councillors feel that their hands are tied by the current legislation. I urge the Government, as part of the reforms to the planning system, to ensure we stop developers getting away with wriggling out of their responsibility to deliver affordable homes.
It is also clear that, with the right focus and the right local leadership, we can get this right. I draw attention to a brilliant local community-led housing scheme in Icklesham, a small village in my constituency just outside Hastings. The village came together to form the Icklesham Parish Community Land Trust and built 15 housing units for local people, all for social rent. If a village the size of Icklesham can do it—let me tell hon. Members, it is a very small area; I would be delighted to welcome the Minister there—anywhere can deliver affordable social housing, whether rural or urban. That is what we need to build on.
As we move forward with the vital mission of building 1.5 million homes under this Labour Government, we must ensure that our rural communities see the benefit and that developers cannot wriggle out of their commitments to deliver affordable housing.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Twigg.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) on securing this important debate. She has only been in the House a relatively short time, but she has already established a reputation as a doughty champion of her constituency. Those she has the privilege of representing should be reassured by the fact that she has already assiduously conveyed their views and concerns to Ministers on a range of matters, including the one we are considering today. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) and others who have made contributions to the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire raised a number of distinct issues on the provision of affordable rural housing and I will seek to respond to as many of them as I can in the time available to me. Before I do, I would like to make some brief remarks about planning reform and the role of the planning system in delivering homes of all kinds and meeting identified need for affordable housing, as a means of providing some important context.
It is not in dispute in this Chamber, I do not think, that the Government have inherited an acute and entrenched housing crisis, or that significantly boosting the supply of homes of all tenures is essential to tackling it. That is why we acted decisively to overhaul the national planning policy framework last year, to revise the anti-supply changes made by the previous Government in December 2023, and to introduce a range of pro-growth measures that will enable us to build the homes and infrastructure our country needs.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey) on securing this important debate. I think it is true that all of us would like to see more affordable housing delivered for our constituents, but does the Minister agree that top-down housing targets for all areas of the United Kingdom are not always suitable? I am thinking of my own constituency on the Isle of Wight, where on average we deliver 300 homes a year and are committed, through our local plan, to deliver 450. The Government are asking us to deliver 1,000. Does the Minister agree that there have to be some areas of the United Kingdom where the standard method does not apply?
Matthew Pennycook
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. We think the changes we have introduced and the revised standard method are appropriate. Every part of the country will need to play its part in achieving our ambitious plan for change milestone of building 1.5 million new homes across the country. That is the scale of ambition we need commensurate with the crisis we face, and that crisis affects every part of England.
The Government believe in a plan-led system. It is through local development plans that communities shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development their areas need. Local plans must remain the cornerstone of our planning system and we are determined to progress towards universal coverage. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire will appreciate that I am unable to comment on her local plan or how her local planning authority may interpret national planning policy due to the quasi-judicial nature of the planning process, but there is merit in me making some general comments on plan making in local authority areas that overlap with national landscapes, as is the case in her own area.
As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government are committed to maintaining strong protections for our protected landscapes. We are clear that the scale and extent of development within such designated areas should be limited so that we are able to pass on their attractions and important biodiversity to future generations. National planning policy is clear that significant development within a national landscape should be refused, other than in exceptional circumstances where it can be demonstrated that the development is in the public interest, taking into account a range of considerations. That includes fully exploring the role of planning conditions and developer contributions to mitigate the impacts of development or support infrastructure provision as appropriate.
When it comes to plan making, local authorities are expected to use the revised standard method to assess housing needs. However, they are able to justify a lower housing requirement than the figure set by the method on the basis of local constraints on land availability, development and other relevant matters such as national landscapes, but also protected habitats and flood risk areas. Local authorities will need to consider these matters as they prepare their plans, but we expect them to explore all options to deliver the homes their communities need. That means maximising brownfield land, densifying available brownfield sites, working with neighbouring authorities on cross-boundary housing growth and, where necessary, reviewing the green belt. They are then expected to evidence and justify that approach to planning for housing in their local planning consultation. An examination of their approach will be scrutinised by a planning inspector to determine whether the constraints are justified and the plan is sound.
I turn to the focus of my hon. Friend’s remarks—namely, the case for supporting rural communities to build new homes for local people, and in particular for boosting the supply of rural affordable housing. The Government are committed to doing so, and it was a pleasure to have the chance to discuss this matter with my hon. Friend last month. It cannot be right that, as a number of hon. Members said, young people in particular are often unable to remain in the villages in which they grew up. That harms not only them and their families but the vibrancy and long-term viability of rural communities.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that the most important policies that we can look at in planning reform to deliver genuinely affordable homes in rural communities are a bold approach to land reform, the abolition of hope value and the reform of compulsory purchase orders to allow our local planning authorities to assemble the land that we need in our rural communities?
Matthew Pennycook
As my hon. Friend is no doubt aware, we have already brought into force a discretionary power to disapply hope value in certain instances where a public interest test could be met. We are committed, through the forthcoming planning and infrastructure Bill, to bring forward further reform of the compulsory purchase process and compensation, so he can look forward to seeing more action in that area.
National policy makes it clear that local authorities should ensure that their planning policies and decisions respond to local circumstances and support housing that reflects local needs. That includes promoting sustainable development in local areas and ensuring that housing is located where it will maintain and enhance the vitality of rural communities. Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and flourish, especially where that will support local services. We also want more affordable housing in rural areas, as part of our manifesto commitment to deliver the biggest increase in social and affordable house building in a generation. We have already taken steps to support the delivery of affordable rural housing. For example, our golden rules for green-belt development—which ensure an affordable housing contribution 15 percentage points above the highest existing affordable housing requirement that would otherwise apply to the development, subject to a cap of 50%—will unlock new affordable housing provision in a range of rural locations.
Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)
Will the Minister say a few words about the massive change in our lifetimes? Doctors, policemen and teachers had houses owned by their local authority body, and they have now been sold. That pressure is continuing. Does he think we should go back to that to ensure that people can work in those sectors?
Matthew Pennycook
I think the hon. Gentleman is making a wider point. I am not sure what specific legislative provision he is referring to in the past. There is a very clear place for ensuring we are building the right types of homes in all parts of the country, including homes that support key workers and other frontline public sector staff, and I am more than happy to discuss that matter with him outside the Chamber.
The Government have been clear that we want to look further at measures to support affordable housing in rural areas. That is why we asked a question on that issue as part of the consultation on reforms to the national planning policy framework last year. The responses we received are informing our ongoing work in relation to producing a set of national policies for decision making—national development management policies, as they were referred to under the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. Although I cannot give my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire a firm date today, I can assure her and other hon. Members that we will consult on those policies in the spring, as promised, and I will update the House in due course.
My hon. Friend also knows that, since taking office, the Government have provided additional grant funding to support the delivery of affordable homes in all parts of England. At the Budget on 30 October 2024, the Chancellor set out details of an immediate one-year cash injection of £500 million to top up the existing affordable homes programme, which will deliver up to 5,000 new social and affordable homes. On 12 February 2025, the Government announced a further cash injection of £300 million to the existing affordable homes programme, which will deliver a further 2,800 new homes, more than half of which will be for social rent.
At the multi-year spending review this year, the Government will set out details of new investment to succeed the 2021 to 2026 affordable homes programme. That new investment will deliver a mix of homes for sub-market rent and home ownership, with a particular focus on delivering homes for social rent. We know that delivering affordable housing in rural places can be especially challenging. There are particular challenges that come with the delivery of sites in rural areas, so that is one of the factors that will be taken into consideration in the design of the future capital investment programme, which will succeed the existing one.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire might also like to know that, to provide additional support for rural housing delivery in settlements with populations of fewer than 3,000 people, Homes England has developed a rural housing strategy and has dedicated rural housing champions in each of its operating areas.
My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to the significant contribution that can be made by rural exception sites. As she is aware, these allow local authorities to address the housing needs of rural communities by creating sites where local residents, and others with a strong family or employment connection, can live in affordable homes and in perpetuity. Rural exception sites tend to be just outside village boundaries, where housing is not normally granted permission, so it is possible to create them even in the green belt or designated rural areas. We recognise the strong support for rural exception sites and the potential for strengthening this policy. That is why we made clear in our response to the consultation on the revised national planning policy framework that we are giving further consideration to how we can better support rural affordable housing, including through use of exception sites. That will include consideration of how we can drive greater uptake of rural exception sites and introduce a more streamlined approach. Again, I will set out details about our thinking in due course.
I will take forward this work with my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, including by considering the role that rural housing enablers play in supporting rural affordable housing. My hon. Friend mentioned a case in her own constituency. Again, I am afraid that I cannot give her any firm assurances in this debate in respect of ongoing funding because that is subject to the Government’s ongoing business planning, but I can assure her that we will provide an update at the earliest possible opportunity.
I want to briefly reference a couple of issues that hon. Members raised, as I have the time. The first is the problem highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire of developers and housing associations—in her case, Sovereign—selling off much-needed social and affordable homes in rural areas. She might like to know that when and if grant-funded homes are sold or part-sold, there is a system in place to recover Government grants through the recycled capital grant fund. That means that the cash value of the grant is placed in a fund to be used for further investment in new affordable housing supply. I am more than happy to discuss with her the specific issues with Sovereign in her own constituency.
Briefly, on short-term lets and the existing developer contribution system, Members across the House will know that we have debated this issue at length on various occasions. We are committed to taking forward the previous Government’s measures—a registration scheme for short-term lets and the abolition of the furnished holiday lettings scheme, which comes into force on 1 April—but we have been clear that that is not enough and we are giving very considered thought to what further powers local authorities need, in particular, though there is a balance to be struck, to deal with excessive concentrations of short-term lets that often deny local people not only homes to buy but, increasingly, homes to rent.
On section 106 contributions, we are reviewing viability and we are committed to strengthening the existing section 106 system, in lieu of taking forward the previous Government’s approach, which was an infrastructure levy. When taking those reforms forward, we need to ensure that local authorities are better able to negotiate at the point that those agreements are reached and are then able to ensure that developers honour the commitments that they make in those agreements, when struck.
In conclusion, I again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire for securing this important debate, giving the House an opportunity to consider a range of important issues relating to affordable rural housing supply.
Matthew Pennycook
I will not—I am just winding up, I am afraid.
I hope that I have not only conveyed the Government’s firm support for delivering much-needed affordable housing in rural areas, but reassured my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West and Mid Berkshire and others that I am actively considering what further measures are necessary to ensure that we do so while balancing the need to ensure that development is sustainable and appropriate. I hope I can continue to draw on the insights provided by my hon. Friend and other colleagues, as the Government continue to develop their thinking in this area.
Question put and agreed to.
Groceries Code Adjudicator
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Groceries Code Adjudicator.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.
There is a deep unfairness at the heart of our food system. That unfairness stems from the power imbalance between producers and retailers. At one end, the retailers we buy our food from are making huge profits. Last year, the big four supermarkets saw a 97% increase in their profits: Tesco made £2.3 billion, Asda made £1.1 billion and Sainsbury’s made £701 million. That is enough to convince anyone that there is enough money in the till to go around.
As we know, food prices have soared since 2022, yet Welsh farming incomes are actually falling. That is a sign of a food system that generates huge profits for the supermarkets and the big retailers, while the producers at the other end suffer what they must. Farmers and growers carry the risks of food production but do not receive a fair share of the rewards. The people who grow our food deserve to earn a decent living. That is why the Liberal Democrats will keep campaigning to level the metaphorical playing field for farmers.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
The Groceries Code Adjudicator was established by my party, the Liberal Democrats, during that sad time in Government. It was an extremely important achievement designed to protect the interests of farmers and food producers. Some hon. Members will know of my background as a director of the National Farmers Union, and my constituency of Tiverton and Minehead is home to some 1,600 farmers. In recognising that farmers are the lifeblood of the rural economy, would my hon. Friend agree that the GCA’s resources and scope must be expended to ensure it can exercise its investigative powers and correct the imbalance between our farmers and the big supermarket chains?
David Chadwick
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the achievements of the Liberal Democrats in power, particularly the fact that we have a long record of standing up for rural communities. The physical hills that Welsh farmers have to climb are getting steeper. Energy and fertiliser costs are rising, subsidy schemes are changing and farm incomes are falling. To make matters worse, the Government’s family farm tax threatens to further strain their livelihoods. Those are just a few of the battles that farmers face. Their industry deserves a fair market, and it is for that reason that the Liberal Democrats introduced the Groceries Code Adjudicator during the coalition years.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate forward. He is absolutely right to refer to the importance of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. In my constituency of Strangford, we are blessed to have many local suppliers and farmers, which have created jobs and opportunity. They supply to large shops and supermarkets, and are very much an integral part of the community. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more needs to be done to ensure fair treatment, and to ensure that local suppliers can take advantage of fair payment and commission terms? We need fair play—and we need fair prices for the products we produce.
David Chadwick
Absolutely. We need greater transparency down the entire supply chain and fair conditions for everyone involved in the food system. The GCA was established in response to multiple scandals where large supermarkets used their market power to take advantage of local producers. It has helped to improve fairness in the food supply chain. Since its introduction in 2014, the Groceries Code Adjudicator has made significant progress, and the number of issues around the treatment of farmers by supermarkets and retailers has fallen. It is my belief, and that of many farmers and producers that I represent, that the Groceries Code Adjudicator needs to be strengthened and better resourced, and its remit expanded if we are to ensure fairness in our supply chain.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because he has come to a very important part of the debate. First, we need proper resourcing of the GCA as it currently exists. Secondly, there is a structural problem with the accountability chain here. The GCA effectively governs the relationship between the middle link, the processors and distributors and the supermarkets. The Agriculture Act 2020 deals with primary producers in that middle link. What we need now, surely, as well as extra resources, is a process by which the whole thing can be rewired together.
David Chadwick
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I agree wholeheartedly. He will be aware that the levy that supermarkets pay to fund the Groceries Code Adjudicator has not been increased since 2018, despite the massive increases in food prices and supermarket profits since then.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
In November 2024, research by Riverford Organic Farmers, based in my constituency of South Devon, showed that 61% of farmers are concerned that they will not be operating within the next year but only 25% of them believe the claims that the big six grocers support British farmers. Would my hon. Friend agree that the big six need to do more to support our farming sector?
David Chadwick
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is absolutely right to highlight the power imbalance between the producers and the retailers. It is quite right that she also focuses on the important research that has been done on this topic by organisations like Riverford. The evidence they have provided has been crucial in helping us push forward the campaign for fairer prices for producers.
It is my belief, and that of many farmers and producers I represent, that the Groceries Code Adjudicator needs to be strengthened, better resourced, and its remit expanded if we are to ensure fairness in our supply chain.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
As the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) mentioned, Welsh Government figures show that income fell for Welsh farmers by 34% between April 2023 and March 2024 and the dairy income by 59%. Does he believe we should safeguard all future food production in Wales? Welsh farmers should be able to rely on a fair deal for the products and, as Elfyn Llwyd called for 10 years ago, the regulatory bodies should be made to support that.
David Chadwick
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She is absolutely right to draw attention to the plight of Welsh farmers. Their livelihoods are under threat. That is why it is so important that we ensure greater fairness in the supply chain for them, to ensure that they get a fair price for what they produce, and that the Government are fully aware of the impact the tax changes they wish to make will have on the rural communities we represent.
Rural communities are really suffering at the moment. We know that constituencies like my own are losing thousands of young people every year because there are fewer and fewer jobs to go around. The long-term consequences of that are terminal. That is why it is so important that we ensure that farming, the engine of the rural economy, continues to generate profit and jobs throughout the rural economy.
The GCA has improved the rights of farmers, but producers still report bullying behaviour by major suppliers. Just a few examples of the ongoing mistreatment of producers: a delay in payments—sometimes farmers and producers are not paid for up to and sometimes exceeding 45 days; no compensation for forecasting errors; de-listing; changes to orders placed and orders eventually accepted. It is a story of David versus Goliath.
With six major buyers and 14 retailers covered by the GCA, the supermarkets have often been accused of using their collective buying power to force thousands of farmers and producers to plough on with prices that have fallen below the cost of production. Supermarkets helped themselves to a 97% surge in profits in the last year alone. They passed on higher prices to customers during the inflationary crisis, yet they are not handing on a fair share of that to producers.
I am raising this issue after a local farmer told me how a supermarket went back on its pledge to buy animals he had spent years rearing, leaving him at a loss. That is not a small loss for a local farmer. The costs involved in raising livestock to maturity are immense, and the losses when supermarkets change their mind are damaging to local producers. A recent survey on behalf of Riverford found that 45% of farmers feared going out of business, with 75% of those asked saying that treatment by supermarket buyers was one of their top concerns. Research from Sustain has found that only 5% of farmers want to sell to supermarkets due to having little say over prices and not enough connection to shoppers.
The consequences of unfair practices extend far beyond individual farms. The UK’s food security is at risk when farmers are unable to make a living from their work. As more farmers are forced out of business, we become increasingly reliant on imported food, which can be subject to price fluctuations and supply chain disruptions. This brings me to the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. While the GCA and the groceries supply code of practice—I will refer to this as the code—are highly regarded among farmers and the rest of the industry, I often hear from local producers in my constituency that they feel that the GCA does not have all the powers it needs to fully level the playing field between farmers, producers and retailers.
Beyond powers, there remains work to be done on increasing awareness of the GCA among farmers. Although awareness of the GCA and its roles has increased since 2014, it has stalled recently, and a significant number of producers still do not fully understand its role. More worryingly, many farmers still feel reprisals for reporting breaches of the code. A staggering 67% of farmers have reported fearing being de-listed should they speak out about unfair practice by supermarkets. That means that there is almost certainly an under-reporting of incidents to the GCA, which undermines its effectiveness.
More needs to be done to improve confidence in the system for producers and to enable the GCA to instil understanding and trust in its role. That also extends to the requirement for the GCA to have received a complaint to launch a report. People I speak to in the industry would like the GCA to have the ability to launch its own investigations without having to wait for a farmer to report malpractice first. An example of using that power in practice could be launching an investigation into the recent issues with Amazon or concerns over the chicken meat supply chain.
The parameters of the GCA and the code are insufficient in an ever-changing food market. The inclusion of Amazon into the 14 suppliers covered by the GCA was a welcome move, but given Amazon’s low level of compliance with the code, it raises serious questions about whether other significant retailers who make less than £1 billion in revenue from the food system are falling through the gap. Likewise, there are serious concerns that food processors, packagers and manufacturers who act as the middle people between farmers and retailers are also falling through the gaps when it comes to regulation, despite collectively supplying over half of Britain’s food.
The GCA’s seven golden rules have been widely welcomed by the sector. To protect suppliers, the rules should be fully incorporated into the code, rather than only being guidelines. This needs to happen quickly, because suppliers are continuing to experience difficulties in cost price increase negotiations as a result of the ongoing inflation crisis we find ourselves in the middle of. The supermarkets are willing to use energy and fertiliser price inflation as justification for increasing prices for customers, but are seemingly unwilling to pay farmers a fair price that recognises those changes and the increased input costs for farmers.
The Government must strengthen the Groceries Code Adjudicator and the groceries code to ensure that we have true fairness across supply chains. First, the Government can improve the visibility of the GCA and awareness of its work. The GCA must give farmers the confidence to report issues and to know that they will be handled confidentially, especially as many farmers feel that they may be punished or blacklisted for making complaints. Secondly, the GCA only has seven members of staff, including the adjudicator himself, yet is responsible for regulating an industry worth billions of pounds.
The GCA’s reliance on temporary and seconded staff hinders its ability to enforce the code. Giving the GCA a dedicated staff team would allow it to respond effectively at all times and to build and retain specialist knowledge. Likewise, the GCA should not have to wait for a producer to report malpractice. If it suspects that retailers are not complying with the code, let it launch its own independent investigations.
We should also move to expand the remit, as over half of the food being supplied by packagers, processors, distributors and manufacturers and in several other key areas of the food supply chain still falls outside of the regulation. The seven golden rules have been rightly welcomed across the industry, but many concerns remain that those are only guidelines set by the GCA, rather than forming part of the code itself. Legally incorporating them into the code would help to ensure that producers are fully covered when it comes to reports of unfair cost-price negotiations.
Overall, the Groceries Code Adjudicator is improving the relationship between farmers and large retailers, but as our food market evolves, so too must the GCA. By expanding its remit, providing additional resources and enhancing its enforcement powers, the Government can ensure that the GCA truly works for farmers and producers, and ensures fairness in the food supply chain. Let’s give our food system the fair market it needs, let’s give our rural communities the support they need, and let’s make sure that the GCA remains a strong and effective safeguard for the future of our food system. I look forward to other hon. Members’ contributions and the Minister’s response.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) for his fantastic speech. I draw the House’s attention to my role as the chair of the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union parliamentary group, which I thank for its helpful briefing.
As we have heard, the UK grocery sector is shaped to a large extent by the huge concentration of power in the hands of the major supermarket retailers, which are competing to achieve the lowest prices and the biggest profit margins on key goods, but there is a limit to suppliers’ ability to keep prices down through productivity, automation or cheaper input costs. The story that the hon. Member told was about the pressures faced by farmers, but there is also often a relentless downwards pressure on labour costs, which has led to attacks on the pay and conditions of workers employed across supply chains. This race to the bottom has resulted in a proliferation of low-paid and casualised jobs, and the growing exploitation of agency and migrant workers.
Surveys of food workers conducted by the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union show that in-work poverty has spiralled in recent years, with food workers worrying about feeding themselves and their families. At the same time, staggeringly, the supermarket chains have continued to report huge profits and dividend payouts to their shareholders. We have also seen rocket and feather pricing: because of wholesale cost rises, the price of key items is increased excessively, but when those wholesale costs come down, the price on the shelf does not come down in tandem.
The role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator is therefore an important one. The GCA has helped to tackle some of the most abusive practices, such as unreasonable short-notice terminations of contracts, abusive promotional practices and other failures of compliance with the code. But sadly, as it stands, the GCA cannot intervene to protect suppliers or consumers when it comes to supermarket pricing. This puts the short-term interests of shareholders above the wider public interest.
In this context, I have a few suggestions for the Minister to consider. First, the existing powers of the GCA should be incorporated within the remit of a new groceries regulatory authority, with a wider responsibility to protect the sustainability of UK suppliers and the interests of consumers. The new regulator should be given the power to introduce price floors and ceilings to protect suppliers and consumers from aggressive pricing tactics and exploitative price-gouging. Secondly, a sectoral collective bargaining framework for workers employed in the UK food supply chain should be restored and extended, to ensure decent pay and security. Finally, a statutory right to food should be introduced in UK legislation, to protect consumers and address the root causes of food insecurity.
I will finish by drawing Members’ attention to another matter of concern, which is the impact of private equity acquisitions on UK supermarket chains and food manufacturers. As FoodChain magazine recently put it,
“Under private equity ownership, the strategic focus often shifts towards short-term profitability, which can lead to decisions that are not always aligned with long-term market positioning. For example, cost-cutting measures may involve reducing staff, limiting store refurbishments, and cutting back on product variety.”
There are a couple of examples of major supermarket chains engaging in those practices recently, and many fear that it is just the tip of the iceberg. To that end, I would also be grateful if the Minister considered launching a joint investigation, across the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Business and Trade and the Competition and Markets Authority, about the impact of private equity acquisitions of UK grocery retailers on the security and sustainability of the UK food supply chain.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on an excellent and eloquent speech, which covered all the issues. I also thank the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) for contributing very tellingly.
My background in this subject is that, from 2002, I chaired what was known as the Grocery Market Action Group, which had among its members the National Farmers Union, the Country Land and Business Association, ActionAid, Traidcraft, Friends of the Earth and others. It was amazing to have such a disparate group of organisations in the same room, actually working together and agreeing 100% about the injustices and dysfunctionality of the way in which the grocery supply chain was operating.
We presented a range of evidence to the Competition Commission. That ultimately provoked an investigation in 2008, which resulted in the commission proposing the establishment of a groceries code to drive fair trade through the supply chain. The Groceries Code Adjudicator was created to enforce the code and ensure that it was applied by those supermarkets. In those days, only five had a turnover in excess of £1 billion, which was the recommendation of the Competition Commission at that stage.
Having done that, and having worked for over a decade to get the legislation through, I obviously have some skin in the game, which I probably need to declare. I am not trying to claim the credit myself, because it was a cross-party effort.
Andrew George
Well, I suppose I should—no, I will not. One stands on the shoulders of giants, and Colin Breed did a tremendous amount of work from 1997 to 2001. He produced an excellent report called “Checking out the Supermarkets”, which laid a lot of the groundwork for the Grocery Market Action Group. Albert Owen, David Drew and other Labour Members were also very supportive and active throughout those years. There was not always cross-party agreement, or even agreement within my own party, that we should intervene in the market in the way that was proposed. We had to win that argument, and ultimately we did.
At the end of the day, the justification for why the Groceries Code Adjudicator, or any kind of market intervention of that nature, was needed, was that, fundamentally, we had a dysfunctional supply chain operating largely to the benefit of the supermarkets. Not all of our agricultural sector was benefiting from European subsidies or any other public subsidies in those days, but it had become dependent on subsidies because the market was so dysfunctional that public money was needed to prop up the whole system. If we have a functioning market, one can enable the agricultural sector to free itself from dependence on public subsidy. That was largely what was behind what we were trying to do in those days.
When the Groceries Code Adjudicator was established and the code was created, the intention then was only that it would create a framework in which future Governments would review its progress and then build on the framework by introducing or reducing regulations. Certainly the framework was to provide the skeleton on which further developments could happen; of course one cannot anticipate all circumstances.
I want to follow up on the points made by the hon. Member for Salford and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe. There are a number of improvements that I hope the Government will look at very closely. For example, the code should be applied throughout the supply chain, not just to the direct supplier to the supermarket. It was never the intention of the Grocery Market Action Group that the adjudicator should look only at the final transaction between the ultimate supplier to the supermarket and the supermarket itself, because the impact of that contract could be fed right down through the supply chain.
The second point concerned third-country suppliers. The reason why Traidcraft, the Fairtrade Foundation and so on were involved is because they were rightly hoping that third countries could be involved. Then, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe said, the adjudicator could launch its own investigation on the basis of market intelligence. Finally, it could work alongside the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, for example, to use its intelligence to take matters forward. Fundamentally, we have a framework that can be developed and improved. It certainly should not depend on seconded staff. We do not get commitment to the cause if we depend entirely on seconded staff, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe said. I hope the Minister will look carefully at this. Thank you very much, Mr Twigg, for allowing me to speak.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
We have just two more Members left to speak, but I want to call the Front-Bench spokespeople no later than 5.08 pm.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
What a pleasure it is to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) for securing this debate on such an important issue.
I spent the whole of last Monday during the recess visiting farms across my constituency, from the edge of Lichfield all the way up to Kingstone. Several of the dairy farmers I met last week raised with me, independently and without prompting, the need to see dairy processors covered by the groceries supply code of practice. Independently, they said that one of the things that we can do to encourage and improve profitability in dairy farming is to ensure that the code is applied to those processors—the middlemen who buy their milk from the farmers and sell it on to supermarkets.
The code is designed to ensure that farmers get a fair deal, but because it applies only to those retailers with an annual turnover of £1 billion or more, the 14 biggest supermarkets are covered but some third parties that supply the supermarkets are not in its scope. British farmers, whether they are dairy farmers or from any other part of the industry where there are different processes, must get that fair deal. That is what the code and the adjudicator were set up to establish, and we should ensure that we carry that forwards so that every single farmer gets a fair deal.
One thing that strikes me is that the NFU’s call to expand the coverage of the code by decreasing the turnover limit from £1 billion would mean that a lot of those processes would be covered. I am interested to hear the Minister’s remarks on that, because that is a non-fiscal intervention we can make that can drive profitability significantly in the farming sector and support the people who feed the nation.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)
The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) should not be so self-deprecating. The Groceries Code Adjudicator was brought about by an excellent piece of work and a good campaign. It was possibly the only thing of any worth that the Lib Dems did in government with the Conservatives.
I just want to make a couple of brief points because my hon. Friends the Members for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) and for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and others have covered the ground very well. I am a member of the bakers union group, too, and in 2013 we welcomed the introduction of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. We met a few times to talk about the individual issues that occurred then. If hon. Members can remember, we raised the issue of low-cost production, particularly of bread, which was a result of supermarket pressure.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salford raised the issue of private equity. If we thought it was bad enough when there were individual supermarkets of sizeable status, we are now in a completely different world. Private equity is sweeping them up, exercising enormous power. I feel that the Government need to get ahead of the game. It is like the residential care sector before private equity took over and leveraged those individual companies. I can remember a number of them collapsing, and I think we are in exactly the same position here. That is why the call for an inquiry, bringing in all concerned partners, is invaluable. It is important to think through the implications and what regulation we can develop. The bakers union is calling for a new regulatory authority, because that would give more status and resources, as my hon. Friend pointed out. We need to understand the significance of what is happening in the field at the moment.
I want to make a second, brief point. The Minister here today is also responsible for the Employment Rights Bill that is going through Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford mentioned low pay. The bakers union survey found that 80% of its members were struggling to get by on basics such as rent, heat and food. There is a scandal on sick pay in this sector. The survey found that 37% of workers have to rely on statutory sick pay alone when they go off sick. Staggeringly, 13% received no sick pay at all. As a result, I believe some are forced into working when they are sick, which is the last thing anyone wants in this sector. It is important that the issue of sick pay is addressed in the Employment Rights Bill, which I think most people will welcome. I know amendments on that are being tabled as we speak and, in this sector, it could have a direct impact on the wellbeing of workers.
Finally, if we are to move forward, from the bakers union perspective the establishment of a regulatory authority is critical. How it is made democratically accountable is also important. Along with the engagement of farmers and supermarkets, it is key that workers are involved and represented through the unions involved in this sector, so that we can plan a long-term strategy for food production that is not based on low pay or exploitation of farmers.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. Before I call the Front-Bench spokespeople, I should say that I will call the Minister no later than 20 past. I call the Lib Dem spokesperson, Tim Farron.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your guidance this afternoon, Mr Twigg. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) for bringing this important issue to this place and for making an excellent speech.
There have been great speeches from all the speakers so far, with a number of interesting and useful interventions. The five hon. Members who have spoken all made good points that I want to endorse. My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe spoke about imbalance in the market with large numbers of producers—1,500 farmers in my constituency alone and thousands across the country—and 12 retailers making up 95% of the sector. That is an incredible imbalance of power. Others have also referred to the greater depth to the industry in the supply chain than the Groceries Code Adjudicator is allowed to give credit for. My hon. Friend talked of the impact on farmers of potential delisting, the impact of late payments, having to pay for waste, and all the things that many have to struggle with.
The hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) made a great speech, emphasising the power those retailers have in the market and its irrational nature, which leads to farmers and producers of all kinds going out of business just because the large, powerful entities who own our supermarkets can make that happen in order to maximise their own profits.
My hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) absolutely deserves credit. I first heard the phrase “supermarket ombudsman” from his lips before I entered this place. When he was doing the job I am now doing—being the Liberal Democrats DEFRA spokesperson —he fought hard for that ombudsman, and that is the reason why, in the coalition agreement, what became the Groceries Code Adjudicator came to pass. It was introduced by Liberal Democrat Ministers including my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), Vince Cable and Jo Swinson, who were involved in the Department.
The hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) rightly talked about processors. They are significant and are often untouched by the arm of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) talked about the role of ownership in the sector and the unfairness that affects the workforce in the retail sector, as well as the producers who supply to it. There is an important point for us to remember here. Those who are at the wrong end of the abuse of power in the food supply chain are processors in broadly rural communities and workers in broadly urban communities; they have a lot more in common than we are sometimes allowed to think.
The Groceries Code Adjudicator is one of the things that came from the coalition of which the Liberal Democrats can be rightly proud. It was motivated in no small part by the simple reality that many producers—many farmers—were being paid less than the cost of production for their produce. Most notably in my constituency in Westmorland, but elsewhere in the country, that means those working in the dairy sector, but there are many others besides.
As with all things in the coalition, there were compromises. Even the good things we got were often watered down and were not what they might have been had we had what will one day obviously happen, that is, a majority Liberal Democrat Government. There are three particular areas of weakness with the Groceries Code Adjudicator, which we passionately believe should be addressed in the interests of our farmers, producers and consumers alike.
First, the reach of the adjudicator is too small, particularly its ability to investigate across the range of people involved in the sector. As has been mentioned, the adjudicator can investigate direct supply arrangements between farmers and retailers, but cannot get involved in the enormous majority of the food chain—that is, in the processing sector, and the middle people within the market. The Groceries Code Adjudicator should be given that ability. That is obvious.
The second point is about protecting farmers and other producers from the reprisals that they fear they will get if they refer something to the adjudicator. Members of Parliament, the National Farmers Union—local branches in Kendal and Appleby, and the NFU across the whole country—the Tenant Farmers Association and other advocates should be allowed to make referrals to the Groceries Code Adjudicator so that farmers do not feel that they have to do so themselves while fearing the reprisals, which they clearly do. We strongly support that idea.
Finally, there is the issue of resource, which has been mentioned by other people. The team is seven-strong, including the adjudicator themselves four days a week. That is not right. However wonderful those people are, they can be run rings around by the enormously powerful supermarkets.
The unfettered free market is indifferent to Britain’s food security, and we need to be not indifferent. We need to decide that it is of ultimate importance and that we therefore need to referee the market powerfully to protect our food security. Over the last 20 years, we have seen 30,000 farm holdings cease to be—a 22.7% reduction in the number of farms in the United Kingdom. That is undermining our ability to feed ourselves. Now, only 55% of Britain’s food is produced by farmers in the United Kingdom. If we are serious about food security, we are going to have to put that right.
The Liberal Democrats are challenging the Government over the family farm tax—we would scrap it—which is suppressing production and creating unfairness in the market. There is a 76% reduction in the basic payment this year, undermining small family farmers in particular, in Westmorland and beyond. DEFRA officials told the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee the other week that they expect 92% to 93% of farms to survive the environmental land management transition—so, 7% to 8% will not survive that transition. The land use framework, which I welcome in principle, will in practice potentially take productive farm land out of usage. All of that leads us towards a situation where the UK is less food secure.
The overdue Groceries Code Adjudicator reforms are not just vital to ensuring British farmers are treated fairly, which they must be; they are about underpinning the vitality of food security in this country, which is essentially national security. A country that cannot feed itself is not safe.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on securing the debate. It will perhaps come as news to him that I, too, was one of the people who voted for the Groceries Code Adjudicator. I was a Member during the coalition Government and it was put on the statute book back in 2013 because our farmers wanted an adjudicator to tackle the imbalance between small producers of food and big supermarket buyers. We will always back our farmers for fairness and equity for food producers.
The adjudicator regulates relationships between the UK’s largest grocery retailers and their direct suppliers, and it ensures that excessive risks and unexpected costs are not unfairly transferred. It brings fairer prices to the farming community and provides a guardrail for those smaller food producers who do not have a voice in the complicated food production market. It is funded by a pragmatic levy on designated retailers, with a UK annual turnover of more than £1 billion. There are currently 14 retailers covered by the code.
The results from the annual survey in 2024 show that the adjudicator is making a difference. More than 3,000 responses to that survey show that the number of suppliers experiencing a code issue has fallen to 33% and that the number of suppliers highlighting a retailer’s response to a cost price increase as an issue almost halved, falling from 28% in 2023 to just 16%. For the first time, the Co-op came top of the 14 retailers for overall code compliance, at 98%. The Co-op and Lidl both experienced a 2% improvement, which was the biggest percentage improvement across the 14 retailers.
The adjudicator is there to protect suppliers, such as our precious farmers. However, we are concerned that the Government’s recent actions have done anything but protect our farmers. Food retailers and suppliers of all sizes are under huge pressure because of Labour’s tax on jobs, its increasing red tape around jobs, food inflation and job losses in supermarkets. Labour’s family farm tax is yet another blow. It is a death tax on important family businesses. With no farmers in the UK, there would be no UK-grown food. Under Labour, the family farm will wither and die unless the Chancellor can be persuaded to change her mind.
Food producers are at the heart of our communities and the Government should be doing everything they can to support them, not harm them, and to ensure food security in this country. The attack on our farmers is shocking in every way. The Labour MPs who voted for an inheritance tax on family farms simply do not understand where their food comes from. Labour is harming our farms, not prioritising our rural areas. It simply does not understand.
The Conservatives believe that good policy needs to be created in collaboration with the farming industry, rather than in isolation. We have always kept the Groceries Code Adjudicator under review since its inception and we urge the Government to continue to do so.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
If the Minister can leave a bit of time at the end for David Chadwick to wind up, that would be great.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Justin Madders)
Certainly, Mr Twigg. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon. I thank the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) for securing this important debate.
Before I talk about hon. Members’ contributions, it is worth reminding the House of the role of the Groceries Code Adjudicator. Hon. Members obviously have a great deal of understanding of what it does, but it is important to put on the record its limits, which a number of Members referred to. In primary colours, its role is to enforce the groceries supply code of practice by providing advice and guidance to suppliers and large retailers on matters relating to the code; arbitrating in disputes between large retailers and their direct suppliers; investigating issues to ascertain whether there has been non-compliance with the code; and imposing sanctions and other remedies for breach of the code.
The code applies to the 14 largest grocery retailers in the UK, which have an annual turnover of £1 billion or more. Some Members spoke about changing that threshold—I would be interested to see what the effect would be—but it has been in place for some time. The competition measure is owned by the Competition and Markets Authority, and was put in place following a very detailed market investigation in 2008, which found that direct suppliers of groceries to large supermarkets faced unfair risks that adversely affected competition and, ultimately, consumers. As the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) and others mentioned, it was in no small part due to a great deal of campaigning from a number of groups and hon. Members that the code saw the light of day.
The code regulates designated retailers’ dealings with their direct suppliers, which, as we have heard, do not include all the farmers and primary producers. Although it prevents the unilateral variation of supply agreements without notice, puts limits on seeking payments for wastage and requires retailers to pay for goods on time, it does not regulate the prices agreed between retailers and suppliers, which is a commercial negotiation between the two parties. However, it requires that such negotiations be conducted fairly and transparently, and the GCA has been keen to ensure that negotiations around cost price pressures do not lead to non-compliance with the code. In 2022, the GCA published the seven golden rules to remind retailers of best practice when agreeing prices with suppliers, and all the regulated retailers have signed up to them.
As we have heard, the GCA was established in June 2013, and since then there has been strong evidence to show that it has been effective in promoting compliance with the code and in changing retailers’ behaviour to improve fairness for direct suppliers. Improvements in retailer compliance with the code are evident from the annual survey. Average compliance with the code has increased from 75% in 2014, when the code was introduced, to 91% in 2024. It is also positive to see that among suppliers there is a high level of awareness of the GCA and the code itself, although I noted that the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe said that there is a question about awareness among some farmers, and I am happy to explore that further with him.
Moreover, all three statutory reviews of the effectiveness of the GCA concluded that it has been a highly effective regulator. The next review will commence after 31 March, and will look at the performance over the past three years, from 2022 to 2025. Given what we have heard today, I encourage hon. Members and their constituents to contribute to it. The hon. Gentleman raised concerns about the adjudicator’s remit and resources, and there will be an opportunity for him to feed those comments into the review.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned what he described as bullying by supermarkets. A number of hon. Members talked about a fear of reprisals for raising concerns, and we obviously take that very seriously. It is important to note that the GCA has a statutory requirement to maintain supplier confidentiality. It has relaunched the Code Confident campaign and a confidential reporting platform called “Tell the GCA”, and published a code compliance officer commitment to confidentiality. The 2024 annual survey reported that 82% of suppliers were aware of its commitment to confidentiality. That is a good report, but obviously 18% were unaware of it, and clearly there is a perception out there that matters can find their way back to the supermarkets, which is something we can look further into.
The hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe and a number of others questioned why the GCA cannot instigate its own investigations. I am told that it can carry out investigations of its own accord if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that a large retailer has broken the code or failed to follow a recommendation following a previous investigation by the adjudicator. It is for the adjudicator to determine how he uses his powers, and he has issued statutory guidance setting out his criteria for launching an investigation. The adjudicator’s four prioritisation principles ensure that he targets resources effectively and proportionately. Impact, strategic importance, risk and benefits, and resources are all part of those principles.
Andrew George
The Minister is certainly right, providing the investigation was on sound grounds. The worry was always that the investigation may identify a supplier simply by doing it, and that the anonymity intended when an intelligence-driven inquiry or investigation was generated may uncover that particular supplier. Therefore, a wider range of powers—not on the basis of being able to conduct fishing expeditions—to investigate on justifiable grounds is something that I hope the Minister will look at further.
Justin Madders
I hear what the hon. Member has said, and no doubt that is something that can be put in as part of the review. When I spoke to the adjudicator, he said that his approach is about ensuring compliance and helping to prevent problems from escalating in the first place, avoiding the need for formal investigations and dispute resolution. He has said that he is satisfied that his current powers provide the necessary tools to enforce the code and change retailer behaviour. He has also been clear—and has said publicly—that if he needs to instigate an investigation he is more than ready to do so.
That leads on to some of the points Members made about the resources of the adjudicator. My information is that there are actually nine staff rather than seven, but the overall point is that that does not seem to be a great deal, given the number of supermarkets and the purchasing power that we are talking about. But it is entirely within the adjudicator’s gift to ask for more resources through the levy. If he feels he needs more, he can also talk to the CMA about secondments—that is something that is entirely up to him. If there is a question that things are not happening because of resources, I am confident that the adjudicator would come forward and discuss that with us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) rightly referenced her leadership of the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union parliamentary group, and I am proud to associate myself with that group, having represented it on many occasions in my former legal career. I know how much it has done in this area, and how this area affects its members. My hon. Friend was right to talk about how that sector is often characterised by a race to the bottom, with insecurity and low wages. That is what we hope to tackle through the Employment Rights Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salford also made a number of interesting suggestions about how we move forward, which I will not be able to respond to in detail today, but I note that the Business and Trade Committee has recently begun an investigation into pricing practices. It focuses primarily on dynamic pricing, but the evidence session I attended covered a range of areas where prices were an issue. That report is something I will look forward to reading in due course.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) also referred to the use of private equity in the supermarket sector, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Salford. He was right to reference other sectors where that has become more of an issue. The CMA has recently looked at that issue in the veterinary sector, so it may be that it has the opportunity to conduct an inquiry, should it wish to do so. My right hon. Friend mentioned a survey in which 13% of respondents had no access to sick pay. We think that that is absolutely wrong, and that is why the Employment Rights Bill will ensure that statutory sick pay becomes a day one right for everyone, regardless of their earnings.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) talked about how dairy farmers in his constituency would like the GCA to apply to their work. He may be aware that the Fair Dealing Obligations (Milk) Regulations 2024 came into force in July last year, and will apply to all existing contracts from 9 July this year. I will pass his comments to the relevant Minister in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to see whether those regulations will assist in dealing with his constituents’ issues. DEFRA is also looking at powers in the Agriculture Act 2020 to see whether expanded regulations could improve fairness in the pig sector, as well as looking at the egg and fresh produce sectors. There are therefore a number of tools at our disposal to tackle some of the issues that Members have raised.
The dairy regulations are enforced by the Agricultural Supply Chain Adjudicator, Richard Thompson, who was appointed last summer. We expect that in future he will deal with any fair dealing regulations in the other sectors that I have mentioned. It is important to note that ASCA and GCA are in regular contact to ensure that the two regimes operate effectively alongside one another. We will conduct a review to understand the effectiveness of the fair dealing regulations.
As I have already mentioned, there will also be the triennial review of the GCA. Hon. Members have spoken with great knowledge and passion about a number of issues that they would wish to put forward, particularly about the GCA’s remit and powers. I encourage them to do so, and we will see what the review takes forward. The points made about the importance of this country’s food security and fairness to consumers and producers are absolutely right. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe on securing the debate.
David Chadwick
I thank the Minister for his response and his particularly generous offer to listen to further contributions about how we can strengthen the GCA.
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. The hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) talked about the issues facing dairy farmers, which are also relevant in my constituency, and the hon. Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) and the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) talked about the impact on the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union and people employed in that industry. That is a reminder of just how far-reaching the food system is for us all. It is particularly important for farmers and primary producers, but the importance of properly regulating those relationships extends further than just those areas.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for St Ives (Andrew George) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for their contributions. I am sure that they will join me in commending Roger Williams, the former Liberal Democrat MP for Brecon and Radnorshire, for the part that he played in securing the Groceries Code Adjudicator.
There is clearly broad consensus that the introduction of the Groceries Code Adjudicator has been a positive step forward for British farmers. Fairness in the agricultural supply chain is essential and benefits us all, whether we are consumers, farmers or communities relying on local produce. It is still my firm belief that we must do more to strengthen the current regulations and improve the resources behind them. We cannot afford to sit back and allow the power imbalance between producers and retailers to persist. We need to ensure that bullying behaviour by large corporations becomes a thing of the past.
There is still so much work to be done, and I am committed to continuing, throughout this Parliament, to press the Government to introduce stronger measures to protect farmers and producers, who are the cornerstone of rural communities and the rural economy that they support. Let us continue to work together to create a fairer and more sustainable food system that uplifts everyone, from the fields to the supermarket shelves.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Groceries Code Adjudicator.
Science, Innovation and Technology
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
…The measure on the NHS and data is among the most positive in the Bill, and was welcomed by everybody today. It was not in the previous version of the Bill; it is one of our additions.
[Official Report, 12 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 345.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant):
The Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms (Chris Bryant)
… The measure on the NHS and data is among the most positive in the Bill, and was welcomed by everybody today. It was in the previous version of the Bill.
Chris Bryant
…I can announce that we have set up two working groups in the past week, both of which have people from the creative industries and from the AI companies in them. One is specifically looking at transparency and what that looks like to be effective and proportionate, and it will start work on that next week.
[Official Report, 12 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 349.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for Data Protection and Telecoms:
Chris Bryant
…I can announce that we will be setting up two working groups, both of which will have people from the creative industries and from the AI companies in them. One will look specifically at transparency and what that looks like to be effective and proportionate.
Education
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine McKinnell
As hon. Members have rightly said, it is really important that care leavers are supported to get into education, employment or training—the right hon. Member for East Hampshire clearly said that as well. That is why a care leaver who starts an apprenticeship may be entitled to a £3,000 bursary, why local authorities must provide a £2,000 bursary for care leavers who go to university, and why care leavers may be entitled to a 16-to-19 bursary if they stay in further education.
[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 189.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell):
Catherine McKinnell
As hon. Members have rightly said, it is really important that care leavers are supported to get into education, employment or training—the right hon. Member for East Hampshire clearly said that as well. That is why a care leaver who starts an apprenticeship may be entitled to a £3,000 bursary, why local authorities can provide a £2,000 bursary for eligible care leavers who go to university, and why care leavers may be entitled to a 16-to-19 bursary if they stay in further education.
Ministry of Defence Contingency Fund Advance: 2024-25
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (John Healey)
The Ministry of Defence new cash requirement for the year exceeds that provided by the main estimate 2024-25. The supplementary estimate has not yet received Royal Assent.
The Contingencies Fund advance is required to meet commitments until the supplementary estimate receives Royal Assent, at which point the Ministry of Defence will be able to draw down the cash from the Consolidated Fund in the usual way, to repay the Contingencies Fund advance.
Parliamentary approval for additional resources of £250,000,000 and £250,000,000 of capital will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Ministry of Defence. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £500,000,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.
This is separate and additional to the advance sought on 6 January 2025 to fund the transaction to purchase 36,347 properties from Annington Property Ltd.
[HCWS468]
Service Police Complaints Commissioner Annual Report 2023
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Veterans and People (Al Carns)
I am pleased to place in the Library of the House today the Ministry of Defence’s formal response to the Service Police Complaints Commissioner’s annual report for 2023.
The Commissioner’s inaugural report assesses the delivery of her functions and the work of her office in 2023. The response sets out the MOD’s comments on the report and approach to each of the three recommendations made by the Commissioner.
The MOD values the strong independent oversight that the Commissioner brings to the Service Police complaints process and is committed to having a system that our personnel can have trust and confidence in.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2025-02-25/HCWS467
[HCWS467]
NFU Conference: Farm Profitability
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Steve Reed)
Today at the NFU conference, I made several announcements to make farming more profitable:
Extending the Seasonal Worker visa route for five more years will give farms a pipeline of workers and certainty to grow their businesses. Annual quota reviews will ensure we strike the right balance—supporting farms while gradually reducing visa numbers as we develop alternative solutions.
Backing British produce: there are now requirements for Government catering contracts to favour high-quality, high-welfare products that local farms and producers are well placed to provide. The move marks a major leap in achieving the Government’s ambition for at least 50% of food supplied into the £5 billion public sector catering contracts to be from British producers or those certified to higher environmental standards.
Investment of £110 million in technology: the Farming Innovation Programme supports research and development of agri-technology for farmers, for example, the chemical-free cleaning for integrated milking equipment, which lowers energy costs and chemical use. The Farming Equipment and Technology Fund provides grants of up to £25,000 to buy new equipment such as electric weeders to reduce chemical use.
Protecting farmers in trade deals: the Government will uphold and protect our high environmental and animal welfare standards in future trade deals.
Strengthening Britain’s biosecurity: transforming the Animal and Plant Health Agency animal health facility at Weybridge into a National Biosecurity Centre, and investing £200 million to improve our resilience against animal disease to protect farmers and food producers.
As I said at the Oxford Farming Conference in January, more profitable, sustainable farm businesses will ensure our nation’s long-term food security. The Government have an important role in creating the conditions for growth and maintaining the resilient production of high-quality food the British public depends on.
[HCWS469]
Independent Reporting Commission: Seventh Report
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Hilary Benn)
Today I am laying before Parliament the seventh report from the Independent Reporting Commission (IRC).
The commission was established following the Fresh Start agreement in November 2015 to report on progress towards ending paramilitary activity. The agreement set out the Northern Ireland Executive’s commitments around tackling paramilitary activity and associated criminality, and led to a programme of work to deliver a Northern Ireland Executive action plan.
In the New Decade, New Approach agreement in January 2020, a commitment was made to continue this work, including through a second phase of the Northern Ireland Executive’s programme on paramilitarism, criminality and organised crime.
In this seventh report, which covers 2024, the commission notes that interventions through the Executive programme, alongside policing and criminal justice measures which work to tackle paramilitary criminality, are having a tangible effect on the communities where paramilitaries operate. But the IRC also notes significant concerns relating to continuing paramilitary-linked harms such as intimidation, coercive control, and threats.
The commission has set out a number of recommend-ations on how the effort to tackle paramilitarism and its continued impact in communities can be improved. It also asks the Northern Ireland Executive, the UK Government and the Government of Ireland to ensure that work to tackle paramilitarism remains a high priority beyond the lifetime of the Executive programme.
The commission has again suggested that the UK Government and the Government of Ireland should appoint an independent person to scope out the potential for, and explore what might be involved in, a process to end paramilitarism.
The UK Government and the Government of Ireland have been giving consideration to how progress could be made towards ending paramilitarism, and to the recommendations from the IRC and others, including the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on this issue. In April 2024, the then UK Government and the Government of Ireland committed to taking forward further work.
The two Governments have agreed to jointly appoint, in the period ahead, within the existing IRC legislative framework, an independent expert to carry out a short scoping and engagement exercise to assess whether there is merit in, and support for, a formal process of engagement to bring about paramilitary group transition to disbandment. This will include examining what could be in the scope of such a formal process.
I want to be clear that this is not the start of a formal process itself. This scoping exercise is also not a part of, or an alternative to, the existing law enforcement and criminal justice measures and the wider effort through the Executive programme to tackle the ongoing violence and harm caused by paramilitary groups. I also want to be clear that no financial offer will be made to paramilitary groups or to the individuals involved in them in exchange for an end to violence and ongoing harms.
I will be writing to the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee to set out more detail on this.
I would like to express my thanks to the commissioners and the secretariat for their continued work in reporting on progress towards ending paramilitarism.
[HCWS470]
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, we are expecting Divisions in the Chamber this afternoon, so when they happen, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2025
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2025.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
In speaking to this order, I will also speak to the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2025. In my view, the provisions in both instruments are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Let us begin with the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order. This instrument will increase relevant state pension rates by 4.1%, in line with the growth in average earnings in the year to May to July 2024. It will increase most other benefit rates by 1.7%, in line with the rise in the consumer prices index in the year to September 2024. As such, the up-rating order commits the Government to increased expenditure of £6.9 billion in 2025-26. In so doing, it maintains the triple lock, benefiting pensioners in receipt of both the basic and the new state pensions; raises the level of the pension credit safety net beyond the increase in prices; increases the rates of benefits for those of working age; and increases the rates of benefits to help with additional costs arising from a disability or health condition, as well as carers’ benefits.
I turn now in more detail to the issue of state pensions. The Government’s commitment to the triple lock means that the basic and full rate of the new state pension will be uprated by the highest of the growth in earnings or prices, or 2.5%. This will therefore be 4.1% for 2025-26, in line with the conventional average earnings growth measure. As such, from April 2025 the basic state pension will increase from £169.50 to £176.45 a week, and the full rate of the new state pension will increase from £221.20 to £230.25 a week. The basic and new state pensions will increase by 4.1% in April of this year, benefiting 12 million pensioners by up to £470 next year. That is up to £275 more than if pensions had been uprated simply by inflation. Other components of state pension awards, such as those previously built under earnings-related state pension schemes, including the additional state pension, will increase by 1.7%, in line with the statutory minimum requirement of prices.
The safety net provided by the pension credit standard minimum guarantee will increase by 4.1%. For single pensioners it will increase from £218.15 to £227.10 a week, and for couples it will increase from £332.95 to £346.60 a week. The Government are committed to supporting pensioners on the lowest incomes and want everyone entitled to this support to receive it. That is why we launched the national pension credit campaign.
I turn now to the support given to those in the labour market, such as universal credit and the legacy means-tested benefits it replaces. The up-rating order increases the personal and standard allowances of working-age benefits, including universal credit, by 1.7%, in line with the increase in prices in the year to September 2024. Around 5.7 million families are forecast to benefit from the uprating of universal credit, with an average annual gain for a family estimated to be £150. Additionally, this order increases statutory payments by 1.7%, including statutory maternity pay, statutory paternity pay, statutory shared parental pay and statutory sick pay.
The up-rating order will also increase rates by 1.7% for those with additional disability needs and for those who provide unpaid care for them. This commits the department to increased expenditure of £0.9 billion in 2025-26. This means that benefits such as disability living allowance, attendance allowance and personal independence payment, intended for those who have additional costs as a result of disability or health conditions, will rise in line with the rise in CPI in the year to September 2024.
This order will also increase carer’s allowance by 1.7% from April 2025, from £81.90 to £83.30 per week. Recognising the vital role played by unpaid carers, the Government have also announced that from April, the weekly carer’s allowance earnings limit will be tied to the level of 16 hours’ work at the national living wage.
I turn now to the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2025—the GMP order—which is a routine, technical matter we attend to each year. I shall therefore be brief.
The GMP order was laid before the House on 16 January 2025. It sets out the annual percentage increase that must be applied to the GMP part of an individual’s contracted-out occupational pension earned between 1988 and 1997. Occupational pension schemes that provide GMPs are required to increase GMPs earned during that period, and which are in payment, by 1.7% for the tax year 2025-26.
The 1.7% figure is taken from the CPI inflation rate for the year to September 2024. That approach is broadly consistent with other uprating approaches, and it balances the need to provide members with a measure of inflation protection while giving schemes greater certainty about their ongoing liabilities.
In summary, the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order implements the Government’s commitment to the triple lock; it provides for a real-terms increase in the value of the safety net in pension credit; and it increases the rates of benefits for those in the labour market, as well as those with additional disability needs, and those providing unpaid care to people with those needs.
The draft GMP order requires formerly contracted-out occupational pension schemes to pay an increase of 1.7% on GMPs in payment earned between April 1988 and April 1997. This provides people with a measure of protection against inflation, paid for by their scheme. I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I have lost count of the number of these debates I have participated in while in opposition on the Benches opposite. This is the first debate I have participated in while knowing that there is a commitment to tackle child poverty and a serious government taskforce drawing up a strategy to do so. So I can applaud that, and the welcome improvements in benefits announced in the Budget. But I am afraid I have to concur with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which in its recent poverty review described the improvements as “timid” and falling
“a long way short of what is required to deliver the scale of changes needed.”
So this speech is less supportive than I would have liked.
As already noted, the uprating of working-age and children’s benefits by 1.7% follows the convention of increasing them in line with inflation the previous September. But as JRF points out:
“According to OBR and Bank of England forecasts, this may well be the low point of inflation in the near term, with inflation in 2025/26 likely to be higher, meaning benefits will lose a little value next year”.
Indeed, inflation is already at 3%, and just today we heard of a higher than expected energy price cap increase. Losing a little value may not sound very significant, but when benefits are so low to begin with, as I will come back to, it can make a real difference for families struggling to get by.
My noble friend the Minister previously raised the long reference period for the uprating, as did the Work and Pensions Committee in last year’s report on benefit levels. Disappointingly, the DWP told the committee that even in the longer term, when the migration to universal credit is completed, it has no plans to shorten the reference period. Can my noble friend say whether this might be looked at again under the new Administration?
The Work and Pensions Committee also recommended that limits on benefit entitlements such as the benefits cap be uprated annually. Again, it is disappointing that no such increase was announced for this year. As a recent report by the IPPR, supported by Save the Children, notes, the effect of the near constant freeze is to make the policy
“considerably more punitive than at the point of introduction”.
The stock response from the DWP—that the legislation requires the level of the cap to be reviewed every five years only, and that therefore, following the 2022 review, another review is not required until November 2027 —simply is not good enough. It may not be required but it is permitted, and so long as the cap continues, it should be reviewed annually so that, at the very least, those hit by it, mostly families with children, can benefit in full from the annual uprating.
Together with the two-child limit—also ignored in the Budget—the cap is a key driver of child poverty, as well as contributing to homelessness and disproportionately affecting survivors of domestic abuse. Research has shown that it is not achieving its aims. I know that my noble friend will say that we have to await the outcome of the child poverty review for any decision on the cap and the two-child limit, but every day they continue spells misery for many thousands of parents and children.
The other serious omission in this year’s uprating is the local housing allowance. As the IPPR report points out, this is tantamount to a benefit freeze for housing support and breaks the principle that support should be tied to changing rents in a local area. The result is that, for those with housing costs at or above the current LHA, the real value of their uprated UC will in effect be cut.
The impact of all this has to be understood in the context of benefit levels that, in the words of JRF, fall a
“long way short of what is needed to enable recipients to escape poverty”,
and that mean that many continue to “struggle needlessly”. Paid work may be the best route out of poverty, but it is not a route open to all. For too many, it proves a cul-de-sac, as they swap out-of-work poverty for in-work poverty. Inquiries by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Poverty, of which I am co-chair, and the Work and Pensions Committee received
“a wealth of evidence that benefit levels are not meeting need”.
Benefit levels were never generous, but the effect of years of freezes, cuts and restrictions imposed by the Conservatives have meant that, in the words of the Financial Fairness Trust,
“we do not have a safety net worth its name”.
As a result, claimants are denied access to the most fundamental material resources needed to function day to day and to have healthy lives. The Work and Pensions Committee’s recommendations concerning the establishment of a benchmark for assessing benefits adequacy and the review of the extent to which current benefit levels are meeting this benchmark were rejected by the previous Administration. I urge my noble friend and her colleagues to look at them again. I ask her whether any consideration has been given to Trussell’s and JRF’s proposals for a protected minimum floor in UC, as a first step towards an essentials guarantee. For anyone who believes that poverty is relative, this is a pretty minimalist demand.
The Work and Pensions Committee also recommended that the local authority household support fund should be made permanent, so that local authorities can better plan the support they provide. This is not the place to go into detail but, if my noble friend has not already done so, I urge her to read the recent proposal from Trussell for a permanent and effective system of discretionary cash-first local crisis support, with broad statutory duties and ring-fenced funding that would incorporate both the household support fund and welfare assistance schemes where they still exist. It sees such a scheme as a crucial element in meeting our manifesto pledge to try to end mass dependence on emergency food parcels, which is a moral scar on society. At a recent meeting of the APPG on Ending the Need for Food Banks, the Minister for Employment assured us that the reform of local crisis support is definitely under review. It would be good if my noble friend could confirm this on the record in Hansard. As welcome as the extension of the fund for another year is—and it is welcome—those working on the ground need to be given some hope for the future. We heard reports at the meeting that food bank workers on the front line are scared and are burning out.
Scared, too, are many in receipt of disability benefits, in the face of mounting speculation about cuts to their benefits. It is worth remembering that disabled people are at disproportionate risk of poverty, in part because of the additional costs associated with disability. A recent report by Pro Bono Economics for Z2K warned that cutting the benefits that go some way toward meeting these costs could have a seriously damaging impact on the health and well-being of disabled people.
Also looking ahead, the Minister for Social Security and Disability advised, in the Commons debate on this order, that the Government would “set out shortly” how they plan to fulfil the manifesto commitment to a review of UC. Is my noble friend able to say any more at this stage about, for example, whether it will follow the example of the child poverty review in taking evidence from stakeholders, including those with lived experience of UC?
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, it is very good to be here today and I am glad to be able to contribute on this important subject. As we consider a proposed uprating of 1.7%, as compared with 6.8% last year and 10.1% the year before, I am mindful of the different backdrop to this year’s decision. We may no longer be in a period of soaring inflation, but costs remain high in just about every area of life. The discrepancy between the inflation rate from September 2024, by which most means-tested benefits will be uprated, and the current rate of 3% will be felt particularly by those who have not benefited from wage growth this year. This is a timely moment to explore social security as the Government set out their wider agenda in this area.
The manifesto commitments to review universal credit as a means of supporting people into work and addressing poverty and to produce a child poverty strategy could give us a basis on which to improve the lives of millions of people in our country. Indeed, bold action is required in both these areas and, like other noble Lords, I await the outcome of these reviews with keen interest.
As the Church of England’s lead bishop for housing, I see the consequences of not aligning housing support with housing costs, with half of private renters on housing benefit experiencing poverty. I suggest that local housing allowance ought to be linked to private rents as a matter of course, especially taking into account research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which shows that 81% of low-income private renters in receipt of housing benefit are going without essentials such as food, heating and warm clothing. I very much hope that the Government will consider the adequacy of social security in their review of universal credit. For the first time since its introduction, we have an opportunity to explore how well the system works and to consider carefully the impact of sanctions, deductions and the five-week wait on the lives and incomes of people who rely on social security simply to make ends meet.
I welcome the introduction of the fair repayment rate, which is an important step towards ensuring that deductions do not cause people to fall below the threshold of what we would consider an acceptable standard of living. Despite this, I still worry about the impact of the deductions. I draw the Committee’s attention to the Private Member’s Bill brought forward by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, which would equalise the standard allowance of universal credit for care leavers under the age of 25. Care leavers have shared their experiences of deductions from their universal credit, which, when taken from an already lower rate, can leave them struggling to afford essentials. This cohort of young adults cannot necessarily rely on the same level of family support as many of their peers.
Even though we have resumed uprating benefits in line with inflation, their real-terms value is low by historic standards. The major issue is that benefits are not calculated in relation to the day-to-day costs people face. One solution could be for benefits to rise in line with wages rather than prices, as advocated by, among others, the Resolution Foundation. Another could be to introduce a minimum floor in universal credit to ensure that people have the money they need to afford the essentials, as advocated by the Trussell Trust and the JRF. It seems eminently sensible to calculate benefits in relation to the day-to-day costs people face. We have a precedent for this, with pensions credit calculated by comparing a person’s income with the amount the Government think necessary to live on. I would be grateful to hear the Minister’s views on whether means-tested benefits could be subject to a similar assessment.
As I close, I reflect on the impact of poverty on our places of worship and wider communities. There will always be a place for voluntary provision, particularly when it comes to support that requires a more human and relational touch; but we must be attentive to the reasons why there is so much demand for food banks, warm spaces, breakfast clubs and the many other activities hosted in church buildings and by other faith groups and charities. We see first hand what the statistics bear out: poverty is deepening in our country. Investment in social security, alongside reforms in other areas, is essential in order to turn the tide on poverty.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of interests as a trustee of pension schemes, and I thank the Minister for her clear explanation of the two statutory instruments before us.
I want to raise an issue concerning the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2025. Given the pace at which DB pension schemes are transitioning to buyout contracts, this raises the issue of the extent to which, and how, a buyout contract contains liability for a guaranteed minimum pension, and the contractual provision of a promise to provide at least that pension from the age of 60 or 65. Is this a liability that all buyout contract providers must take on when they accept the original transfer from the defined benefit pension scheme? Secondly, does the DWP intend to update its guidance on the guaranteed minimum pension, considering the extent of buyout activity now taking place among DB pension schemes?
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for her presentation. I also support very strongly the Government’s commitment to the triple lock, despite the loud and frequent calls for it to be abandoned. It is worth repeating that those who call for it to be abolished often do so from a position of financial security, conveniently ignoring the fact that large numbers of pensioners are dependent on the state pension, which is still one of the lowest in Europe.
I also welcome the capping of automatic deductions on debt from universal credit that leave people far below the amount they need to live on. But over the last year there have been reports of record levels of deductions from universal credit, and I wonder if the Minister could comment on the reasons for those.
The 1.7% uprating for other benefits will be of little comfort to the growing numbers in poverty. The Joseph Rowntree report has been mentioned already; it tells us that one in five people in the UK—21%—are in poverty. Of these 14.3 million people, 8.1 million are working-age adults, 4.3 million are children and 1.9 million are pensioners. Children, as we have heard, have higher risks of poverty overall, at 30%, versus 21% for the whole population. But larger families with three or more children have consistently faced a higher rate of poverty: 45% of children in large families were in poverty in 2022-23. That is an appalling indictment of this policy, which Labour Oppositions have criticised so much, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, acknowledged. I wonder how long it will take for the Government to abolish it.
Today’s uprating means that we are looking to approve a basic rate of universal credit of £92 a week for a single person aged over 25, and £145 for a couple. Yet the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Trussell Trust have estimated that at least £120 is needed for a single person, and £200 for a couple, in order to afford even the basic essentials—a shortfall of around £30 a week on the bare minimum needed to survive. Shortfalls in the benefit system are key drivers of poverty, depriving people of the basic necessities for survival. Specific features have been found to increase the numbers in poverty, including the benefits cap and the two-child limit, and the erosion of the value of universal credit means that its standard allowance is now at around its lowest levels as a proportion of average earnings. I too support the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on having a basic minimum floor for universal credit.
Another feature is that the capital cut-off for universal credit has been frozen since the benefit was introduced. This is a form of taxation by stealth of the least well-off, and it hits hard people in their 50s and 60s who are on benefits, having saved something for later life. For example, if they have more than £16,000 in non-pension ISAs, they are disqualified from universal credit. I wonder whether this needs to be looked at again.
The House of Lords Select Committee report Hungry for Change recommended that:
“The Government should embed consideration of the cost of the Eatwell Guide into calculations of benefit payment rates”.
Many of us were very surprised to hear that this is not factored into the calculation of the amount of benefits needed to live on. The report continued:
“The cost of the Government’s dietary guidance should be built in as a reference point to consideration of government interventions, including those relating to welfare and public food provision”.
It also cited, horrifyingly, that
“the poorest decile of UK households would need to spend 74% of their after-housing … income on food just to meet the cost”
of the Government’s Eatwell Guide, as
“compared to just 6% in the richest decile”.
With individuals and families denied the means of buying bare essentials, will the Government undertake a proper assessment of the adequacy of benefit payments to pay for the cost of essentials, including food?
The uprating today, as others have said, is not realistic in the face of ever-increasing poverty in the UK. A far-reaching and radical review of the benefits system is needed to tackle some of the fundamental problems. I know that we all look forward to the forthcoming benefit review, and the child poverty strategy, which we very much hope will address some of these desperate issues that continue to condemn families and individuals to a life of insecurity, hunger and misery, and children to a childhood of deprivation that will stay with them for life.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for clearly outlining the essence of these two SIs. I recall that last year, they were debated separately but I cannot remember why. Nevertheless, we are reverting to the status quo ante, and I hope that this will speed things up somewhat.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this afternoon’s debate. In opposition, the presence of lots of well-informed Peers asking great questions seemed like a good thing, but in government its appeal has waned very slightly. It turns out that it is rather harder to answer questions than to ask them—who knew? I will do my best, and if I do not provide answers, I will be in touch afterwards.
It is worth beginning by briefly touching on the context in which today’s uprating decisions are being made. These decisions are being taken against the very difficult backdrop of a challenging fiscal inheritance and a seriously uncertain global economic outlook. I think we all know the situation we face. Despite those challenges, today’s orders commit the Government to an increased expenditure of £6.9 billion on social security in 2025-26. I just want to note that as a starting point. That said, I very much hear the challenges referred to by the Committee, and I will try to work my way through them.
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, for his support for the approach taken by the Government and the traditions here. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, for her support for our position on the triple lock; it is helpful to know that. I wish to address the noble Viscount’s question head on. This order demonstrates the Government’s commitment to pensioners by maintaining the triple lock, even in the current economic climate. The commitment was made very clear in our manifesto: we committed to the triple lock for this Parliament. This will mean spending on the state pension being forecast to rise by more than £31 billion across this Parliament.
The noble Viscount raised a specific point about pensioners waiting for their first uprated payment of the state pension. I think he will know from his time doing the job I now do that the state pension is paid in arrears, so the date on which somebody is first paid the higher rate—their pay date, essentially—will depend on where their cycle is. I understand that that means two things. For example, if somebody were paid on 2 May, in practice, roughly three weeks of that payment would be at the higher rate and the rest would be at the earlier rate, so there would be another month before they got their first full payment. But, crucially, this means that people receive the same rates of state pension for an equal number of weeks across the year, regardless of their pay day. I hope that helps to clear the matter up, but if I have made it more confusing, the noble Viscount can let me know afterwards and I promise to write to him.
The noble Viscount referenced the change to the winter fuel payment eligibility. Without relitigating that yet another time, I should just say that, as I have said before, the decision to target winter fuel payments on the poorest pensioners was difficult, but I believe it was right given the challenging public finances. But we are determined to get help to those who need it most, which is why the winter fuel payment is still available to those on pension credit. It is why the Government have done so much to promote pension credit and have seen such significant increases in applications for it.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the challenges of the cost of living, particularly energy. It is maybe worth reminding the Committee that additional financial help is available for low-income pensioners, first through the cold weather payments in England and Wales but also through the warm home discount scheme. Committee Members may know that this provides a £150 rebate on winter energy bills to eligible low-income households across Great Britain. We expect over 3 million households to benefit from that this winter, including over 1 million pensioners. I do not know whether noble Lords have heard the news that, just today, the Government published a consultation on an expansion of the warm home discount, which would bring another 2.7 million households into it. This means that up to 6 million households could benefit from that rebate by next winter. I hope that that will be welcomed.
The Government are also working closely with Ofgem to accelerate proposals for a debt relief scheme—something previously consulted on. The idea is that it would target the unsustainable debt built up during the energy crisis, which has led to some of the deductions that have been mentioned and challenges elsewhere.
A couple of noble Lords mentioned the household support fund in England, which is there to provide discretionary support to those most in need with the cost of essentials such as food, energy and water. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Lister for welcoming the household support fund. It was pretty challenging. It was one of the very first things my department had to do: six weeks after the election, it had to find £0.5 billion to continue the household support fund for the rest of the last financial year. The Government have now found the money to extend the fund by a further year from 1 April 2025 until 31 March next year, with funding of £742 million plus Barnett consequentials for the devolved Administrations.
On the longer question, I regret to say to my noble friend that all I can say at the moment is that no decision has been made at this stage on the funding beyond the end of March 2026, and all the problems will be considered in the round. But we hope at least that, by giving notice ahead, we have enabled local authorities to plan much further ahead than in the slightly hand-to-mouth situation of previous times. But we will keep this under review and, if there is any change, we will obviously share any news as soon as possible.
My noble friend Lady Lister, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and the noble Baroness, Lady Janke, raised the levels of benefits and the need to tackle poverty. The Government are committed to tackling poverty and making work pay, and they have already taken some steps. I really appreciate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford welcoming the decision to fund what we call the fair repayment rate. I am so grateful that my boss, Liz Kendall, wanted to spend a significant sum of money on that, even though most people will have no idea what it is. It genuinely targets those most in need by helping them to keep more of their money. But we know we have more to do on this.
The Child Poverty Taskforce is continuing its work and will explore all levers, although I am not in a position to say anything today about changes to matters such as the two-child limit. The Child Poverty Taskforce will look to span the key themes of increasing incomes, which will include social security reforms and reducing essential costs, and increasing financial resilience and better local support, especially in the early years. We will continue to watch this space as best we can.
The noble Viscount, Lord Younger, and the right reverend Prelate, among others, asked about the Government’s review of universal credit. We have now started the review, and the idea is to make sure that universal credit does its job in tackling poverty, helping people manage their money, making work pay and improving work incentives. We want to maximise the potential of universal credit, looking at its impact on customers. I say to the noble Viscount that there are things that universal credit does well, but aspects of its design have caused significant challenges to the people using it. This is an opportunity to look at how it is designed, to listen to those with experience of it and to look at whether there are ways we can better achieve the objectives I have outlined.
Baroness Janke (LD)
Can I ask about the record levels of deductions in universal credit that have been made in half of last year, which hit record numbers? I have been reading reports about them. Could we have some insight into that?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I do not have an insight on that at the moment. It is something I have asked about and have not yet got clear data on, but we are hoping that the changes we will make around things such as the fair repayment rate will help to rebalance that at the bottom, but I will have a look and, if I have any more data, I will write to the noble Baroness, if that is okay.
I turn briefly to the guaranteed minimum pensions increase order. I am grateful for the support for it. It simply aims to ensure that members who have a guaranteed minimum pension earned between 1988 and 1997 receive a measure of protection against inflation.
My noble friend Lady Drake asked a good question, as ever—in this case, about whether all buyout contract providers have to take on GMP liabilities in full when they accept the original transfer from the defined benefit pension scheme. I am happy to say that the Pension Schemes Act 1993 and associated regulations require all bulk annuity contracts to provide GMP benefits where applicable. From the point of view of scheme trustees, if a scheme was contracted out and still contains GMPs, both its trust deed and rules, and the legislation, will require the trustees to make sure that the bulk annuity contract provides those GMPs. From the point of view of the buyout contract provider, if a buyout contract includes GMPs, the provider is under a contractual obligation to provide those benefits. If the correct benefits somehow are not properly reflected in the bulk annuity contract, the scheme trustees, I am afraid, will remain liable for any additional liability, and that would include any GMPs. A question has been raised about whether there should be additional guidance, but the schemes and providers already have a clear legal duty or requirement that they have to follow and that they should be familiar with before they consider a buyout.
To conclude, through these orders, the Government are increasing the basic state pension and new state pension in line with earnings growth by 4.1%, meeting our commitment to the triple lock. We are increasing the pension credit standard minimum guarantee in line with earnings growth by 4.1% to support pensioners on the lowest incomes, increasing benefits to meet additional disability needs, and increasing carers benefits and working-age benefits in line with prices by 1%, and we are ensuring indexation on guaranteed minimum pensions earned between 1988 and 1997 that are in payment. I commend these orders to the Committee.
Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2025
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sherlock
That the Grand Committee do consider the Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase Order 2025.
Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Scottish Adult Disability Living Allowance) (Consequential Modifications) Order 2025
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
That the Grand Committee do consider the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 (Scottish Adult Disability Living Allowance) (Consequential Modifications) Order 2025.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, this draft order is the result of collaborative working between the two Governments of Scotland and supports the Scottish Government’s decision to introduce the Scottish adult disability living allowance in Scotland next month. Discussions on this order began over a year ago under the previous Government. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for his previous work in the Scotland Office to facilitate this order.
The Scotland Act 2016 devolved significant powers, including responsibility for certain social security benefits and employment support, to the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government’s introduction of the Scottish adult disability living allowance under Section 31 of the Social Security (Scotland) Act 2018 exercises this responsibility. The Scottish Government will administer this new benefit in Scotland through their executive agency, Social Security Scotland.
At introduction, the Scottish adult disability living allowance will operate on broadly the same terms as the disability living allowance that it replaces. It is the intention of the UK Government that those individuals in receipt of the Scottish adult disability living allowance should receive the same treatment in the reserved social security and tax systems as those on the disability living allowance, the Scottish recipients of which will transfer from DWP to Social Security Scotland.
The order before us is made under Section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, which allows for necessary amendments to legislation in consequence of any provision made by or under any Act of the Scottish Parliament. It is therefore the appropriate vehicle to make these technical—by which I mean “very technical”—but important changes to recognise the Scottish adult disability living allowance in reserved systems. Scotland Act orders are a demonstration of devolution in action, and I am pleased to say that the Scotland Office has taken through over 250 orders since devolution began.
I turn to the effect that this order will have and the provisions that it will make. The order makes amendments to UK legislation to ensure that the Scottish adult disability living allowance is recognised as a qualifying benefit, in the same way as disability living allowance, in the reserved social security system with regard to entitlements to additional reserved UK Government benefits and premiums. This includes the Christmas bonus and the carer’s allowance. This means that recipients of the Scottish adult disability living allowance will be entitled to receive the annual £10 Christmas bonus payment if it has not already been paid via another benefit. Should all other eligibility criteria be met, it will also ensure that the reserved carer’s allowance can be paid to someone caring for someone in receipt of the Scottish adult disability living allowance.
This order also prevents dual entitlement to benefits paid because of the same needs: individuals entitled to Scottish adult disability allowance cannot be entitled to attendance allowance, disability living allowance or personal independence payments. This is in the same way that disability living allowance and PIP are not payable to people in receipt of attendance allowance. It also amends the taxation of trusts with disabled beneficiaries, to treat those with beneficiaries in receipt of Scottish adult disability living allowance in the same way as those with beneficiaries that receive DLA.
Without this order, people in Scotland on Scottish adult disability living allowance would not receive the equivalent tax treatments and entitlements to reserved premia and additions as individuals in receipt of DLA in England and Wales, or Northern Ireland. The Scotland Office, the DWP, HMRC, the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive have worked closely to ensure that this order can be made, clearly demonstrating cross-government support for it. This Section 104 order is yet another example of devolution in action and I beg to move.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her introduction of this order. As she says, it is technical and complex but there can be the rub in these kinds of things. I also welcome the fact that there is constructive collaboration between the Scottish Government and the UK Government on this. The people of Scotland have two Governments; it is important that they know that they do, and who is doing what and where they are working together. I take it that the same funding transfer will take place as in other social security benefits that have been transferred to Scotland. Again, it is important that the UK Government make that clear and that the Scottish Government acknowledge it, but it obviously gives the Scottish Government the ability to adapt these benefits to local circumstances, which is really the advantage of this.
I think we might all be grateful for the Scottish Commission on Social Security’s analysis. There are one or two aspects of concern which it has raised— I do not intend to pursue them all—that I want to explore with the Minister. In my previous capacity as a Member of Parliament, obviously I saw many circumstances where benefit claimants had problems with the administration. They also had family involved in that too.
Perhaps the biggest issue that happens is that those people who have succeeded in applying for and getting long-term benefit, in particular, have a real anxiety about anything that involves a review, even though they have been told that it is permanent. As the commission points out, the fact that there is an option to apply for adult disability payment—the Scottish adult DLA can effectively continue as if it was DWP—sounds like an improvement on the situation in England, where there is an automatic transfer to PIP. But the problem for many claimants is that if they apply, they really do not know whether they will be better or worse off. That is aggravated by the fact that once they have applied, if they find out that they are worse off they cannot revert to the previous benefit.
To some extent—I expect the Minister will argue this—it is a matter for the Scottish Government, and I accept that. But equally, the Minister wanted to make it clear that the DWP and the UK Government wanted to be sure that there would be no loss of benefit. Nor do I take the view that the Scottish Government have any obvious intention to disadvantage people who may be in that situation.
A particular recommendation of the commission that seems valid is that people must have access to independent, professional advice as to whether it would be in their interests to apply to switch to the new Scottish benefit or stay on their current effective benefit. Why would they want to transfer? In some cases, it will give them access to other related benefits which are triggered by the benefit that they are claiming. On the other hand, by leaving one they may also forfeit benefits that they currently can get, so it really is important that people know what they are going to do. The question of the grace period of two years also arises; the commission has suggested that it should be more flexible, because people really may not know what the advantage or disadvantage of doing it would be.
That is the main point of concern. There are obviously issues relating to those of working age and those of pensionable age. There is also the possibility that one benefit may give you access to related benefits while the other one does not.
So, in sum, to what extent is the collaboration a continuing one as opposed to handing it over and basically saying to the Scottish Government, “There you go. We’ve handed over some account of the money. You now have it and you can do what you like with it”? Alternatively, is there a recognition of good will on both sides and that people should be able to opt for what is best for them? The Scottish Government’s objectives are that benefits should always offer the best that is available for which people qualify. But the danger, sometimes, is that opting for one benefit as opposed to the other may lead to a loss. Why is it not possible to opt for the transfer but if, as a result of that, it becomes clear at the point of swapping over that it is a disadvantage to switch, are people in a position to say, “No, I’m not going to switch”, or are they already too far committed? That is really the point.
I think the Minister will appreciate that people who find themselves on the wrong side of that will be aggrieved and will let people know they are aggrieved, which is surely not what we want. The objective is to ensure that people who have applied for benefits get them on a fair basis and that, once they have secured them, they continue on a fair basis and there is no arbitrary situation where what they can or cannot claim changes simply because they have opted for one benefit as opposed to the other. So the choice is great, but not if people do not know the reason, the benefits and the outcomes.
A number of other issues were raised by the commission, but the Minister will know what they were. It did a very useful report that covered pretty well everything that needed to be covered. The assurances we have are that the British Government will not simply wash their hands but that the collaboration will continue, allowing the Scottish Government to do what they are doing—but perhaps recognising that there are some transitional things here that may require a bit more flexibility than appears to be provided for by the instrument itself.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
As ever, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her helpful introductory remarks and for her kind words about me and my brief stint as a Minister in the Scotland Office. I feel somewhat undeserving of those. The July election meant that I never quite got the opportunity to present a Scotland Act order in this Committee, and I now find myself, regrettably, scrutinising them in opposition.
In general terms, this is indeed a sensible and technical order that we will not oppose. Clearly, those who are entitled to the Scottish adult disability allowance should not also be entitled to the UK Government’s disability living allowance at the same time. Further, it is important that the relevant UK legislation is amended to ensure that recipients of the new Scottish DLA are treated in the same way as recipients of DLA in the rest of the UK, in respect of reserved taxes and benefits.
Since 2016, the devolution of some aspects of welfare to the Scottish Government has been complex and certainly not straightforward. It is perhaps a unique policy area, where some elements are reserved and some are devolved. That means that it requires sophisticated operating systems to be in place within both the new Social Security Scotland and the DWP. It also necessitates close and collaborative working between the Scottish and UK Governments at an official level—a point made so well by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce.
With that in mind, I raise the following points. Is the noble Baroness confident that these operating systems are agile and accurate enough to avoid the very duplication that this order seeks to preclude, as well as ensuring that cases that might be complex and difficult do not lead to people being denied payments that they are entitled to?
Secondly, although there has been no formal consultation here, can the Minister update the Committee on what informal consultation has occurred, if any? Has there been a public information campaign of any kind to ensure that those affected by these changes are aware of them?
Thirdly and finally, I return to divergence; I accept that it is a bit of a pet subject of mine, but it is important. There remains the distinct possibility that, in time, the Scottish and UK systems might diverge, whether in terms of rates, payables or benefits in more fundamental terms. Has any assessment been made of the consequences of potential divergence when it comes to eligibility for benefits? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers to these points.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank both noble Lords for their contributions to the debate this afternoon. As ever, they asked some pertinent and relevant questions. However, I reiterate that this is a technical SI and that the policy process is a matter for the Scottish Government. We are, as our responsibilities make clear, providing them with the legal framework that already exists.
With regard to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, the same funding transfer arrangements will take place. As I said, this is technical. I completely agree with him in terms of his experiences as an MP. Some of the most heart-wrenching conversations I ever had were with my former constituents who were in fear of what might happen in terms of a review—not even of the review itself. Then the appeal process was something else. So I completely agree with the noble Lord, but I reiterate that the application and review processes are a matter for the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland. However, I assure him that there will be ongoing collaboration between both Governments, who touch on the lives of the people of Scotland and of people in every corner of the United Kingdom. There is genuine good will; I hope that there will be even better good will after the next set of Scottish elections, but we will see.
With regard to the benefit options, the Scottish Government are making sure that individuals can make an informed choice about what will benefit them, but I want to clarify something for noble Lords: everybody currently on DLA will ultimately end up transferring into the new benefit. It is a replacement benefit. As that process happens, it is a matter for the Scottish Government.
I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. I am sorry—not necessarily for the country but for him—that he never got to stand on this side of the Room to put forward a Section 104 SI. However, he started the work that we are discussing today, and I am grateful for that. With regard to his specific questions on the agile systems that we expect to be in place, the Scottish Government and Social Security Scotland believe that they are ready for them. In fact, the process will get under way on 21 March. So they are definitely aware, but we will continue to work closely with them. In terms of whether those affected are aware, that will be an ongoing process, but we will make sure that we work closely with anyone who is affected, especially anyone who either is on the border or would have been entitled and who lives in either Scotland, England or Wales—as the onus will be on us, I think; my officials have not shouted at me yet so I think we are okay.
I know that divergence is of huge interest to the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, as well as to many other noble Lords. The Scottish adult disability living allowance operates in broadly the same way as the DLA, and the UK Government have agreed that it can be treated in the same way—it is a qualifying benefit but is very similar. We will consider any changes that the Scotland Government make to the Scottish adult disability living allowance in future and, if those changes meant that it diverges significantly from the DLA, it would be for the UK Government to consider how to identify individuals in Scotland who may be eligible for additional support in the reserve system. So we will continue to monitor that. I think that answers the noble Lord’s question.
I believe I answered everything so, in closing, I say that this instrument demonstrates the UK Government’s continued commitment to working with the Scottish Government and to delivering for the people of Scotland.
Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (Amendment) (Provision of Information) Order 2025
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (Amendment) (Provision of Information) Order 2025.
Relevant document: 14th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Committee has considered the order, which amends the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 in order to give the Disclosure and Barring Service, the DBS, an express power to share its barred list information with UK non-territorial police forces and the Crown dependency police forces of Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man. I hope this will be a relatively straightforward Motion for the Committee because, as well as issuing criminal record certificates, commonly known as DBS checks, the DBS also maintains two lists—one of people that the DBS has barred from working in regulated activity with children, and one of those it has barred from working in regulated activity with adults. Regulated activity for the purposes of this includes sensitive roles such as work in schools, health and social care.
The DBS bars people from such work if their criminal history or other information held by the police, or their behaviour in the workplace, indicates that they pose a high risk to either or both of those groups. The DBS itself updates the police national database, PND, on a weekly basis with the names of individuals who have been barred. If the police then look up a named individual on the police national database—for example, for the purposes of criminal investigation or police officer vetting—the police will be able to see if that person is on one or other of the DBS barred lists.
An express power to share such information with the police is provided to the DBS by Section 50A of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. This gives the DBS the power to provide any information it has to a chief officer of police for the purposes specified in the Act, and it confirms that a chief officer of police includes the Police Service of Northern Ireland and Police Scotland. However—and this is the nub of the order before the Committee—it does not make express reference to the non-territorial police forces or the Crown dependency police forces. Following an extensive review, which includes arrangements for accessing the police national database, the DBS has decided on a precautionary basis that there should be express statutory ground for sharing its barred list data with these forces. It therefore took steps in March 2024 to prevent them accessing the barred status of individuals, pending resolution of the legislative position. This means that, at the moment, non-territorial forces and the Crown dependency police forces cannot currently access an individual’s barred list status.
We therefore intend, through this order, to make it clear that the definition of “chief officer of police” in Section 50A also includes the chief officers of the UK, non-territorial and Crown dependency police forces. Those non-territorial forces are the British Transport Police, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary, the Ministry of Defence Police, the Royal Navy Police, the Royal Air Force Police, the Royal Military Police, the National Crime Agency and the tri-service serious crime unit. The Crown dependency forces, for the purposes of this order, are the States of Jersey police force, the salaried police force of the Isle of Guernsey and the Isle of Man Constabulary. This order effectively gives the Disclosure and Barring Service the certainty it seeks to provide all forces with access to information that indicates that someone is considered to pose a risk to children and vulnerable adults.
In conclusion, the DBS’s barred list exists to help protect the most vulnerable in our society from those who pose a high risk of harm to them. That information is important to decisions made by police forces, whether related to police officer vetting or related to the prevention and investigation of crime.
This order’s purpose is to give the DBS the statutory power, beyond any doubt, to share this information with all forces, including the non-territorial and Crown dependency forces. I commend it to the Committee.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, just before I contribute, are we not doing both SIs together?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
That is not what my brief indicates, but of course, if the noble Lord wishes to do that, he can propose it.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I apologise.
The first reading of this brief regulation and the Explanatory Memorandum is misleading. It appears to be a minor correction to ensure that access to DBS barred list details will now include non-territorial and specialist police officers. Nothing to see here—or is that the case?
Once again, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its 14th report of this Session, in which it set out the real background to this SI and the previous history of errors in law by this department being corrected by regulations—but with Explanatory Memorandums lacking in information to inform those parliamentarians wishing to scrutinise regulations. It points out at least 10 SIs for this period since July 2024 that have been unsatisfactorily presented to your Lordships’ House—referenced by the committee in its third, fourth, eighth and 10th reports. This SI now needs to be added to that list.
The reality of this SI is that highly confidential information under the DBS legislation had been passed on to police bodies even though they were not permitted to receive it. The original Act, passed in 2006 under the previous Labour Government—nearly 20 years ago now—has clearly not been reviewed in detail since then. One must commend the new Government for dealing with not just this issue but the other ones as well. However, it is a real shame that the somewhat underhand tactics of the Explanatory Memorandum, designed to elicit confidence in the reader, are misleading as to be against the spirit of the relationship between a Government and the Parliament that is there to ensure that it can hold that Government to account. Can the Minister say whether the systems have been changed in the Home Office to ensure that this type of obfuscatory approach is now ended and that all such legislation that needs to be updated has been updated?
On the SI itself, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raises the issue that the implication of the draft order is that unlawful sharing of data may have happened, even if it did not concern very many people. Individuals on the list may have been affected by being denied a job or made the subject of a protection order. So can the Minister tell the Grand Committee how many individuals—even if the number is small—may have been affected by the unlawful activity, and, perhaps even more importantly, whether those individuals have been told?
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the detail and rationale for this order. I make no comment on the on the observations just made by the noble Baroness and seek to address only the substance of the order.
As the Minister said, this statutory instrument seeks to grant explicit statutory authority for the DBS to share information with a range of non-territorial and specialist police forces. Although the need for this clarification is important and of course understandable, there are several questions about how this change will affect safeguarding practices more widely.
The order seeks to address a gap in the legal framework and expand the list of forces with access to the DBS. These were listed by the Minister, and I do not seek to repeat them. Given the critical role that these forces play in safeguarding vulnerable people, it is vital that they have access to all the relevant data that could indicate a risk to public safety. If properly implemented, the changes discussed today should enable the relevant forces to access that information and enhance protection.
I will probe the Minister on a couple of points. Is he confident that the forces now granted access to DBS data are fully equipped—in terms of both training and technology—to handle and act upon this sensitive information effectively? Safeguarding data is of the utmost sensitivity, and the risks of misuse or failure to act on such information are significant. What specific protections are in place to ensure that qualified authorised personnel within these forces can access and use the data properly?
Further, the SI allows the sharing of data on individuals barred from working with children or vulnerable adults. There is obviously an expectation that that data will be actively used to prevent harm. Therefore, are any guidelines or protocols in place to govern how this information will be used by the additional range of forces?
Finally, it is important to understand how these new regulations will fit into the broader safeguarding landscape. While recognising the need to protect and secure sensitive personal data for a host of reasons, I ask: does that preclude a more integrated approach to data sharing in general, not just among police forces but perhaps with agencies such as social services and healthcare providers?
The Opposition see this a positive step toward improving safeguarding. Plainly, it is important that its utility is measured and evaluated. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the contributions from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron. I first address a point that the noble Baroness made about the Explanatory Memoranda for Home Office SIs. I am going to be honest with her: there has not been a been a good performance by the Home Office for a long period of time. The Home Office has recognised that. I am responsible for what has happened since 4 July last year. A number of SIs criticised by the statutory instrument committee were lacking in information and assessments from the previous Government. I am not going to pick a fight with the previous Government for that; that can happen.
On entering office in July, my job was to recognise that concern from the statutory instruments committee and to ensure that we try to address it. In addressing it, I did two things: I met the then chair of the statutory instruments committee—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—and I have since had discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Watson, who has subsequently taken over that position. We will continue to liaise with him on that and we will examine that with him. I initially gave the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the assurance that we will try to improve performance on SIs. I am committed to ensuring that SI legislation is delivered to the highest standard.
We are in a transitionary period. We are still in only the seventh or eighth month of this current Government. Therefore, we, the Home Office, are working hard to drive improvements in explanatory materials where there have been deficiencies. That includes organising refreshment training and guidance for members of staff. I have personally met with officials who deal with the statutory instrument guidance across the board. They are fully aware that not only I but the Leader of this House and the Leader of the House of Commons are very keen to ensure that SIs and Explanatory Memoranda are at a better standard than they were. I give that assurance to the noble Baroness today. It is starting to yield results, with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee having commended the department recently for its explanatory materials provided in support of several of the latest Home Office instruments. I assure the noble Baroness that that will get better over time, all being well.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I thank the Minister very much for his very helpful answer. I was asking about individuals because if this tiny group do not know that they are on the barred list but are having jobs denied them, we are going back to the system that used to operate 30 years ago when I was chair of education in a county council. It was essentially a secret list then. The point about those who have criminal records is that the individuals concerned know. It may be only a small number but I am very concerned about that group.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I think I said—but I will check Hansard again—that all individuals will know that they are barred. Having reflected on this matter, I can confirm that all individuals will know that they are barred. Again, this is, in a sense, a process matter to ensure that there is legal certainty for the agencies that share that information.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The individuals know that they are barred because of the reasons they have. So there is legal certainty about that. I hope I have answered the noble Baroness, but, if she wishes to intervene again, I am obviously happy to reply. If she does not, I commend this instrument to the Grand Committee.
Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2025
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2025.
Relevant document: 16th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, this fees order sets out the immigration and nationality functions for which a fee is to be charged and the maximum amount that can be charged in relation to each of those functions. Within the order, we propose a number of changes that will facilitate major government policy.
Fees charged by the Home Office for immigration and nationality applications are an essential part of the department’s funding settlement and help to support the sustainable operation of the migration and borders system while reducing reliance on taxpayer funding. It is important, therefore, that we have sufficient flexibility within the department’s legislation to set fees at levels that support this funding approach. This amendment order will play an essential role in delivering this flexibility while also helping to ensure that our legislation remains current and reflects changes in the wider migration and borders system.
I will go into more detail on each of the changes that we propose, but, to summarise, this order covers a number of areas. First, it will increase the fee maxima that can be set for the electronic travel authorisation—ETA—for sponsorship on work routes, for naturalisation as a British citizen or British Overseas Territory citizen, and for certain nationality services. It will also remove the fee provision related to the electronic visa waiver and make consequential amendments to the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018 to remove the fee.
I turn to the changes we propose to the fee maximas. The figures set out in this order act as a ceiling within which the Home Office is able to make changes to fee levels by laying separate legislation and seeking agreement across government. It is sensible to keep these maximas under review, to ensure that the order continues to support our fees and funding objectives. The changes we propose today, which are accompanied by an economic impact assessment, will provide the necessary flexibility to make changes to fee levels where they are required to ensure that the sustainability of the migration and borders system is maintained.
I emphasise that the actual fee levels that are charged to those seeking to enter or remain in the UK are not changing in this order. Any changes to the fee levels will be made through separate legislation and will also be accompanied by full economic impact assessments. However, in laying this order, we have sought to provide some clarity to Parliament and the public about our intention to increase certain fees when parliamentary time allows and when further orders are brought forward. We will, first, increase the fee maxima applying to an application for an electronic travel authorisation—ETA—from £15 to £16, in order to facilitate a subsequent increase in the chargeable fee from £10 to £16. The fee maxima that applies to certificates of sponsorship, which are assigned by employers to employees who need a visa to work and stay in the United Kingdom, will increase from £300 to £525. This maxima increase will also apply to the successor sponsor a worker process, which is being rolled out on a phased basis currently. In both cases, the chargeable fee for the main category of application will increase from £239 to £525.
We will also increase from £1,500 to £1,605 the fee maximum that applies to adult applications made to naturalise as a British citizen or a British Overseas Territory citizen. This will facilitate a subsequent increase in the chargeable fee for applications to naturalise a British citizen to the new maximum level. We will also increase the fee maxima that apply to various nationality-related services, which include an amendment to the certificate of registration or naturalisation and the supply of a certified copy of a document granted under current or former nationality Acts or, indeed, the supply of any of the documents specified in Table 7 in this fees order. All these will increase from £400 to £428. The review of a decision related to immigration and nationality will increase from £450 to £482, and the issuance of a document confirming that a person has the right of abode in the United Kingdom will be increased from £550 to £589.
To be clear to the Grand Committee, although we have announced our intention to increase fee levels later this year, they will not be increased until we lay separate legislation, the immigration and nationality fees regulation, which will be subject to agreement and approval by Parliament.
Finally, we will remove from this order the chargeable function from an electronic visa waiver and make the necessary amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Fees Regulations to remove the fee. This change is being made because the electronic fee visa waiver has been replaced by the ETA for nationals of Qatar from October 2023 and for nationals of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates from February 2024. The changes we will be making through this order are vital to provide flexibility to amend fee levels. They will subsequently have to have the approval of Parliament to ensure that the system is sustainably funded. I emphasise once again, there is no fee increase today through this order, but I move the principle so that Parliament, the public and those who want to access those services know where they stand for a future planning purpose.
Lord Rowlands (Lab)
My Lords, it was my pleasure for the past three years to have served on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. It has reported on a whole series of immigration and nationality fees, and it is in that context that I wish to raise a particular, serious issue that has arisen. That committee has never questioned the need or requirement for such fees, or that they should be appropriate and should match the costs. However, an extraordinary situation has arisen in the context of some of the fees that have been charged by the Home Office. That is, a whole series of fees have been charged unlawfully, in that it proved to be the case, after years of these fees being charged, that there is no statutory basis for doing so.
On top of that, worse is to follow. In fact, VAT has also in some cases been inappropriately served on some of these fees. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has drawn the special attention of the House to this extraordinary situation. The committee recommended that those fees that were considered unlawful should be suspended until such time as the matter had been resolved. The department refused to do so and, in fact, is continuing unlawfully to charge fees in some areas, despite the recommendations of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
I seek to draw attention to this extraordinary situation. I have been around for a very long time and have never come across the situation where a major government department has behaved in this way. In a three-year period, it collected £50 million without statutory authority. That is an astonishing situation. Therefore, we on the committee have been pressing—indeed, everybody should press—the department to resolve this legislative shambles that has occurred.
It appears that the possible resolution for this situation is that it may require retrospective legislation to sort it out. I therefore ask my noble friend the Minister, first, whether the department now agrees that it is necessary for such retrospective legislation to resolve this legislative fiasco? Secondly, if so, when will that be introduced? He cannot drag his feet any longer. This unlawful imposition of fees has been going on for a long time. I therefore ask the Minister to assure us not only that there will be such legislation but that it will be brought in promptly, so that the intolerable situation that has arisen can be resolved.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
My Lords, I am fascinated to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, with the information that he has provided to us today; I very much look forward to the Minister’s response to the points that he made. I shall concentrate on only one very small bit of the statutory instrument before us: the bit that relates to the electronic travel authorisation, or ETA.
I serve as the chair of your Lordships’ Justice and Home Affairs Select Committee. We have on a number of occasions looked in a great deal of detail at the planned introduction, and now the actual introduction, of the ETA. It is an authorisation requirement for anybody who does not have a visa and who wants to come here for a short stay from non-visa countries. We welcome the pushing out of the boundaries and the borders that this measure involves, giving us the opportunity to collect information about visitors to our country before they have even arrived, but we have expressed a number of concerns and made a number of recommendations to the Government about it. That is why I am focusing on this one particular issue.
What is proposed here is an increase in the maximum fee from £15 to £16, which of course seems incredibly limited; it is a very small increase. However, as the Minister rightly pointed out, the Government have made it absolutely clear that it is their firm intention that, as soon as time allows, another statutory instrument will come along; this one will increase the current fee from £10, as it is now, to a new maximum of £16. Obviously, that is a very significant 160% increase that we are going to see.
Bear in mind that, when this measure was introduced, we heard a number of things from the previous Government, who, in fairness, introduced it. In a Written Ministerial Statement of 6 June 2023, the then Minister of State for Immigration, Robert Jenrick, said:
“This fee level is competitive with that of equivalent systems run by other countries”,—[Official Report, Commons, 6/6/23; col. 821WS.]
so the £10 is a competitively charged amount. Of course, he was absolutely right. Currently, in Israel, it is £5.61; in South Korea, it is £5.53; in New Zealand, it is £7.68; and in the Seychelles, it is £8.33. In Australia, it is free unless you pay roughly £10 to use the smartphone application. All the EU countries are about to introduce their own similar scheme, and they have already announced that that will cost €7. So, clearly, £10 is of an order of magnitude but is actually slightly higher. By the time we get to £16, it is going to be significantly higher.
I acknowledge there is one aberration in that: the United States. However, if we look back at its history, it had a very much lower figure for a very long time during the measure’s introduction and it has only just recently increased that. So we will be out of line, when the original plan was to be in line and be competitive with other countries. The question is: will that have an impact? The answer is that the committee is concerned that it will have a significant impact on tourism.
To those who think, “Well, what’s the evidence for that?”, I say that we already have some evidence. One of the other things we were concerned about was the original intention for transit passengers to Heathrow and Manchester to have to apply for, and pay for, an ETA; we thought that that would be a disadvantage to Manchester and Heathrow Airports in particular. The current Government have looked at that, and we are pleased that they have decided not to go ahead with it and, temporarily at least, it is not happening.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
It is a brave Minister who continues without his Whip.
I was trying to explain why fees such as the ETA fee must be looked at in the context of the possible impact on tourism. The example I was giving to illustrate it relates to the system that we had until recently, whereby an ETA fee was charged for people who were travelling from a third country through the UK in transit to somewhere else, using Heathrow and Manchester in particular. We as a committee were concerned about that and thought that it would have an impact on tourism; that was backed up when the ETA was introduced initially for a few Gulf countries. As a result of that introduction, Heathrow Airport alone recorded a reduction of 122,000 people transiting through Heathrow from those relatively small countries. That was when the fee was at £10; if it is to go to £16, you can see the impact that it will have on people—not for transit but for people thinking of coming here. There is real, clear evidence that this fee increase being proposed, from £10 to £16, could have a huge impact on tourism.
Of course, our committee expressed a particular concern in relation to these fees in terms of tourism in Northern Ireland and issues in relation to the common travel area between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. This issue was picked up in the 16th report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which said:
“We asked the Home Office for any assessments it has made about ETAs to date, especially in relation to Northern Ireland (NI). The Home Office stated that as a result of its monitoring … it was working with a range of government and tourist bodies to ensure that ‘ETAs are not seen as a barrier to cross-border tourism on the island of Ireland’”.
I ask the Minister the very question that the committee suggested, which is
“whether (or when) firmer evidence can be made available on the practical impact of the ETA on”
Northern Ireland tourism. If the Minister has any information, clearly, that would be very helpful. More generally, given that the Minister said that this SI has been introduced following a review of all these fees, can he tell us whether the issue of tourism was taken into account? In particular, can he give a categorical assurance that, when the new SI comes forward—the one that will actually make the increase to the new maximum—the impact assessment will take account of tourism?
I said that Robert Jenrick, when he announced the whole scheme, made two points. His second point was that the £10 charge
“will ensure that the Department’s costs in delivering the scheme are effectively covered across a range of volume scenarios”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/6/23; col. 44WS.]
Can the Minister, whose department has conducted this review, tell us whether the increase that is being proposed is as a result of evidence that the £10 is insufficient to cover the costs of the operation of ETA; or whether this is in fact just a way of making additional money for the Exchequer? I am sure that he will be able to answer that and will have the figures to back it up.
I just say to the Minister that, given that we see in the notes for this particular SI that the longer-term effect is to bring £260 million-odd into the Exchequer, I suspect that the fee increase for ETA is about adding to that. However, I also warn him that, if tourism is seriously affected in the way I have suggested, the Government will not be able to make that amount of money.
My final point is about the ease of operating the ETA system. If it is difficult to operate, that will put people off bothering and it will stop people even thinking of coming to this country as tourists and perhaps also for business sessions, and so on. When we looked at the ETA introduction, we were concerned about the lack of different languages in which the information about ETA was being provided. The then Government actually agreed with us and accepted that official information relating to ETA should be made available in a wider number of languages “as soon as possible”, including French, German and Spanish. So can the noble Lord tell us whether this has happened?
I should tell him that, prior to this meeting, I sought to find out for myself whether I could get details of how ETA operates in other languages. I could not. So I asked our good friends in the Library whether they could find out, and they told me that they too could not find any evidence that information is provided in any language other than English. They pointed out to me that, of course, some platforms have a translate option—that might be the clever way out—but, when we checked some of the platforms, we could not get the ETA to translate into different languages. So the evidence I have shows that what was promised has not been done. Of course, it may have an impact on people choosing to come to this country if they find it hard to get this information. So perhaps the Minister can address this.
There are many other issues with the ETA operation which are not relevant to the SI, so I will not raise them now, but the Committee and the Justice and Home Affairs Committee are very keen to have an opportunity to discuss those issues with the Minister. However, in the meantime, on this SI and the proposed future SI, I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Foster, who raised serious questions about the ETA and whether there will be an impact. He provided evidence to show that having an ETA at the current level, before any increases, is already having an impact. One of the general themes I will cover is what the impact assessment does not say about the impact on businesses, including tourism in this case, and other areas that I will come to. This is yet another charge that has gone up, adding to overheads, and it is becoming a problem in certain sectors.
It is also a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, who outlined many of the problems that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has been reporting on over the years. I look forward to the Minister’s response to his questions.
I will start on an optimistic note, given our debate on the previous SI. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee does not often hand out commendations in its reports, but it has commended the Minister and his officials on the Explanatory Memorandum, which was very helpful. With my calculator out, I did a lot of calculations and, although Minister may be irritated by some of the questions he gets, it is actually because we understand what is happening. That needs to be to be credited because we have not necessarily been able to give that credit in the past. The impact assessment was helpful, but I am not sure that it asked the right people about the impact. I will come back to that in a second.
Paragraph 29 of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s 16th report says that
“the net benefit of the changes is relatively small. Further, we note that in some scenarios set out in”
the impact assessment,
“the costs of the changes outweigh the benefits. This possibility arises because … it is ‘highly uncertain’ what goods and services visitors and visa-holders consume, and how many of those are provided”
by British businesses. Can the Minister comment further on this, or is the impact assessment just guesswork? That is the perhaps slightly unfair approach to trying to translate what the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said.
I say that because the maxima level set here is, pretty broadly, a 7% increase. I very much echo the comments made by my noble friend; the Government have made it very plain that when they do introduce fee rises—as opposed to setting a new maxima—most of them will go up to the new maxima. As the impact assessment says, the Government are trying to ensure that they can cover the costs of migration and the staffing for that, but I am concerned because 7% seems high.
For example, the pension triple lock is increasing by 4% this year. Many felt that was too high in the current financial circumstances. I am not going to comment on that but am trying to weigh it up as 7% seems to be a general increase, if not for the next year. I know the Minister will say it is only a maxima, but we heard elsewhere that there is an intention in most cases to go to that.
It is true that in paragraph 5.2, the EM says:
“The department is seeking to implement changes to fees to generate additional income from end users to support the funding of the migration and borders system and reduce reliance on funding from the taxpayer”.
However, the increases that are not 7% are the ones that really worry me. They seem bizarre and, in one particular case, ill thought through. For example, the skilled worker and temporary worker fees have both been increased by over 100%: from £239 to a £525 maxima for the skilled worker fee and from £25 to £55 for the temporary worker maxima. The reality is that in just over seven months, this Government have increased other costs to businesses—not Home Office costs, I grant you—but it is difficult and tedious for employers to recruit staff from overseas at the moment. I am not commenting on whether it was right or wrong, but the previous Government really tightened down on who could come to work here. Part of that was to start increasing substantially the costs that businesses and individuals coming here had to pay.
One of the costs I am particularly concerned about—we have just had a vote on this and there will be more before the evening is done—is on the increase to employers’ national insurance contributions. Not only are these increasing, but the floor for payment is lowered to include many lower-paid workers. Migrant workers filling gaps in our economy, such as in social care, hospices, agriculture and hospitality, are much more likely to be in those sectors where the margins for businesses are extremely low.
Our social care sector is already in complete crisis. Only today, there are reports of care at home being removed and clients being told they will have to leave their home and move into care homes, solely because of the economics of the increased national insurance contributions and the high costs associated with care delivered in a home setting. To have extra fees for migrant workers—often paid for by the businesses because the migrant workers just do not have their own resources—is going to add further to those sectoral problems. I wonder why the impact assessment says there are no financial implications from a 100% increase in these fees.
If these increases are as set out in paragraph 5.2 of the EM, did the Home Office actually seek advice from some of the sectors most reliant on overseas workers, whether skilled or temporary? I am slightly less worried about the very high-value skilled workers, where an employer will not only take on somebody at a high salary but be prepared to manage an oncost. It is those who are given temporary leave to work here, or in the health sector, where we know they have been granted.
Finally, paragraph 5.10 sets out the increase for the review of a decision related to immigration and nationality. The main fee maxima is increased by 7% and I have already commented on that. Hidden a few lines further down is a really shocking increase from £80 to £480 for an administrative review of a decision. This is nothing to do with the relevance of costs and I wonder if it is a financial punishment. An administrative review is very different to a review by a panel or senior officer, as referred to earlier in that section. Can the Minister explain why this particular administrative review has now hit the same maxima level as the much more complex and personnel-intensive level required under the main type of panel review?
By the way, it is interesting to note that, at paragraph 11.1, that particular increase has not been highlighted, whereas others have. I wonder why that might happen. The reason why the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, my noble friend Lord Foster and I are raising these issues is to try to understand the strategy behind these increases, as opposed to just a reason to raise money. We are concerned that at least some of them may backfire and stop the increase in growth that this Government are keen to see.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, again, my thanks go to the Minister for setting out the background to this order and for the specific detail that he outlined. As he said, it is a matter of the principle of the fee increase, not the actual increases themselves. I am also grateful for the pertinent and interesting points made by the noble Lords, Lord Rowlands and Lord Foster, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
As the Government have outlined, this order seeks to increase the maximum fees that can be levied for a range of key immigration services, including the ETA, certificates of sponsorship and applications for naturalisation. This measure is not unexpected. It aligns with the policy direction pursued by successive Governments—including the previous Conservative Administration, who sought to make the immigration system financially self-sustaining and to reduce its reliance on general taxation.
Noble Lords will know that the principle that those who benefit most from the immigration system should contribute to its costs is a long-standing one. In this context, it is logical that the Home Office looks to raise fees, given the increasing financial strain on the system. The proposed fee increases are expected to generate an additional £133.6 million annually while reducing public service provision, thereby saving the Exchequer a further £12.42 million. On the surface, this appears to present a clear net benefit to the Government’s finances; the previous Government acknowledged the necessity of fee increases to maintain the sustainability and integrity of the system.
Going forward, it is of course important to assess whether these revenue projections are robust, particularly in the light of the complex and ever-changing landscape of immigration; and to ask whether these measures will in effect lead to the intended behavioural changes. For instance, we are told that previous fee increases had little impact on demand. Is that always going to be the case? The Government’s own impact assessment here on ETA, for instance, indicates a modest reduction in ETA applications due to the fee increase. All of this points to a general question for the Minister: what ongoing monitoring is in place to assess, on a continuing basis, the impact of fees on issues such as behaviour, demand and costs? I would be grateful if the Minister could outline that in his response.
In conclusion, we do not oppose the Government’s desire to increase fees in order to fund the immigration system. We must ensure that these fee increases are implemented in a way that is fair and equitable and which truly serves the long-term interests of both the immigration system and the broader public. It is in the best interests of the United Kingdom to have an immigration system that is financially sustainable and fair to all those who seek to contribute to our society. I trust that the Government will continue to monitor the effects of these increases and remain responsive to any concerns that may arise.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for the contributions from noble Lords and from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. I want to remind the Grand Committee of something it already knows, but it is worth putting it in context at the beginning: there is no increase today in the fee levels, and impact assessments for each potential future fee increase, if this order were to be approved, would be put in place. There would be an impact assessment for each potential new fee level determined by the Government, in due course. That fee level may or may not be put forward by them at some point in the future, up to the maxima being agreed today, and would include an assessment of the impact on tourism, jobs, investment, growth and on the appertaining costs of any fee as a whole.
I know that the Committee knows that, but it is worth putting it in context. This is the hors d’oeuvre to a meal; it is not the main meal, because that will come downstream when potential new fee levels are put before both Houses of Parliament for approval, with an appropriate impact assessment covering the many points made by Members here today.
I will start with my noble friend Lord Rowlands, who I am pleased to see in his place. We shared a long time together in the House of Commons and it is good to see him again here today. He touched on a very important point. First, there is the scrutiny of legislation by the statutory instruments committee, which was also touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. The points my noble friend made about that, and the performance of the Home Office, are well made. They were made in the previous debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton; I am hoping that they will not be made in future debates, for the reasons I outlined then. The Government intend to make sure that statutory instruments have proper Explanatory Memoranda and are thoroughly investigated and overseen by Ministers, and that measures which are brought forward are appropriate and testable by the SI committee, and defensible by Ministers accordingly.
My noble friend Lord Rowlands made a clear reference to the failure to provide legislative cover for fee increases. This was round about April of last year. My first defence is that, as he will know, I was not the Minister responsible at the time. Why it happened is a matter of conjecture, but it has. I am not going to put the proverbial political boot in to previous Ministers or officials. That is where we are and, in their defence, there was a general election, which has impacted upon any timescales to rectify that error, but that error has existed. When it was noticed, measures were brought to the attention of Ministers in the current Government, and we brought forward regulations at around Christmastime. Those were taken through the Grand Committee and the House and approved accordingly, so that the fees now being charged are on a legal statutory basis.
As my noble friend mentioned, that leaves a gap of some months—maybe April to November—where fees were charged accordingly, with no legal backing. He asked, rightly, what measures there are to ensure that we take action on that. The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill has within it measures to provide retrospective statutory authority for those fees that were charged in connection with services provided by Ecctis Ltd. On that basis, that Bill, which has been published in the House of Commons, is correcting the position on fees charged to date.
Those who have previously been charged have received a service that they have paid for. We want to avoid putting an additional burden on taxpayers, so we do not intend to issue refunds, because although the fee was charged without that legislative cover, the service that the fee provided was still received by the individuals concerned. We are trying to ensure that we regularise not just the situation, as we have now done, but that gap which happened—not on my watch, but it did. It is now being regularised by this legislation, which will be challenged. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also mentioned this point. It is open to scrutiny and to approval, rejection or amendment in this House, but it is the Government’s position to try to resolve something we were not responsible for. I hope that answers my noble friend’s point, but I will happily take an intervention.
Lord Rowlands (Lab)
I believe so. The most important thing is: have the lessons been learned as a result of the fiasco that occurred, so that we can be assured that, in future, there will never be a fee that is not statutorily based?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will give my noble friend what I would say is a guarded response: I hope so. It is my intention that that will not happen again. I cannot verbally legislate today to say that mistakes will not be made by Ministers and/or officials downstream, but I hope that lessons have been learned. The moment it was drawn to this Government’s attention, we introduced legislation to regulate the current level of fees that were being proposed and, through the proposed Bill, cover legislatively the backdated gap that was in place. I hope I can give my noble friend that assurance. Certainly, it is something that current Ministers are aware of and do not wish to have—but, as ever, it is a human system, as my noble friend knows.
I turn to the meat of other points that were made noble Lords. I welcome the support of His Majesty’s Opposition Front Bench. The noble Lords, Lord Foster and Lord Cameron, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, raised the impact on tourism, on jobs and on a range of other things. Let me put this into context again. The Government have to cover the costs of the immigration border control system. This is potentially helping with any future decisions taken—not the increase today, but any future decisions—to meet the costs of that system and to put in place measures to ensure that we have border control for tourism and employment, as well as the measures we are taking separately in the immigration Bill to look at illegal migration. It is important that we regulate that and that the taxpayer gets resource back from it. We have taken decisions, which may not be popular with the noble Baroness, to look at how we can potentially raise money from that. As I said, we will bring forward further impact assessments and proposals on the actual figures for each of the sectors that she mentioned, but we have made a judgment that we have to cover those costs and we must ensure we can do that.
The Government have a growth agenda. We do not want to hinder growth in jobs or in tourism; we want people to come to the United Kingdom. The question I throw back to the noble Lord, Lord Foster, is: would a fee of £16 deter somebody from coming to the United Kingdom on a tourist visit? I think he said yes from a sedentary position. That is a judgment we will have to examine and look at. The impact assessment shows a marginal impact. It is something we will have to look at. When and if we bring forward proposals on the rise from £10 to a potential maximum in the future, we will look at those issues. I do not know—do I not go to America because it costs me £35 or whatever it is for an ESTA? Do I not go to France, in due course, when I am charged a fee for its equivalent of an ESTA? Do I not go to Spain, to Greece or to other countries? Alternatively, do I absorb that as part of my tourism package?
Lord Foster of Bath (LD)
There is a great deal of research evidence on this very point. Going to America turns out to be very different from going to a country within the European Union. Going to a Schengen area country turns out to be very different now from going to the UK, because of course you can get one document to get into all the different countries. There is a great deal of evidence already about this, and when we bear in mind that this country has higher VAT on, for instance, accommodation, tourist attractions and so on than most other countries, we are already at a disadvantage. All I am grateful for is that the Minister has assured me that we are going to have full consultation and a full impact assessment when he brings the next stage forward.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
There will be an impact assessment. I still say to the noble Lord that people want to come to London: they want to see this building and Buckingham Palace; they want to see Downing Street and Trafalgar Square. In my home city of Liverpool, people want to see Beatles-related material or they go for football matches. People will go to York because of its history. People go to Scotland—the noble Lord’s home base—because they like Edinburgh and Scottish culture. That is not going to change because we have gone from £10 to £16. There might be other factors that stop people coming but I am not convinced that that figure will be looked at. I reassure the noble Lord that if the figure goes at a future date from £10 up to the maximum of £16 on that proposal, there will be an impact assessment and he can test it. He can vote for or against it in due course.
The noble Lord made another important point on the ETA form and I am grateful to him for raising it. I want to get the bottom of the source of his knowledge about potential translations—I will do this, if I may, outside the Grand Committee. I will look at it and write back to him in due course. At the moment, the form is available only in English. It has been launched in the Gulf countries. We have had no significant feedback, but I will take that point away. If there were assurances given previously by Ministers or officials, I want to get to the bottom of them. I am not aware of them from the discussions that we had today or from my discussions with officials in the Home Office. We will look at that in due course.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, talked about the logic for all of this. The logic is that we have to fund the cost of the migration system. The logic is that if there are fee-level increases—which are not yet on the table, but could come—with impact assessments, these will be to ensure that we maximise the income to cover the cost of administration and of border systems generally. There may also be some businesses that ask, “Can I recruit home-grown employment?”. That is an important consequence as well.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
I am grateful for the Minister’s response. I am mindful that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said that some of the increases in the maxima might not cover the administrative costs of introducing them. That then starts to be a burden on the Home Office’s budget, so is analysis being done to look at that? It will otherwise become counter- productive.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The driver for some of these issues is to ensure that we have self-sufficiency on costs for this area. Obviously, I am talking today about the potential for maximas. We are not talking about what those fees are going to be. They may be the maximas and they may not. The Home Office will take that decision and it will lie predominantly with Ministers who are Members of the House of Commons, rather than of the House of Lords—such as myself. We will discuss those fee increases. That is a decision taken by the Minister for Migration and Borders, who is a Member of the House of Commons in the Home Office team. We will look at that and these orders will come forward to both Houses in due course. I will take feedback and discussion, as I am doing now with colleagues in this House.
The general principle of this is that we ensure that we raise that resource and potentially look at challenging behaviour so that we give opportunities for people to say, “If it costs X to bring someone from Y country, are those skills available locally to boost the economy locally?” That is a perfectly legitimate policy objective that I think was shared by the last Government and which is not difficult for Members to accept and understand.
I hope that I am covering all the points. The final point that I want to make is on Northern Ireland. Citizens of the UK, including citizens who live in Northern Ireland—whether they identify as Irish or British—will not have an ETA to go to Ireland, and, vice-versa, Irish citizens will not need an ETA to go to Northern Ireland. There will be tourist movement from other countries into Ireland and Northern Ireland, and potentially into the United Kingdom as a whole through that route. I am cognisant of that and we are aware of it. We will make an assessment on that. Again, I repeat my record that says that we have not yet made the decisions on the figures. We have not brought those forward or made the impact assessment but when we do, I will be ensuring with colleagues that that impact on Northern Ireland tourism is assessed, as will be the impact of the collectability of that ETA in relation to the island of Ireland and the common travel area.
I am grateful to noble Lords who have raised that issue but it is something on which we have worked closely with the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government since the inception of the ETA policy. We will continue to work with those partners to understand the impact of ETAs in Northern Ireland. By requiring an ETA on crossing the land border, we will also have a better understanding of those who are seeking to come to the United Kingdom. However, as noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Foster, will know, the land border issue in Northern Ireland is sensitive and not one that we wish to see imposed—as it was, even in the times when I was a Northern Ireland Minister 20 years ago.
With that, I hope that I have answered the points made. I commend this order to the Grand Committee.
UK Border Strategy: Single Trade Window
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate
To ask His Majesty’s Government why they have paused the implementation of the Single Trade Window as set out in the 2025 UK Border Strategy (CP352), published in December 2020.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, in the context of a challenging fiscal inheritance—
Lord Livermore (Lab)
In the context of a challenging fiscal inheritance, the Government paused the delivery of the single trade window as part of a wider value-for-money review across public spending. It remains our long-term intention to deliver a single trade window to support businesses trading across the UK border, and we will provide an update as part of the next phase of the spending review.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
I find that Answer somewhat disappointing and repetitive. I put it to the Minister that this trade window has been accepted. It was a Conservative proposal, which, for once, I believed that the new Government were going to agree to. It has massive support among our traders and all our businesses. It will save them £2 billion in the next 10 years in extra paperwork and red tape. Does the Minister not agree that having the trade window would fit exactly within the Government’s policies of improving the growth in our economy and encouraging trade around the world?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. He is absolutely right when he talks about additional bureaucracy and red tape—created by the Brexit trade deal that the previous Government agreed to. That is the only reason why we need to try to ameliorate the difficulties created by that trade deal. It remains our long-term intention to deliver a single trade window. Businesses benefit from trade, so minimising administrative burdens and reducing trade frictions remain a priority for this Government. We will consider the role the single trade window can play in that, and we will provide an update as part of the next phase of the spending review.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, the European Union is the biggest trading partner for the United Kingdom. Obviously, a single trading window is very important, so can the Minister outline when and whether we will get a single customs review, and a single customs window with the European Union?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I agree, I think, with the underlying point that the noble Lord is making. Clearly, trade with the European Union is incredibly important. The European Union is our largest single trading partner. Four of our top five export markets are in the EU, and eight out of the top 10 in the EU account for nearly 50% of our trade. This is exactly why we must reset our relationship with the EU, our single biggest trading partner. We recognise that delivering new agreements will take time, but we are ambitious, we have clear priorities, and we want to move forward at pace.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister as bored as I am by the Opposition’s attacks on the Labour Government for trying to resolve the problems that were created by the last Government? When will he remind them what Boris said about the benefits of the leaving the European Union? We have seen all the problems with it, but we have not seen many of the benefits.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My noble friend is obviously absolutely right on that point. We are being attacked here for not implementing the solution to the problems that they created. Importers now face up 40 pages of forms that they must fill in: customs declarations, goods movement records and agricultural declarations. Exporters face up to 100 questions every time they wish to move goods to the European Union. We were told that, as a result of Brexit, we would continue to enjoy the exact same benefits. I think nothing could be further from the truth.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I declare my technology interests set out in the register. What steps are the Government are taking to promote the benefits of the Electronic Trade Documents Act, to both current exporters and exporters, and to get nations around the world to pass similar legislation so that the whole world can benefit from electronic trade documents? These cut the time it takes to trade from days to minutes, delivering economic, environmental and social benefits for all.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question and his expertise on this matter. It is not something I know about, I am afraid, but I will happily write to him on this issue.
Baroness O’Loan (CB)
My Lords, in the context of the endless reiteration of the fiscal hole that the Government keep referring to, I was reading last night that the OBR did not recognise the figures given. I do not think it helps the House when we go round in circles on that. At a time when the Minister seeks to develop trade and industry, when the Government are moving to improve the economy, and when a single trade window would undoubtedly deliver significant benefits for the British economy, the Government are imposing additional burdens on business, such as the measures on which we will vote this afternoon. Would it not enable significant development simply to move on this process?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
Yes, I agree with some of what the noble Baroness says about the benefits of a single trade window. Again, we have to be able to pay for these things. We have had to pause many of the previous Government’s spending commitments because the money was simply not there to pay for them, which goes to the heart of the issue that she started her question on. She may dispute the figures, but I do not think anyone disputes the fact that those spending commitments were there but there was not the money there to pay for them. As I say, it remains our long-term intention to deliver the single trade window, but we will have to do so when resources allow, and we will update noble Lords at the time of the next spending review.
Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)
My Lords, given that this is the second delay to the single trade window announced by this Government since they took office, and that the rollout will be halted until April 2026 at the very earliest, does the Minister accept that there is a significant cost from such a lengthy delay, not least in the view of the National Audit Office, which reported that a 12-month delay in delivering the STW could reduce the benefits realised by more than £850 million over 10 years?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question, but let us remember what the costs are that we are trying to reduce here: they are from the previous Government’s ill-conceived Brexit deal, which imposed new trade barriers on businesses equivalent to a 13% increase in tariffs for manufacturing and 20% in tariffs for services. As a result, the Office for Budget Responsibility found that GDP will be 4% lower and overall trade intensity will be 15% lower than had the UK remained in the European Union. Of course, we want to try to ameliorate the difficulties of the previous Government’s disastrous Brexit deal, but it will take time to ensure that the fiscal resources are there. As I say, it remains our long-term intention to deliver that single trade window, but we can do so only when resources allow.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, it is not just trade in goods that is important but trade in services. The last Government promised free cultural touring after Brexit, but they were unable to deliver it. What progress are this Government making in delivering a cultural touring agreement with the European Union to allow musicians and other artists to perform more freely across Europe?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for his question. It was a key manifesto commitment of this Government to deliver those touring visas and it remains a key ask of ours in the EU reset negotiations. We recognise that delivering such new agreements will take time, but we are ambitious and we want to move forward at pace.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the Minister’s analysis about the bad economic consequences of Brexit, with 12% lower GDP. Does he not agree that the only way that we can get rid of trade costs, as he wishes, is by rejoining the customs union and single market? Tinkering at the edges will have virtually no positive benefit for most small exporters.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I agreed very much with the beginning of the noble Lord’s question but less as he progressed. He is absolutely right that the measures he proposes would eliminate those challenges and I pay tribute to him for consistently advocating a pro-European case. We are committed to resetting our relationship with the EU. It is our biggest trading partner. As I said, the Prime Minister was the first Prime Minister since Brexit to have attended a meeting of the EU Council and the Chancellor was the first Chancellor since Brexit to have attended a meeting of the Eurogroup of EU Finance Ministers. We are ambitious to reset that relationship and we will continue to move forward at pace.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, further to the original Question, can the Minister explain why it would cost the Government quite so much to introduce this window?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
There are costs from designing, developing and administering the technical delivery platform, which have been clearly set out by Deloitte, with support from IBM. We have retained the technical platform in order to retain the option for a future restart of the project. This would allow us to capitalise on the previous investment and could enable a simpler and faster restart of development activity in the future. As I say, we will update the House at the next spending review.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, returning to the initial Answer, could the Minister remind the House of the challenging fiscal deficit that we inherited?
Lord Livermore (Lab)
I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me the opportunity to say “£22 billion” just once.
Stockton and Darlington Railway: 200th Anniversary
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Stansgate
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to commemorate the 200th anniversary of the Stockton and Darlington Railway.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I declare a lifelong interest in railways.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
The Stockton and Darlington Railway, the world’s first railway to use steam locomotives to transport passengers, shaped modern railways. To mark its 200th anniversary, Railway 200—a national celebration—is supporting the Stockton and Darlington bicentenary festival. That festival will highlight its impact on the local and regional industry, communities and innovation. My department is supportive of these events and of ensuring that the Stockton and Darlington Railway is rightly honoured for transforming transport and Britain’s and the world’s economy.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. There are clearly many activities to which we can look forward. May I ask three quick questions? First, can he say a little bit more about the so-called Greatest Gathering, which I understand is going to take place in August in Derby, and which will bring together an unprecedentedly wide range of trains illustrating 200 years? Secondly, what hopes do the Government have that this anniversary will help the heritage railway industry, on which so much of our historical culture and tourism depends? Finally, will it look ahead to the future of railways, particularly the exciting new direct journeys from London to places in Europe and beyond?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. The celebration in Derby is from 1 to 3 August. It will be a huge gathering of historic and current railway equipment. It is entirely put on by Alstom, which occupies Britain’s oldest train manufacturing plant, and it will be a great occasion. The heritage railways movement is worth £600 million a year to the economy and has 4,000 employees and 22,000 volunteers. It has had a hard time since Covid, and one of the purposes of Railway 200 is to give it a bit of a hand in survival and growth. In respect of the present and the future, the real reason why this Government should support this celebration so much is that the railway is extraordinarily relevant to the modern economy: connectivity drives growth, jobs and housing, and, on the future, the technological change that the railways are presently going through is an eminently marketable resource. He is also right, of course, that European connectivity is important. My department is working as hard as it can to increase the number of European destinations accessible through Eurotunnel.
Lord Houchen of High Leven (Con)
My Lords, I hope noble Lords can already sense my excitement at this Question, so I appreciate the time. It is an extremely important celebration—I declare an interest as the regional mayor for the Darlington and Stockton area—which will go down as a point in history for a key piece of infrastructure that hopefully will shape not just our past but our future. Along those lines, I ask the Minister: what is the department’s and the Government’s position on the CRSTS2 budget, which is still under review ahead of the spending review, and what representations is he making to the Treasury to make sure we protect that capital investment, to make sure that we can invest it not just in general transport but specifically within our rail infrastructure, to make sure we have a rail infrastructure fit for the 21st century?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
Well, it is not much of a leap to funding in the spending review, so the noble Lord has answered his own question—the CRSTS2 budget is in process, there will be a spending review, and my department is extraordinarily active in making sure that the position of transport is well represented to the Chancellor in the Budget. But he will have to wait, as everybody else will, for the outcome of the spending review in due course.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, is it not worth reflecting that, 200 years ago, British engineering designed and built the first steam locomotives, built a phenomenal network of railways across our country, most of which is still intact and used today, exported all over the world and built railways in pretty well every continent? Fast forward to today and we have a situation where, while large numbers of countries across the world are building new railways and new high-speed lines, the last Tory Government took the absurd and costly decision to cancel HS2 north of Birmingham. Would not it be a wonderful way of celebrating 200 years of railway history if the Minister could come to this Dispatch Box and say, “We are going to clear up the Tory mess and build HS2”?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that. The first priority of this Government is to get the present phase 1 of HS2 back under control. This Government inherited a situation where they could predict neither the cost nor the timescale of completion of the line between London and Birmingham. The Chancellor has taken the brave but right decision of restarting the tunnels to Euston, without which the railway would have no proper end, and our job is to make that work. Our job is also to put forward a plan for railway infrastructure for the rest of the country, particularly the Midlands and the north, and a lot of effort is going on in my department to do that logically, properly and in a properly costed and prioritised way.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, given this Question is about commemorating the railway, can the Minister confirm what plans the Government have to mark the first rail franchise coming into public ownership this May? Could it be commemorated with the provision of a basic catering service for passengers on the Waterloo to Exeter line, and perhaps even some seat reservations?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The first publicly run South Western Railway train will be at an extraordinarily early hour on 20 May. I fear I will have the doubtful privilege of traveling on it. I doubt it will have catering, because I suspect it is a suburban service from Strawberry Hill to Waterloo. The more serious answer about the Waterloo to Exeter line is that it could be more reliable, and a lot of effort is being put into making it more reliable. South Western, like most other current franchises, has a shortage of drivers, and I am working extremely hard with the department to make sure that it works better for the passengers both prior to and post the operation coming back into public ownership. We will look at catering, but the first priority is to make the train service reliable.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, in joining the good people of Stockton in celebrating the 200th anniversary, will the Minister recall that the first steam engine ran a decade earlier in Merthyr Tydfil, designed by the outstanding Cornish engineer Richard Trevithick? That was a reflection of the industrial greatness of those valleys at that time. Looking at HS2, which was mentioned a moment ago, will the Government now ensure that the Barnett consequentials come through to the Welsh Government in order for them to build a future for the railways in Wales that Wales most certainly deserves?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
There is a Celtic competition between the Penydarren tramway of, I think, 1814 and its originator, Trevithick, who came from Camborne. Personally, I side on the Cornish side of that argument. The more serious point the noble Lord raised is of course a matter of national finance and one for my Treasury colleagues and the Chancellor.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister recall that the steam engine was invented by a Scot, James Watt? I declare my interest as chairman of the Steam Boat Association and raise the serious point that we are very dependent on heritage railway in our country for tourism. The decision to close the last remaining coal mines means that coal has to be imported at great expense for that purpose. What are the Government going to do about it? Is this not an example of net-zero ideology harming our economy?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I am certainly willing to give credit to another Celtic nation for the invention of the steam engine. The matter of coal is, of course, a much wider question than coal for heritage railways. I would ask the noble Lord to look at an aerial photograph of the last Welsh opencast coal mine and the hideous blot on the landscape that it represents, and also at the huge damage that coal and the coal-fired equipment has done to the environment and the atmosphere. It is a factor in the continued provision of heritage railways and, as he says, steamboats, that there should be some coal. There is some coal, and I can write to him, if he wants, about the means by which coal substitutes can be procured rather than reopening coal mines.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, returning to the Question, Parliament, particularly your Lordships’ House, played a crucial role in the creation of the railways. Over a period of 200 years, noble Lords have toiled at the coalface of the hybrid Bills and other legislation without which the railways would not exist at all today. Can the Minister say that Parliament will feature prominently in the celebrations of the 200th anniversary of the railways? Might there even be an opportunity for noble Lords to fulfil some childhood dreams and drive a steam train?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I can certainly ensure that the noble Lord is able to drive a steam train, but it will not be on a railway line near Parliament. Parliament will have a unique opportunity this year to contribute to the future of Britain’s railways by considering and then passing the forthcoming railways Bill, which will put the railway back into a state where it can generate revenue, run better and reduce its costs. I think that will be an excellent contribution of Parliament to the future of the railway.
Airport Expansion
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Earl Russell
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to consult the Committee on Climate Change before taking decisions on airport expansion.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)
The Government published their report on the Climate Change Committee’s latest progress report in December last year. The response makes it clear that we recognise the role for airport expansion where it provides economic growth and is compatible with our net-zero target and strict environmental standards. As part of the Airports National Policy Statement review, referred to by the Chancellor in her recent Statement, we will engage with stakeholders on how aviation expansion can be made consistent with our net-zero framework.
Earl Russell (LD)
This level of airport expansion is always going to be incompatible with our climate change commitments. It would undo all our work on climate change in under five years. When just 15% of the population is responsible for 70% of all flights, the Government must do more to curb demand. No economy in the world has grown from building runways alone. Meanwhile, in 2024, the green economy grew by 10%, adding £83 billion. Does the Minister agree that what is needed more than anything else are clear and consistent government policies on climate change and green growth, not this damaging policy confusion?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I certainly do not agree with the noble Earl’s assertion about the incompatibility of this. The Government have been clear that any airport expansion proposals need to demonstrate that they contribute to economic growth, can be delivered in line with the UK’s legally binding climate change commitments, and meet strict environmental requirements on air quality and noise pollution. The work of the department has shown that we can achieve aviation net zero by 2050 under a range of assumptions about future technology development without the Government needing to intervene directly to limit airport expansion.
Lord Sharma (Con)
My Lords, when it comes to airport expansion and more flights, one of the key measures that can be used to reduce emissions is the increased use of sustainable aviation fuels. I welcome the SAF mandate but, when it comes to job creation and energy security, it is important that the SAF we are using in the UK is manufactured in the UK. Will the Minister set out what plans the Government have to support SAF production in the UK? Will he tell me how many jobs he expects to have been created in that sector specifically under those plans by 2030?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that sustainable aviation fuel is important in reducing the carbon footprint of air traffic. This Government have taken forward the SAF mandate, which came into force in January, which progressively increases the percentage of sustainable jet fuel used from this year onwards. It is also important, as the noble Lord says, that the UK is a supplier, and the actions of the Government are to make sure that there are jobs in Britain and that Britain is a leading supplier of this. On 29 January, the Government announced £63 million of funding for the advanced fuels fund in the next financial year to support SAF producers based across the United Kingdom. I do not have a jobs figure to hand for SAF, but I will willingly write to the noble Lord and tell him what we know about it.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, on the subject of airport expansion, there are airports around the country that are under capacity currently, including Cardiff Airport. What consideration have the Government given to working with the Welsh Government on driving more business in the direction of airports such as Cardiff Airport?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The Government recognise the importance of regional airports. I do not have in front of me what the Government are doing about the expansion of Cardiff Airport, but I will willingly write to my noble friend and tell him exactly what we know about Cardiff’s expansion and the Government’s role in helping it.
Baroness Brown of Cambridge (CB)
My Lords, when we did the Airports Commission review, the UK’s 2050 target was only an 80% emissions reduction, yet the third runway at Heathrow still required reduced growth at regional airports to keep within our carbon budgets. Has this analysis been redone and are the conclusions the same? Should we not wait for the seventh carbon budget, which is being published tomorrow?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I stand by the earlier figures I mentioned on achieving aviation net zero by 2050. The noble Baroness is right that the seventh report will be published tomorrow. The proposals from Heathrow, or any other promoter’s proposals, for a third runway have not yet been received. They will have to be followed by an application for a development consent order, which will have to be properly processed. It is not incompatible with the forthcoming publication for the Chancellor to express her enthusiasm for a third runway and the economic growth that it will produce.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, by 2040 aviation will be responsible for 27% of the UK’s carbon emissions. Given that most people in Britain—and in fact the world—do not get on a flight in any given year, is it not time to see that aviation is a luxury and not a human right, and to bring in a frequent flyer levy?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
While I respect the noble Baroness’s view, the fact remains that a decent analysis suggests a third runway will create economic growth of measurable proportions to the British economy. This Government are extraordinarily keen on economic growth, for the obvious reason that the legacy of the previous Government left the economy in a really bad place. We need to use every means of economic growth that we have got to grow the economy and make the country more prosperous.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, when Heathrow was previously promoting this runway some eight or nine years ago, the estimated cost was £18 billion. Because of the regulated asset-based model on which it is funded, this cost will fall on the airlines and then further, consequently, on the passengers of airlines. Should not the Government be consulting passengers about whether they want this runway, as much as anything else? What plans do the Government have to consult them, and indeed the airlines?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
As soon as the noble Lord got up, I was reminded that he was one of the principal promoters of the Thames estuary airport. That was a good, innovative and brave proposal, but would have cost the country far more than the figures he is quoting for the expansion of Heathrow. We have to wait for the proposals from Heathrow, or any other promoter, for the third runway and see what they look like. We can then see what the application for a DCO actually consists of, how much it is said to cost and what else needs to be done in order to achieve it. That will clearly be work in progress, considering that a proposal is expected only early in the summer.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, the Government—the Minister referred to this a moment ago—based their pronouncements on Heathrow on a report by Frontier Economics, but I recognise the key graph. It looks like a forecast for high demand for air travel, which is then met by Heathrow runway 3, but it is actually a graph of how much more air travel could be induced by runway 3 if a company applied an aggressive marketing strategy. How does a strategy based on inducing more air travel fit with the Government’s statements on climate change?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
The next process is that the Government are committed to reviewing the Airports National Policy Statement, which is a government action. Then, as I say, this summer we will receive proposals from Heathrow, or from any other promoter, about a third runway, followed by an application for a development consent order. The matters that the noble Baroness refers to will no doubt be set out in Heathrow’s proposals and those of any other promoter, and then set out in detail in the DCO. We have to wait until then to see what they say about the demand, how it should be paid for—which was the subject of the previous question—and the Government’s view about what it will do for the economy.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, where there are major changes to large airports, will the Government take into account the needs of smaller aircraft such as air taxis, which are very often subject to changes in wind speed and direction, for example?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I cannot say whether a third runway at Heathrow will materially affect the ability of the airport to accept air taxis. There is clearly a limit to what size of aircraft can be landed, not only at the moment but in the future, but we will bear the noble Lord’s suggestion in mind.
Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)
I know that the Minister is a great supporter of UK connectivity; indeed, I would recommend his report on the same to the House. Given that that is the case, could he confirm that, for some of us, flight is essential?
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness. She will know that I spent a large portion of lockdown looking at connectivity in the United Kingdom. I entirely agree with her that the economy of Northern Ireland is utterly dependent on good flights to and from London and other places in mainland Britain. One of the opportunities that a third runway would give is better connectivity to Heathrow, the UK’s only hub airport, especially for Northern Ireland and places in Scotland, to make that economy grow, as well as mainland Britain’s economy.
Democratic Republic of the Congo: M23 Group
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their response to reports that Rwandan troops are supporting the M23 group in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, the United Kingdom condemns the recent M23 and Rwandan Defence Force advances in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo as an unacceptable breach of DRC’s sovereignty. On 22 February the Foreign Secretary met with President Kagame and was clear that there can be no military solution. The United Kingdom today announced several policy measures, which we will maintain until there is a withdrawal of all RDF from the Congolese territory.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
I thank the Minister for his reply. It has recently been reported that 7,000 people were killed during January, and 450,000 people have been displaced from about 90 camps. According to reports, the M23 intends to advance right across to Kinshasa. Is it not totally unacceptable for one country to support a rebel group in a neighbouring country? What steps are the Government taking in relation to the United Nations and the African Union to bring this conflict under control before it gets totally out of hand and engulfs the whole of an already fragile DRC?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
Noble Lords will appreciate what I have reported before. Right from day one, we have been engaged with President Lourenço of Angola to ensure that there is a process to achieve long-lasting peace in the region. That is long overdue, because the internally displaced people are numerous and suffering hugely. These recent advances create an even worse situation.
On Friday I was pleased to talk to the Ministers in Dar es Salaam who were hosting the EAC-SADC summit, which produced a communiqué towards peace in the region and set out a very clear road map to achieve the withdrawal. Our concern is that the Rwandans have not fully complied with that, which is why we have made the announcement today of the measures we are taking, along with our allies, to ensure that they respond to that African-led peace process.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the UK has given more than £1 billion in development aid to Rwanda in recent years. As has been said, evidence is mounting that Rwandan troops are heavily involved in the fighting in DRC. Is it not increasingly difficult to justify this funding when the Rwandan Government themselves are spending so much time, energy and money intervening militarily in a sovereign neighbouring state?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Lord’s previous Government reached an agreement to give substantially more money to Rwanda.
The important point here is that our focus for development assistance is on those most in need. The measures that we announced today—I was able to convey these to the Foreign Minister of Rwanda in Geneva this morning at the Human Rights Council—are as follows: we will cease high-level attendance at events hosted by the Government of Rwanda; we are freezing trade promotion activity with Rwanda; we are reviewing our existing trade infrastructure in facilitation projects; and we are pausing direct bilateral financial aid to the Government of Rwanda. We are excluding from this our support for the poorest and most vulnerable, which is not direct support; we are committed to that. We are also co-ordinating with partners on potential sanctions designations and suspending future defence training assistance to Rwanda. Our position is absolutely clear. We want to ensure that these measures achieve what they set out to do: to ensure that Rwanda commits to the peace process led by the African Union.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
We will hear from my noble friend Lord Browne and then from the Liberal Democrat Benches.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary warned that the conflict in the DRC
“risks spiralling into a regional conflict”.
It is already a humanitarian crisis, with 40,000 refugees fleeing to Burundi alone—the largest influx that country has had in 25 years. Are we contributing to the UNHCR’s $40.4 million appeal to provide life-saving assistance to 275,000 internally displaced people in the DRC and to support refugees and returnees across Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very good point. The real risk was that this was going to create regional instability, which is why we not only supported the Luanda process but very much welcomed the convening of the SADC-EAC meeting in Dar es Salaam last week, which set out a very clear process. He is absolutely right to draw attention to the huge humanitarian cost of 2.7 million people displaced—IDPs in eastern DRC. The United Kingdom is the leading humanitarian partner in DRC and the second-largest donor in the country, allocating over £62 million for this financial year for humanitarian programmes in eastern DRC. I also take seriously my responsibility as the envoy for the prevention of sexual violence in conflict. That is a huge risk at the moment, and we are devoted to supporting survivors of sexual violence in that region. We are not going to rest until we ensure that all parties are focused on that agreement reached in Dar es Salaam at the end of last week.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, during the passage of the Illegal Migration Bill and the safety of Rwanda Bill, I asked the previous Government for details—but failed to get them—of the £240 million economic and integration fund that the previous Government gave to Paul Kagame’s Government. Can the Minister assure me that not a single penny of UK money has gone to non-humanitarian assistance in Rwanda, and especially the £20 million credit line provided to Paul Kagame’s Government for preparation of facilities that were not then needed? How much money are we getting back from his Government?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Lord knows that we stopped that agreement immediately when we came into office. We are absolutely clear that we have ceased all payments in respect to it and will not return to making any of those payments. But we are determined to support those most vulnerable and most in need, and we will continue to do that.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister tell us what happened in Kasanga in Kivu on Thursday last, when 70 people were hacked to death with machetes and hammers by an organisation that is said to be linked to ISIS as they took refuge in a church? What are we doing to confirm those reports? Have we raised this with the International Criminal Court and the African Union to ensure that those responsible for this terrible atrocity are brought to justice?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Lord is right to draw that to our attention, but the reality is that we are trying to ensure that all crimes committed in the process of this advance are properly investigated so that we can hold people to account. When I met the Foreign Minister of Rwanda this morning in Geneva, he denied all these accusations and refuted the story in the Guardian. I reassured him that we would be absolutely determined not only to ensure that they comply with the communiqué but to hold people to account for crimes against humanity.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that it is not just a question of regular Rwandan troops being embedded in M23? There are now special forces involved as well, and there is overwhelming evidence that war crimes have been committed on both sides. I congratulate the Minister on the very robust set of measures he announced; the Government deserve credit for this. He mentioned SADC, but can he say what he is doing with the AU? Its offices can also be very useful in trying to find a way forward.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. When we committed to the Luanda process, we were not sure exactly what steps we could achieve in the final outcome. President Lourenço assured me about what he was trying to achieve. We cannot restore trust, but we can build confidence at each stage. Unfortunately, the 15 December summit did not take place; things fell apart, and we saw the advances. Now, as I said, SADC and the EAC have come together in Dar es Salaam, overseen by the African Union. They are taking the lead. The African Union has also appointed three facilitators to ensure that the process is moved forward in a much more consistent and coherent way.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, is there not a danger of contradictory policies? A country invades its neighbour. Its forces carry out human rights atrocities and take several cities. We rightly condemn what Russia is doing in Ukraine. Should we not be equally robust in respect of a Commonwealth country, Rwanda?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right. We have been clear with all allies, including the United States, in condemning this absolute breach of DRC’s sovereignty. We are making it clear that it is unacceptable. We and our allies have taken co-ordinated action so that Rwanda commits to the process it has agreed to and delivers the long-lasting peace that the people of DRC so deserve.
Holocaust Memorial Bill
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Plant Oxford Site
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I start by saying how delighted we all are to see the Minister back in her place on the Front Bench. We were all appalled to hear about her sad accident and hope that her appearance today means that she is now restored to full health.
Having said all that, given BMW’s decision to review its £600 million investment in electric Mini production due to slowing EV demand, I ask the Government whether they now acknowledge that their decision not to delay the 2030 ban on internal combustion engine cars was a mistake. Will they reconsider their approach to ensure that the UK remains an attractive destination for automotive investment?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his kind comments and look forward to working with him in our new roles in the future.
The precise timeline for the launch of Oxford’s Mini new electric vehicle models is a commercial matter for the company. It is not unusual for a manufacturer in the automotive industry to adjust its plans for future products, including production dates. However, the reasons given by BMW are the “multiple uncertainties” that it is facing rather than any specific issue. Its concerns are about the timings and not about the willingness to invest. We are, of course, in regular dialogue with BMW to understand its future investment timelines and to discuss its plans for the UK plants and those employed there.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, perhaps it would help if we identified some of the headwinds that our automotive industry is facing. To meet the mandate and try to sell enough EVs, last year our top motor brands discounted a total of £4.5 million and still they will not reach the mandate and will face penalties. On top of that, energy costs are up to 65% higher than the costs faced in the rest of Europe and of course there are higher business rate multiples and employer NIC costs coming up. Those are the challenges that our businesses face. Will the Minister at least acknowledge that there is a challenge and undertake to find ways of better meeting it, perhaps by helping consumers to buy more EVs and looking at energy costs?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, of course we understand the challenges faced by the sector. The Government have been working closely with stakeholders across the automotive industry and beyond to support demand for zero-emission electric vehicles. Defra has been consulting on this issue and recently closed a consultation to understand stakeholders’ views on the transition to zero-emission vehicles. However, this is not just a UK issue; a number of countries, particularly in Europe, have similar zero-emission targets for cars. It is a challenge that all automotive companies are facing globally. Nevertheless, we are committed to making the UK one of the best places in the world for automotive investment. In the Budget, we committed over £2 billion of capital and research funding for zero-emission vehicle manufacturing and its supply chains. We continue to work with this very important growth sector; it is one of the arms of our industrial strategy, so we see a strong future for the automotive industry. Nevertheless, the noble Lord has made an important point.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
May I ask my noble friend to pay tribute to BMW? These are very difficult times, with global headwinds making it extremely difficult for the automotive industry. BMW is an excellent employer, and I hope that there will not be redundancies, but should there, be I hope that the Government would do everything they could to safeguard jobs in Oxford. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to BMW for the work that it does in the community—it believes in enhancing the lives and opportunities of people who live in the environs of the factory.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I concur with my noble friend’s point. BMW often describes Oxford as the home of the Mini and sees that investment as crucial. I hope that my noble friend and other noble Lords will welcome our new announcement for the Oxford-Cambridge corridor and the high-potential sectors within that, in which the automotive sector could well play a part. My noble friend Lord Vallance will be the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor champion; it will ensure new investment into the sector and, I hope, provide further encouragement for BMW to carry on investing in the Mini lines.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in light of the lighter restrictions which many of our allies have placed on the import of cars made in China, and given that the labour used to manufacture those vehicles is often connected to slave labour in Xinjiang and there can therefore never be fair or proper competition in any sense of the word, what account are the Government taking of the threat posed by the flooding of our markets by the unrestricted import of large numbers of electric cars from China?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we are very aware of the situation with regard to China, in particular Chinese electric vehicles. China’s role in the global automotive industry is growing, which presents both risks and opportunities for us. We will not hesitate to act where that creates issues or problems for the UK, but we are very mindful of the opportunities that this presents as well. Our automotive industry in the UK is very different from those of other European countries because it is export oriented; we export 80% of our cars abroad, unlike, for example, the EU and the US, where production is sold domestically. Nevertheless, we are aware of the issues that the noble Lord raises and will continue to act in our interests.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as the daughter of a former assembly line worker at Cowley—I am very conscious of the incredibly skilled and dedicated workforce there—and as a trade unionist who, frankly, has worked with motor companies and unions through many ups and downs over the years and knows the importance of working together. Can my noble friend reassure us that, as well as working closely with the company, the Government are working closely with the unions to ensure a strong future for the car industry and that that future is electric?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My noble friend makes a very important point. We are talking not just to the employers but to the unions about the future for the staff employed there. They have a central role to play in helping us build the development of the manufacturing of the future. When we enact the forthcoming Employment Rights Bill, there will be further opportunities for unions to be consulted and involved in decisions such as this.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, I have a deep concern. There is now a general view at Motability, which I founded, as some noble Lords will be aware, that it will not go to electric cars. For many car manufacturers today—very much in Germany and other places such as that—the margins are so thin that, over the next few years, many of them will go broke. I draw that to the Government’s attention before we put money into a company which may eventually go broke. Capitalism will work, but not necessarily in our favour.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an interesting point of which I was not aware. I will go away and look into it. We are investing in the development of electric vehicles; just today, the Department for Transport has extended the plug-in van grant for another year to help van drivers and businesses transition to zero-emission vehicles, which will mean that businesses and van drivers can receive grants of up to £2,500 when buying small vans. I do not know whether that will apply to the circumstances the noble Lord mentions, but I will certainly look at whether that is covered.
Great British Energy Bill
Tuesday 25th February 2025
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberGreat British Energy Bill 2024-26 View all Great British Energy Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 71 Running list of amendments – 20 February 2025 - (20 Feb 2025)
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
“Reviews of Great British Energy’s effectiveness
(1) The Secretary of State must appoint an independent person to carry out reviews of the effectiveness of Great British Energy.
(2) In carrying out the review, the independent person must have regard to the statement of strategic priorities prepared by the Secretary of State under section 5(1).
(3) After each review, the independent person must—
(a) prepare a report of the review, and
(b) submit the report to the Secretary of State.
(4) On receiving a report, the Secretary of State must—
(a) send a copy of the report to the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, and
(b) no less than 14 days after complying with paragraph (a)—
(i) publish the report, and
(ii) lay a copy of the report before Parliament.
(5) The first report must be submitted to the Secretary of State within the period of 5 years beginning with the day on which this Act comes into force.
(6) Subsequent reports must be submitted to the Secretary of State at intervals of not more than 5 years.
(7) In this section, references to an “independent person” are to a person who appears to the Secretary of State to be independent of—
(a) the Secretary of State, and
(b) Great British Energy.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to appoint an independent person to carry out reviews of the effectiveness of Great British Energy.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 1, in my name, inserts a new clause after Clause 6 which requires the Secretary of State to appoint an independent person to carry out reviews of Great British Energy’s effectiveness. Throughout the Bill’s passage, the Government have made it clear that we are committed to ensuring that Great British Energy is subject to appropriate accountability and reporting requirements.
In particular, we have set out in the Bill that Great British Energy’s annual report and accounts will be published and laid before Parliament. The annual report and accounts of Great British Energy will be subject to external audit and the Comptroller and Auditor General will be appointed as the company’s external auditor, in line with the Managing Public Money guidance. The accounting officer of Great British Energy, once appointed, will also be accountable to Parliament, and the National Audit Office will have the right to review Great British Energy’s work and report its findings publicly, and to the Public Accounts Committee.
Having reflected on arguments made on Report in relation to independent reviews, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, I am bringing forward this amendment. It will require the Secretary of State to appoint an independent person to carry out a review of the effectiveness of Great British Energy, including having regard to the statement of strategic priorities with which Great British Energy must comply.
The review prepared by this independent person will be submitted to the Secretary of State, who must ensure that it is published and laid before Parliament. The Secretary of State must share the report with the devolved Governments at least 14 days before publication. The first review must be submitted to the Secretary of State within five years of the Act coming into force, and there will be further reviews at a maximum of five-year intervals. We think that this sensibly balances additional accountability alongside the existing mechanisms of review and reporting, while not overburdening Great British Energy and ensuring that it has the time and space to take long-term strategic decisions as an operationally independent company, and as we have debated extensively during the preceding stages of the Bill.
I also repeat the assurance I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, on Report, which relates to additionality, and confirm that this will be an important principle for Great British Energy, particularly in respect of its investment activity. As such, we expect that these independent reviews will consider “additionality” as part of any assessment of Great British Energy’s effectiveness, having regard to the statement of strategic priorities in doing so.
This amendment is in keeping with a commitment I gave on Report. I hope noble Lords will support the amendment and I beg to move.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to thank the Minister for tabling this amendment, which, as he says, introduces a periodic independent review of Great British Energy’s effectiveness, as he undertook to do on Report. I am most grateful to him for the constructive discussions we have had around this as the Bill has moved through its stages. I also thank all noble Lords who have added their support to this through the process.
The amendment does not go quite as far as my amendment on Report, in two respects. First, as the Minister has just alluded to, it does not include any mention of reporting on the extent to which GBE has succeeded in encouraging private investment. However, the noble Lord was very clear on Report about the importance of the additionality principle for GBE and that he therefore expected that it will be covered by the independent review of effectiveness, and he has just repeated that in his speech just now, which gives me more than sufficient comfort on that question.
Secondly, my original amendment proposed a review every three years. While I think that it would have been better to have the initial review before 2030, which is the Government’s deadline for achieving decarbonisation —therefore, there would be time to do something about it if things were not going right—the five-year interval that the noble Lord’s amendment requires is a reasonable compromise.
I do have one question about the amendment. It was changed at the last minute to give the devolved Governments the opportunity to see the independent report 14 days prior to it being laid before Parliament. I fully understand and agree that the devolved Governments should be given the independent report, but I really do not understand why they should get it in advance of the UK Parliament. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain the reasons for that.
Frankly, however, that is not a major issue. I am very grateful to the Minister for tabling the amendment, which will be a very significant improvement to the transparency and accountability regime that Great British Energy will be subject to, and I therefore urge all noble Lords to support it.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I took part at Second Reading, but, sadly, I had a short sojourn in hospital during Committee and Report. I will make three points, although I support the whole Bill in principle.
It seems to me that three key areas fall under this amendment. The first is mini-reactors. Three years ago, I was told that Rolls-Royce was ready to go. It is fundamental that the mini-reactors get going.
Secondly, I understand there is some discussion about the role of hydrogen. I have contacted two universities, Cranfield and Manchester, which are doing extensive work. Additionally, the boiler workers’ union is totally involved. Hydrogen work is absolutely fundamental to the future of our energy, particularly for domestic heating.
Finally, there is still a view that, rather than import oil and gas, we should carry on some degree of exploration in the North Sea.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I welcome the government amendment and the way in which the Government have listened to your Lordships’ House on this Bill and overseen considerable improvements. One was the inclusion, finally, of community energy, something your Lordships’ House has been fighting for through two Governments and several energy Bills.
However, an important issue arises at this moment relating to community energy. While the amendment that the Government have put down will help community energy to grow in the medium to long term, the sector faces an urgent short-term problem: the uncertainty of the community energy fund’s future. The fund began in January 2024 and has been very successful and heavily oversubscribed: more than 150 community energy projects have been awarded grants. More than 100 projects are ready to go and are eligible for funding, but they will not receive it because the initial £10 million is expected to run out in May. This is the only substantive mechanism helping community energy to grow, yet it has no future beyond this year.
I make no apologies at all for representing Community Energy here. Its members have asked me to say that we have seen so many times with energy policy over the years a boom-bust cycle of funding and defunding and then funding and defunding again. There is a short-term issue here, although the Government have expressed their support for the long term. So can the Minister give me a clear statement on how the Government will deal with the uncertainty over the community energy fund’s future? Can he assure me that there will be early action to deal with the enthusiasm that the fund has not been able to meet, and clear instructions on that in the statement of strategic priorities for Great British Energy, as required by Clause 5 of the Bill?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister on bringing forward the amendment.
I support the words from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and ask the Minister what the current position is on the future of the community energy fund: the Government seem to support it, but we need to know how it will proceed and when it will come into effect. How comprehensive will the review, to which the amendment refers, be? It appears to be limited to finances, but can the Minister confirm that it will also cover sustainable development?
We heard for the first time, I think, on Report about the framework document, of which the noble Lord said at col. 1204 of Hansard that it will become available only after the Bill has received Royal Assent, yet it would seem to go to the very heart of sustainability and environmental protection, which are so key to this Bill. Can the Minister explain, if the framework document will indeed cover these points, because he linked it to the sustainable definition that he was using, as recognised by the UN, why it is not part of the Bill, why we have not had the opportunity to debate it, and what the relationship will be between the framework document and the contents of the amendment that he has just put forward?
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I briefly add my remarks to those of the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh and Lady Bennett, about the community energy fund. I thank the Minister for responding so positively to my noble friend Lord Vaux by bringing forward this amendment on more general accountability. It is a good step forward, but will he respond on those companies—I gather there are around 150—that would have been eligible for the community energy fund but will not be able to receive funding if the money indeed runs out in May, as is forecast? On that specific point, when the £100 million runs out in May, what will be put in its place?
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, I find the amendment extremely interesting. Perhaps I may just make a general point about the nature of such amendments and provisions outside this Bill. We see here a grey area between what is strictly on the Government’s credit and bill under the PSBR and what is in the private sector. Previous Governments have been caught on this barbed wire for many years as to what lies in the public sector and influences the Government’s credit and what does not. I think we are going to see the model contained in the Minister’s amendment in many other areas as well. Right around the world, Governments have all the demands on them to make utilities work, vast changes to infrastructure and so on, and the private sector has the money. Somehow, the two must be brought together, as we tried to do in the late 1990s with PFI—the private finance initiative—which ran into great difficulties, but there were some lessons to be learned from it.
We have to learn more lessons now, otherwise the finance for these things simply will not be found. This applies particularly in the energy sector, where very large investments are required over many years. The Government cannot do it because they cannot raise the money and the private sector does not want to take such risks. This is very interesting, and I see that the Minister has done his best in plunging into this still very grey area, because we do not really know how to define accountability or what it is we are calling to account.
As to the amendment itself, I had to smile. We have had similar arrangements in the distant past for bodies that are neither public nor private, and this is an attempt to overcome the problems of that in the past.
It is, frankly, not very easy to evaluate the amendment to appoint this independent person to review effectiveness if we are not quite sure what “effectiveness” means. It says, “turn to Section 5(1) on the obligations on the Secretary of State to lay down certain criteria”, which, apparently, he has not done yet, so we do not know what the criteria will be. They will appear in six months’ time. Of course, it is easy to think of various criteria to allow one to say, “An organisation has, unfortunately, lost a lot of money but has still done terribly well, because I have these criteria here which show that it has achieved certain other objectives”. There are criteria that we can think about: externalities, opportunities for broader contributions, geopolitical objectives. All these things not only rest on highly subjective judgments but will be very far in the future. The analogy comes to mind of goalposts on wheels: the goalposts have been moved from time to time and from year to year as to whether effectiveness has been achieved, even though a lot of money may have been lost.
I have to put in a reservation that all these issues are matters of intense debate. All round the planet some of the best minds are wrestling with the effectiveness measurements of certain huge investments of a green nature, which look terrific but, unfortunately, either do not make money or go wrong, but nevertheless contribute to some part of the battle against climate violence and to some limitation on the ever-rising carbon dioxide and methane emissions.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I will speak first to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. These Benches are pleased to see that continued progress has been made and that this government amendment has been brought forward. There has been a unanimous voice across the House that there needed to be more reviews in the Bill and that it was important to have this amendment, so we are pleased to have it in place.
I echo what was said on the Government’s amendment to the amendment and the addition of proposed new subsection (4)(a), which requires a copy of the review to be sent to the devolved Ministers 14 days before it comes to Parliament. My assumption is that that is there so that the devolved authorities have a chance to comment on the review and that those comments have a chance to come before Parliament, but it would be useful if the Minister could confirm why that new subsection has been added and what the Government’s thinking is on it.
We welcome the review, but it is happening over a five-year timeframe, with the first review completed at the important date of 2030. If the Government recognise the need for the review, why not have it on a more regular basis? A three-year or four-year timeframe would be more useful for this proposed new subsection to have the effect that the Government intend it to have.
I turn beyond the amendment to what I want to say at the end of Third Reading. These Benches have been consistently supportive of the Government and their objectives in this Bill. We believe that, done well, GB Energy will help to secure our energy independence and reduce our reliance on volatile international gas markets, which have proved so costly for UK bill payers and our economic prosperity.
The previous Conservative Government spent some £40 billion subsidising bill payers, and that money provided no long-term benefit to our overall energy security. Just this week, the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit published a report on the anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine, stating that £140 billion has been spent by the UK on the international gas markets since 2021—the equivalent of £1,300 per person. Again, this has brought no long-term benefits.
We have the third-best wind resources in the world, so it is great to see that these are finally being properly developed to bring us long-term energy security and to reduce costs for our energy bill payers. The CBI reported this week that the green economy contributed £80 billion in gross value added to the UK economy last year and grew at a rate of 10%—three times faster than the rest of the UK economy.
Having said all that, I always felt that the Bill was a little bit too short and lacked the content that it needed; that has caused us some challenges when scrutinising it. We welcome all the amendments that have been passed; we believe they add value and that the Bill leaves this place in a stronger position than when it arrived. I am particularly grateful to the Minister and his Bill team for including community energy in the Bill. This is a really important amendment, and it will benefit our communities and help with the energy transition. Community energy has been supported by MPs and noble Lords on all sides, so this is a win for everybody. I am grateful to Power for People, which has provided support to all of us on these matters, and we will continue to press the Government, as others have already mentioned, on the future of the community energy fund.
We also welcome the other amendments that were tabled: the amendment on strategic priorities; and the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, negotiated with the Minister on sustainable development.
Finally, if noble Lords will excuse me, I want to say something about the words that we use as parliamentarians and how we talk to each other on the issues of climate change. I deeply regret the end of the political consensus on climate change. My personal feeling as a relatively new Peer in this House is that while bits of our debates on this Bill were excellent, there were too many moments when points were repeated, purely party-political points were made that did not improve or challenge the Bill, filibustering took place, or we had numerous votes that took place very late at night.
The public support action on climate change. Polling consistently shows 70% support. The public also want to see reductions in their energy bills; they do not much care, frankly, how that happens, but it requires all of us to make progress. These matters are challenging enough to address with a sense of consensus, and they are made even more difficult when political hostility is added to the mix. My final point is that we must all work better together so that we can all achieve more.
Lord Offord of Garvel (Con)
My Lords, in concluding for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, I thank noble Lords from across the House for their tenacity in scrutinising the Bill, and in particular the noble Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Vaux of Harrowden, for their amendments. On my own Benches, I note the contributions of many noble friends, who have done sterling work to temper what is a misguided piece of legislation which will not deliver cheaper energy for UK households or businesses.
GB Energy is flawed because it exposes the conflict at the heart of this Government between the Chancellor’s stated priority of economic growth on the one hand and, on the other, the accelerated pursuit of net zero at any cost that the Energy Secretary has made his ideological obsession. While this scrap rages at the centre of Whitehall, there is only one loser: the public, who, it has been confirmed today, will be loaded up with the price of net zero to the tune of another £111 per household this year. That is directly because of this Government’s policies and a far cry from the promise in the Labour manifesto of a reduction in energy bills by £300 per year per household—a manifesto pledge which this Government have refused to include in this legislation.
As the Bill has progressed through your Lordships’ House and the other place, the chasm between rhetoric and reality has indeed been exposed. I believe that in a decade we will look back and ask why we invented this cardboard cut-out company. But despite our deep scepticism, it would be churlish not to wish GB Energy a positive start, so I offer some start-up advice. With its £8 billion of borrowed money, the first order of business should be a feasibility study of all the energy sources available to us in the UK. If it does so, it will discover the following. The dash for renewables at any price is a folly. In doing so, we are loading excessive costs on to our energy bills, to the point now where our industrial energy in the UK is five times more expensive than in the US and seven times more expensive than in China. All the while, we are offshoring jobs from the UK to China, turning UK revenue into Chinese profits. This is impoverishing our nation.
The Government are denying the facts. We are an energy-rich country, and our hydrocarbon industry is the envy of the world in terms of compliance and sustainability. Surely it is irresponsible to refuse to even explore the opportunities that onshore gas could bring, while of course undertaking an assessment of risk. The fact that this Government’s policy continues to tilt towards shutting down offshore oil and gas is surely an affront to the hundreds of thousands of skilled workers in Aberdeen and the north of Scotland. They surely deserve better than this.
Meanwhile, both parties agree that nuclear is efficient and clean, but it should be accelerated. We should cut the red tape by unleashing our homegrown engineers while being unafraid to learn from those, such as the Koreans, who have been able to roll out nuclear energy more quickly and at a lower cost.
If GB Energy does this feasibility study, it will realise the facts and then it should pivot net zero accordingly to ensure that our transition to a cleaner energy system is both fair and affordable to UK households and industry. For the sake of the country, we can only hope that it does so.
Finally, I believe it is important to state unequivocally that my own party must reflect on the last 14 years of government energy policy. The verdict of the electorate in July was clear and resounding. As many noble Lords are aware, an error does not become a mistake until one refuses to correct it, and I would encourage the current Government to heed these wise words.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, we were debating my amendment, but we seem to have done the “the Bill do now pass” speeches as well, so if noble Lords allow, I will do both in my response.
I thank noble Lords for their general welcome for my amendment. I think it is a very satisfactory outcome of our debates in Committee and on Report. On the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the devolution aspect, the noble Earl put his finger on it. It seems perfectly appropriate that the devolved Governments should receive a copy before publication, because that then allows them to have sight of any findings that might be relevant and which they may have to answer on the day of publication. No slight is intended to Parliament in this, it is just the normal business of Government-to-Government relationships and courtesy. That is why we withdrew the original amendment and replaced it with the revised one, in the light of representations made to us by the devolved Governments.
On the timings of the review, noble Lords will know that we had in mind, at first, the UK Investment Bank, which I think has a seven-year review period. The noble Lord proposed three years and in the end we compromised. That is not unreasonable: Great British Energy must be allowed some time to set itself up and get itself into working order and then, at an appropriate point, we will have a review. It is worth making the point that GBE’s work does not come to an end in 2030; that is just a deadline we have given for clean power. We expert GBE to go on for many years to come, and therefore it is going to be a judgment, but we think five years is not an unreasonable time.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, that I agree with him about the potential for small modular reactors —we have a programme that Great British Nuclear is running at the moment and I hope it will be able to come to some important decisions over the next few weeks and months—and he is absolutely right to mention them. I also share his view about the potential of hydrogen. We do not disagree at all with the noble Lord on that.
As far as community energy is concerned, this was raised on Report and I do not think there is anything more I can say at the moment. Clearly, we recognise the important role that community groups can play. Our intention is that Great British Energy will build on existing support, by partnering with and providing funding and support to local and combined authorities, as well as community energy groups, to roll out renewable energy projects and develop up to 8 gigawatts of clean power. I am afraid I cannot give any more details at the moment, but I understand and take note of what noble Lords have said about the companies concerned. I take this seriously and will ensure that it is considered, and we will set out further details in due course.
On the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, about sustainability, let me be clear that the independent review is focused on the effectiveness of GBE in delivering its mission. It will cover all aspects of the work of Great British Energy and will not focus solely on its financing, as the noble Baroness feared. To give an example, one of its important roles will be to clear the way to allow developers to come in. That will be an important part of the review. Furthermore, as I have already said to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, additionality will be an important part. Clearly, the amendment that I brought on Report—about GBE needing to keep under review the impact of its activities on the achievement of sustainable development—means that that will be part of any review undertaken by the independent reviewer. I hope that reassures the noble Baroness.
National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill
Tuesday 25th February 2025
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberNational Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill 2024-26 View all National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 56-R-I(Rev)(a) Manuscript amendments for Report - (25 Feb 2025)
17:34 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 305 / Noes: 175 - Amendment 1 agreed.
18:23 - Division on Amendment 2 - Ayes: 97 / Noes: 169 - Amendment 2 disagreed.
19:17 - Division on Amendment 3 - Ayes: 77 / Noes: 153 - Amendment 3 disagreed.
19:29 - Division on Amendment 4 - Ayes: 235 / Noes: 149 - Amendment 4 agreed.
19:39 - Division on Amendment 5 - Ayes: 235 / Noes: 152 - Amendment 5 agreed.
Baroness Barker
“(A1) In section 9(1A) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) if the employer is a specified employer under subsection (1B), the specified employer secondary percentage;”.(A2) After section 9(1A) of that Act insert—“(1B) A “specified employer” means—(a) a person providing a care home service or a domiciliary support service who is regulated under—(i) Part 1 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008,(ii) Part 1 of the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016, or(iii) Part 5 of the Public Services Reform (Scotland) Act 2010,(b) a person contracted to provide primary care under the provisions of—(i) Part 4 of the National Health Service Act 2006,(ii) Part 4 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006, or(iii) sections 17J to 17O of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978,(c) a person contracted to provide general dental services under the provisions of Part 2 of the National Health Service (General Dental Services) Regulations 1992, (d) a person contracted to provide pharmacy services under the provisions of—(i) Part 7 of the National Health Service Act 2006, or(ii) Part 8 of the NHS (Pharmaceutical and Local Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 2013, or(e) a charitable provider of health and care,(f) a person providing hospice care whether in a hospice or elsewhere, or(g) a carer to whom section 2(3A) of the National Insurance Contributions Act 2014 applies.(1C) For the purposes of this Act, the specified employer secondary percentage is 13.8%.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with Baroness Barker’s amendments to Clause 2, page 1, line 12, Clause 2, page 1, line 14, and Clause 2, page 1, line 15 provides that care providers, NHS GP practices, NHS commissioned dentists, NHS commissioned pharmacists, charitable providers of health and care, and those providing hospice care would continue to pay contributions at current rates.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, it may be a surprise that I stand up to take part in proceedings at this point, having not taken part in the Bill so far. I do so because my noble friend Lord Scriven is unable to be here. Indeed, my only involvement in the Bill so far was to be the chair when it was in the early stages of its consideration in Grand Committee. I was therefore forced to remain sedentary and say nothing throughout the proceeding. It was very good, actually: I sat and listened to everybody else’s contributions, and that turned out to be excellent preparation for today’s debate, in which I seek to move Amendment 1 and to speak to the consequential amendments in this area.
As noble Lords who have taken part in and listened in great detail to previous stages of the Bill will know, the central issue that the amendments are having to address is the sudden imposition of a rather blunt fiscal instrument, in the form of an increase not only to national insurance contributions but to the rate at which they are paid, and the effects that that will have across the whole economy. These amendments address just one part of that wider problem.
I should at the outset declare an interest: in my family, we are reliant upon carers. We pay for those carers ourselves, and do so through a private agency. This issue is therefore not academic for me but very personal at the moment.
I should also say that before your Lordships today there is a manuscript amendment, for which we thank the clerks for their consideration. This is a tax matter which is UK-wide, but it has effects, which the amendments tabled so far seek to mitigate, in England and Northern Ireland. Noble Lords may well have been contacted by care providers in Scotland who will need similar provisions to enable them to cope with the problems.
The problem we are dealing with is that, in the health and social care sector, the sudden imposition of these changes to national insurance, along with the increases in the minimum wage, are going to threaten the existence of large numbers of providers and have a profound impact on budgets.
We have a real problem in that the health and social care sector is not solely a statutory one. We have a number of different providers, many of which are small but are related to large statutory providers. Unfortunately, because of the swift nature of the imposition of this rather dramatic change, we are having to come up with ways in which we can mitigate the damaging impact, which means we have had to resort to measures that perhaps we would not otherwise have wanted to take, in seeking to create different classes of employers.
The Government have come forward with some of their public sector exemptions because they realise the effect that this is likely to have. But those exemptions will not apply across the board. In particular, they will not apply to the organisations set out in these amendments, such as dentists, pharmacists, providers of care services and hospices, all of which are central to the Government’s other stated policy objective of improving health and of improving the health service and making it a community-based and more preventive service, thereby driving down demand on our health service, which is the greatest problem our NHS is facing at the moment. Because the Bill does not do that—indeed, it cuts across those other policy objectives—we have been forced to take these measures.
It would perhaps help noble Lords if I were to explain that 87% of a typical local authority’s budget spend is now on social care. That expenditure is not capital heavy; it is labour heavy and labour intensive. These are not organisations, unlike some of their private sector counterparts, that can suddenly adjust and vary their income streams to a dramatic extent that will enable them to mitigate rapidly or absorb the effects of the imposition of this policy.
I listened very carefully in Committee to all the arguments put to my noble friend Lord Scriven, and he and I, and others, went away and redrafted our amendments in order to take on board as many of those criticisms as we could. We have extended the remit of these amendments as far as we possibly can to include private sector providers of NHS services. I agree that there is not the exact equivalence between the private and public sectors that many people would want, but it is, within the scope of this measure, a significant step forward. We did that not least because one of the consequences, perhaps unintended, of the government proposals as they stand is that they will disproportionately affect local authorities that have for prudent reasons sought to outsource much of their provision. If their provision is outsourced, they will be hit and will have no mitigation against this change in national insurance.
I sat and thought about this the other night. You could have a realistic situation in which you have two local authorities that have broadly the same demographic profile and challenges, and that probably work to the same acute hospital, yet they could be in a completely different position in terms of their budget, solely because of the imposition of this measure.
We on these Benches have been quite clear. We have said that we understand that there is a need to increase funding, not least for health and social care. We believe there are other ways in which that could have been done—by closing capital gains loopholes and doing things such as taxing online gambling and taxing share buybacks.
There are a number of ways in which that could be done, and none of them would have the direct counter-effect on policy of changing and moving our National Health Service away from being a very inefficient organisation which does not at the moment have a system which works towards greater productivity, promoting health and driving down demand. For all those reasons, we are proposing these amendments today, and I hope that noble Lords will see the case to support them. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, I must inform the House that if Amendment 1 is agreed, I am unable to call Amendments 6, 7 or 9 by reason of pre-emption.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I take this opportunity to support the sentiments of the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Kramer, in tabling these amendments, in particular Amendment 9A. I declare my interest as advising the board of the Dispensing Doctors’ Association. I wonder whether, when the Minister comes to respond to this group, he could clarify the position. I noticed that dispensing doctors are not referred to in Amendment 9A, but in effect they probably employ more staff than other GPs, pharmacies or organisations itemised in the amendment.
The reason for that is that, in addition to dispensing to regular patients, dispensing doctors also perform a profoundly important role in rural areas where there is no community pharmacy, because their patients have nowhere else to go. A dispensing doctor normally intervenes to dispense in those rare circumstances. I have to say that the reason I am so familiar with dispensing doctors is that my late father and my now retired brother were both dispensing doctors.
As dispensing doctors are quite large employers in this regard, is the Minister minded to look favourably on reimbursing them for the additional costs that they will incur through the increase in national insurance contributions, either through the very helpful amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, by adding dispensing doctors to it, or will he look at some other avenue to ensure that the costs incurred by dispensing doctors will be met? I am sure the Minister is aware that pharmacies and dispensing doctors are currently not being fully reimbursed for the costs of medicines that they are dispensing or prescribing, so they are in an acutely difficult position caused by the Government’s announcements on national insurance contributions in the last Budget. I ask him to answer those points in addition to those raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendments in this group, which seek to mitigate the effect that the measures in this Bill will have on charities that provide social care. Particular attention needs to be paid to those that provide services in areas where the primary responsibility lies on the public sector. I understand that about one-third of social care staff in Scotland are employed by the voluntary sector. The support that they provide is an essential part of the system of social care in Scotland as a whole, and without their support the public services as currently funded would be quite unable to meet what the public need demands of them.
To put a little colour on what I have just been saying, I will return very briefly to an example I gave to the Grand Committee—that of the Cyrenians, a charity that addresses the causes and consequences of homelessness in the south-east of Scotland. It sees homelessness as something which is always about much more than a lack of housing; it cannot be solved simply by building more houses, nor can it be solved by the public sector alone. What the Cyrenians do is help people to avoid becoming homeless in the first place. It provides a range of services, such as mediation and support to families that are at risk of breakdown—which leads in due course to homelessness of one partner or the other.
The Cyrenians charity also provides services to ensure that people coming out of hospital are not discharged into homelessness. It runs a residential community which provides accommodation for people with acute psychiatric and mental health problems who have been discharged from a hospital where they have been receiving treatment. These are people who can be discharged only because that support is available.
All in all, the Cyrenians run over 60 services with a staff of over 200. It estimates that the increase to national insurance contributions provided for in the Bill will cost it about £170,000 a year. This is a significant burden on its finances which, for various reasons, are already being stretched very thin. I am told that it cannot benefit from any increase in the employment allowance. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but the charity believes that it is not eligible, as its class 1 national insurance liabilities were more than £100,000 in the last year. The public sector exemption is not available either.
The result is that the charity will no longer be able to provide the training and development that its staff need. That will lead, inevitably, to an erosion in the extent and quality of the service that it offers. Those who will suffer will be those most in need of protection: those who are at risk of, or who are already suffering from, homelessness, for whom the public services cannot provide.
Another Scottish charity that works in the area of social care is Ark Housing Association. It is a larger organisation which is in a similar position to that of the Cyrenians in that it seeks to provide services across a large area of Scotland. In its case, these services are offered to vulnerable adults, such as those with a learning disability and other complex needs. As matters stand, that charity too is not eligible for any support from the Government, as it has a turnover of about £24 million per year and employs over 700 people. It estimates that the effect of the Bill on its operations will be, in its own words, “devastating”.
As matters stand, the charges that it faces to do its work barely break even, year after year. It estimates that its national insurance increases will amount to a further £600,000 per year. This means that it will not be able to survive without damaging cuts to its services to reduce costs, and even these may not be enough for it to survive. As in the case of the Cyrenians, the people most affected are the thousands of vulnerable people for whom the social care that Ark provides is a vital lifeline, and who have nowhere else to go.
It is not an exaggeration to say that, as the Bill stands, social care and support providers in the third sector in Scotland will face a situation of crisis that the public services simply cannot cope with. Something has to give, and the responsibility for this lies with the Government. I hope that the Minister will feel able to assure the House that he recognises that something needs to be done to minimise the impact of these increases on this sector. For the time being, however, I will support the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, if she decides to press her amendment.
Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that I too was unable to be present at the earlier stages of the Bill, but I rise to support this amendment—in particular, the provisions relating to hospices. These would have the same effect as later amendments in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, to which I have also put my name. I draw attention to my entry in the register as vice-president and past chairman of Hospice UK.
The added burden that the increased contributions will place on the hospice sector are considerable. The extra cost has been estimated at no less than £34 million a year. St Christopher’s Hospice in south London has said that it will face increased costs of around £450,000 a year—equivalent to the cost of nine specialist nurses. Dorothy House hospice in Wiltshire estimates additional costs of £422,000 a year. The Kirkwood Hospice has had to put 33 roles at risk of redundancy, citing the increased national insurance costs as one of the drivers. Nottinghamshire Hospice is also proposing redundancies, again citing these extra costs as one of the factors.
These are just some of the examples of the devastating effect that these measures will have on hospice care. This is all so short-sighted. We all know that one of the major challenges facing the NHS is bed-blocking. As I have told your Lordships before, hospices can make a huge contribution to overcoming this challenge by looking after patients in the community, either in hospices or looked after by hospices at home. To make that contribution, hospices need more resources, not fewer, so this change will add to the challenges facing the NHS, not only directly in respect of its own employees but indirectly by diminishing the capacity of hospices to help.
The Minister will no doubt refer to the Government’s recent announcement that £100 million would be made available to hospices, and that is indeed welcome. But that money is for capital projects. Not a penny of it is available to defray the extra costs of the increase in national insurance contributions, which we are debating today, so it will have little or no effect on the crisis in hospice care that I have described.
I urge the Government to think long and hard about this amendment and to come up with a constructive solution.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, I find some difficulty in addressing this group of amendments, specifically because these amendments are but a part of 38—out of the total of 44—amendments in the Marshalled List that are essentially all the same. The 38 amendments all propose exemptions to the changes proposed in the Bill, or variations in the various thresholds at which employers’ national insurance is charged. All the amendments have the same internal logic: they are designed to reduce revenue. All 38 are the same; they vary only in the individuals, firms or groups that are to be exempted. The House will, of course, deem many of the individuals and groups not just worthy but really deserving of support.
I wish to address the 38 amendments collectively because they are the same. The Liberal Democrat Benches, notably with amendments associated with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, seek to exempt providers of care homes or domiciliary care, primary care providers, dentists, pharmacists, charitable providers of healthcare, hospice care, carers and part-time workers. She adds providers of education or childcare to children under five years of age, universities, providers of further or higher education, registered charities, housing associations, small or micro businesses, town councils, parish councils and businesses in the hospitality sector.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, I echo some of the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who identified some key Scottish voluntary organisations that play a vital role in supporting particularly vulnerable people.
I draw attention to CrossReach, the social care arm of the Church of Scotland. CrossReach employs something like 16,000 people. Over recent years it has been able to support its services by drawing on reserves to the extent of not thousands but millions of pounds. That sort of thing is not sustainable. It has 32,000 beneficiaries across Scotland. In my year as moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, I remember visiting many of these facilities and seeing the valuable work done by CrossReach in supporting young children, many of whom had disabilities. It also supports drug and alcohol rehabilitation schemes, elderly care and care homes, and young people with learning difficulties moving from the school environment into the adult environment. The work being done was quite remarkable. I fear that you cannot continue to run down your reserves for ever.
I received representations from the Coalition of Care and Support Providers in Scotland, which surveyed its members. More than 50 members participated, with a combined expenditure of £850 million, employing around 28,000 staff and supporting 230,000 people across Scotland. In the responses, 57% of respondents were seriously considering handing contracts back to commissioners next year; 55% were considering reducing the amount of support available to beneficiaries in services they do not plan to continue next year; 92% said that if employers’ national insurance contribution changes are not fully reimbursed, it will negatively impact on pay awards; 88% said it will negatively impact on staff pay differentials; 67% are budgeting for 2025-26 on the basis that they expect to reach financial balance only through the use of reserves, and 91% of these said they will no longer be a going concern within four years if they continue to reach financial balance through drawing down reserves in this way.
I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, says, but when CrossReach is spending millions of its own reserves, that is not exactly taxpayers’ money. I will not make the excuse that these are unintended consequences; one must assume the Government know what they are doing, even if that is a bit of a far stretch. I would like to know what impact assessment the Government have made of the cost to the public purse if these services are withdrawn. If it is not a cost to the public purse, it is a cost to vulnerable people the length and breadth of this country. That is a completely unacceptable position for the Government to take up. I would like the Minister to tell us the impact assessment of the consequences if some of these services have to be withdrawn.
In my exchanges with the Coalition of Care and Support Providers in Scotland, it flagged up to me, only at the very end of last week, a possible problem with some of the definitions. You have English organisations with legislation passed by this Parliament, Welsh ones with legislation passed by the Welsh Senedd and Scottish ones with legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament. But, for example, “domiciliary support service” in Amendment 1 is not a definition that is known to Scottish legislation. It was too late to table a manuscript amendment to try to address that. The coalition also wanted some time to try to see what precisely needed to be done to extend it to Scotland. I am sure the House would agree that if this amendment is carried, we would also like to make sure it is fully adequate for the entire United Kingdom, not just for some parts of it. I therefore propose to table an amendment at Third Reading, if my noble friend’s amendment is carried, to try to address the specific Scottish issue.
Viscount Chandos (Lab)
I shall speak briefly to support the arguments and analysis of my noble friend Lord Eatwell and to remind your Lordships of the comments at Second Reading of the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, who said that if we aggregate the reductions in employee national insurance that were introduced in the last year of the last Government with the effects of this Bill, the effect is about net unchanged. As my noble friend Lord Eatwell has said, all the various causes and organisations that will be proposed as excepted have benefited as employers, in effect, from the employee national insurance cut. Therefore, if they have to moderate their future wage rises, the net income over that period of 12 or 18 months will essentially be the same. That seems to me another argument for treating all the 38 amendments to which my noble friend referred as a heartfelt cry for help that has already been given.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I have not spoken on the Bill so far, but I want to speak now on behalf of charities. Charities are not for profit and they are not for loss. The impact of the Bill’s proposals provides a fiscal challenge, whichever way we look at it. I understand that the increase proposed will impose on charities about £1.4 billion in additional annual costs, and 87% of charities are worried about absorbing these and other costs that are forthcoming. Charities are emotionally driven and business-led organisations; they give their heart and soul to the people they get up in the morning to serve, and we must make sure that the people who need their services are not impacted detrimentally in any way.
While people in the finance departments of organisations, not least the Government, are focused clinically on money, and I understand that, I ask that they look at the impact that the Bill will have on individuals. My dad used to say to me, “Debbie, measure twice and cut once”, and I would like that saying to be applied to decisions in the Bill.
Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)
My Lords, I support the Government in opposing all these amendments. Some individually are attractive, especially the later amendment about the level at which national insurance is set. However, I shall not support any of the amendments because I think it is for the Commons and the Government to decide on taxation. It is an unfortunate event that has already been remarked on, and there is an opportunity here to comment and vote on it. I realise the political attraction of forcing the Government to remove these amendments one by one when the Bill returns to the Commons. Some are very attractive—I get that, intuitively —but it seems unfair to unpick a Budget, which is a comprehensive account of the macroeconomics of the country, and then pick off each of these measures by an amendment. I cannot support that; it is good to have the debate, and the Government may decide to change their opinion on any one of them.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, made the point that taxation should be simple, and I agree. If every one of these cases were to be included by the Government in their new Budget, I think that it would be incomprehensible for the public in general. Although I see that, individually, some cases are attractive, I cannot support the amendments for the reasons that I have set out.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to challenge the analysis of the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos. He claimed that if we took the health and social care levy employer element and what was proposed here, it would sort of level itself out. It would not. The employer element of the health and social care levy is roughly one third of the amount that is expected to be raised by this Bill. The two cannot be compared.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
I support the comments from my noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe: I think that it is an important principle that Budgets should be determined by the House of Commons. Those who argue for exemptions should be obliged to explain how they will pay for the tax cuts in those exemptions. If you cut taxes in one area, they will need to be raised somewhere else. That will result in higher marginal rates for everybody else, which do far more damage than low ones.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
Many apologies to the noble Baroness; I stand corrected. The cut in employee national insurance was considerable. Looking at the macro effects of employee and employer national insurance on the labour market, I regard the changes that have taken place as broadly neutral across the board.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I am not an economist, but I run a small Scottish charity that provides health services. I want to come back on some of the points raised.
I wish the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, and even the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, had had the recess that I have just had—looking at our employees, some of whom have been with us for over 20 years and are highly trained clinical specialists, and telling them that their roles are under threat of redundancy. As I said at an earlier stage of this Bill, I have not been able to participate in it as much as I would have wished because of its effects on my organisation, which are that people will lose their jobs and organisations will lose skill. Those are very difficult things to build up again.
Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, I have been in touch with the Coalition of Care and Support Providers in Scotland. I am slightly concerned that these amendments do not cover health and social care services in Scotland. If he is to bring back an amendment at Third Reading, I will happily work with him on it.
I would love a simpler tax regime and would absolutely support it. The way to have one is not to have this national insurance increase—that would be very simple. The lists covered by these amendments are all of organisations that support public services and the public sector. These are services that many government agencies are required to provide by law, yet they are farmed out to organisations such as ours, as well as to CrossReach, Ark and others.
Frustratingly, this demonstrates a huge lack of understanding by this Government of how these measures will affect vulnerable people—the people who these organisations support. My organisation, Cerebral Palsy Scotland, is a regulated, registered charity, so we cannot put up prices. Our raison d’être is to make our services available to the most vulnerable who cannot pay for them, and so we cannot put up our prices. Yes, we may have benefitted last year from paying slightly less employers’ or employee national insurance, but all our providers—the people who clean our centres, help us with IT, empty our sanitary bins, and things like that—employ people and they are all putting up their costs. Our costs are rising, our national insurance is rising, and because of the minimum wage increases at the same time, it is becoming more and more expensive for us to employ people. The only thing we can therefore do is to cut our cloth and employ fewer people.
I do not understand these measures. I support having lists of different sectors, because these are the sectors that are delivering support that gives people choice, quality of life and control over their lives, and that support the NHS and the social care sector, which would otherwise be stuck. This is a measure that will not save public services, as the Minister has told us it has been put in place to do, but that will, I am afraid, crush them.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, briefly, I support the amendment so ably tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. I pay tribute to her for her attentive nature during Committee. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that the fact there is this extensive list demonstrates once again the lack of an impact assessment, on which I implored the Minister in Committee.
I was a Minister for over 12 years. One thing you learn as a Minister is that, when taking a Bill through, you must consult with and speak to the sectors—you must talk to them and understand their challenges and then address those issues. Unfortunately, that had not been done. Take adult social care, where the impact is close to £1 billion. We may hear from the Minister that this has been addressed in the Budget, but it has not. The Nuffield Trust has said as much: the actual measures put forward in the Budget will be dwarfed by these contributions, and that is just in adult social care. Talk to community pharmacies and they will make a desperate plea, akin to what we have just heard from my noble friend, and say that they will have to shut. Why? Because they cannot afford to keep their employees.
Even at this late stage, I implore the Minister to listen, connect and communicate, and, I hope, to take on board some of the challenges and important concerns being put across in this House on behalf of the many different community services that will so desperately be impacted by these national insurance increases.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I am somewhat amazed by some of the arguments I have heard in this debate. The Bill is before us and we are a revising House. Our purpose is to debate the Bill, put forward amendments, debate the amendments and vote on them. The idea that we should not be changing this because we should not change the Budget is absurd; it defeats the whole purpose of having the House of Lords. We are a revising Chamber; we bring with us expertise and experience, which many of us would like to think assist the Government in their decisions, particularly when they make bad decisions—of which this is one.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, talked about Adam Smith’s desire for simplicity, but he also wanted fairness. What has happened here is not fair. If the noble Lord consults the organisations with which I know he has been connected in the charitable and university sector, they will all say that this is a very unfair imposition on their modus operandi.
There is a reason why there are so many amendments. The first amendment is excellent, and passing it will deal with all the issues in one go. If it is not successful, other amendments will follow that will detail the sectors on which laws can focus their attention.
The noble Lords, Lord Eatwell and Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court, and others may not have heard me in Committee, where I attempted to cost the various types of amendments, as well as the whole effect of the Bill, on the charitable sector. We have made attempts to detail them, and in other groups of amendments I will discuss those numbers and invite the Government to comment on them. The absolute total that the charitable sector itself has said that this would impact will be £1.4 billion, out of the alleged £22 billion black hole that the Government claim. We have made suggestions about how this may be recouped in other areas.
In Committee, I talked about the enormous damage that the Government are about to impact on the adult social care sector. It is utterly demotivating for the very many people, including me and others in this Chamber, who go out fundraising for such charities, doing our best to help those in need, only now to see the Government snatch it away in such a heartless manner.
In Committee, we discussed some of the big numbers. At that stage, I focused on social care and, as an example, the cost that Jewish Care faces—£1.1 million, which it does not have—to pay for this increase in national insurance. This time, I will discuss hospices, because I do not want to repeat what was said in Committee—albeit it was in Grand Committee and so did not allow us the opportunity to vote, which was extremely disappointing.
I will look at one hospice: Thames Hospice, which is close to Hurley. I was introduced to it by my then local MP, who is now my noble friend Lady May of your Lordships’ House. Its excellent CEO, Dr Rachael de Caux, is reported as explaining that it will now have to post a £1 million deficit and that the NI increases, together with the national minimum wage increases, will cost it £650,000. This is a charity that raises some £4 million from its fundraising, so that is a very material sum. As she herself memorably put it:
“The NHS is supposed to be from cradle to grave and what we have is from cradle to a few months before”
the grave.
Yes, a £100 million for the sector was announced before Christmas, but, as my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne explained, it is a one-off spend over two years—actually, it is largely back-ended, with most of it in the second year—and restricted to capital sums. In fact, it is spread over 170 hospices, so it is a bit of an insult to claim that that is proper compensation.
Thames Hospice is looking to try to serve 400 people, mainly in their homes. I was very pleased to see that, in the amendment, proposed new paragraph (f) specifically covers those who are being cared for at home. As a charity, it is dependent on the local community for its generosity and financial support. The Government cover only about 30% of its costs, and the hospice has to raise £34,000 a day to provide all its services. The Government know that the demand for these sorts of services will grow. It is estimated that, in Thames Hospice’s catchment area alone, the overall demand for palliative and end-of-life care is expected to grow by at least 9% by 2030, with the number of deaths rising to 4,150 in 2030.
Perhaps the Minister can explain to Thames Hospice what it is expected to do, following this attack on hospices by the Government. Is it supposed to turn away people? Will it have to offer less care? It will see more people die in pain and agony, as it cannot offer the palliative care that it wishes to provide. I am sorry to be so graphic, but that is the choice for your Lordships’ House today. How can anyone hold their head up high if they walk through the Division Lobby seeking to cause such damage to the hospice sector?
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, and others that, in principle, it is not a very good idea to have a system of taxation in which you suddenly start providing dozens of exemptions for particularly chosen groups when it is introduced. Taxation should be simple and collected in the most straightforward fashion across the whole economy, although there will always be bits that are subject to different effects of such taxes.
I will be supporting these amendments, mainly as a symbolic sign that I disapprove extremely strongly of the choice of tax rise that the Government made in the Budget. In fact, this increase in employers’ national insurance has had a serious, damaging effect on very important sections of the economy as a whole. Many small and medium-sized businesses—and many giant ones in labour-intensive parts of the economy—are being badly affected at a time when many other features of our financial crisis are affecting them as well. We had some exchanges in the House a few moments ago about the withdrawal of the investment proposals by BMW in Oxford. This country is not an attractive place for investment at the moment, yet we desperately need investment if we are to begin to recover from the appalling stagflation in which the economy is now stuck.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I shall be very brief as the leader of the winding speeches. I just join the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, in saying to the noble Lords, Lord Hogan-Howe and Lord Macpherson, that Parliament has given us the responsibility under the national insurance contributions legislation, to come forward with amendments and press them. I am not going to walk away from that responsibility simply because it looks rather difficult.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who talks about simplification, that it is very easy to have a high-level issue such as that, but I am not going to put simplification ahead of what will basically be the cancellation of something like 2 million GP appointments because of the additional costs on GPs. I am not going to sit by and watch dental practices cut back their services, so that we have much more of this DIY dental care that people are carrying out. I am shocked by the rise in dental sepsis alone. I am not going to sit here while pharmacies basically cut their hours and services. I am not going to sit here while adult social care—we have heard about so many cases—basically has to work out how it sets aside the most vulnerable in our society, because that is the implication.
We have heard also from hospices. People are being told now that their jobs are at risk. This is not a hypothetical or some exaggerated claim; this is a process that is under way across the community healthcare and social care sectors to absolutely cut back in response to this increase in employers’ national insurance contributions. We are trying to stop a disaster. When they came forward with their proposals, the Government did not absorb the fact the National Health Service does not work in isolation. It is part of a much more holistic, complex landscape, and if you undermine the private elements of both social care and community healthcare, you undermine the NHS, and that surely is not what the Government want to be doing under these circumstances.
I could go on because there is so much to be said, but it has been brilliantly said by so many across this House. If the Government were to stand up and say that they accepted this amendment, I think there would be a hallelujah, quite frankly. Will they please understand the problems we are trying to deal with? This is not hypothetical or playing party-political games; this is dealing with a really difficult and serious problem that our society is facing. I do not know quite what I can do in a winding speech, but if I can move anything, I will.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I echo much of what has been said by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Kramer, what my noble friend Lord Ahmad said about it being a pity that the Minister had not engaged more with all those affected, and the plea for fairness from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh. This Bill is the most important economic measure the Government have put forward since they took office and, as has become apparent from our debates, especially the detailed examination in Committee, it is a misguided measure with numerous defects. It will hit hardest those sectors that employ more labour, such as care homes and hospices, but there will also be flow-through to SMEs and bigger businesses as they seek to cut costs and staff. We have seen this in action with big names such as Sainsbury’s shedding staff and the Federation of Small Businesses and the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development recording collapsing confidence and planned headcount cuts in the surveys.
During our debate today, the Opposition are proposing amendments to reduce some of the Bill’s most egregious effects. That is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. We have to find a way to limit the impact of this ill-thought-out jobs tax. The tax system is not simple and we are where we are because of the choices the Government have made. The changes are having real impacts on real people in their everyday lives: on charities, small businesses, nursery schools, special needs drivers, pubs, young people and—the specific subject of this amendment—care homes, pharmacies, dentists, GP surgeries and hospices. That is why we are supporting the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and will be voting in favour.
At every stage throughout the progress of this Bill, we have raised the plight of these sectors because of the decisions the Government made in the Budget. They are facing these changes in a very short timescale, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, has rightly said. At every stage, the Government have remained unmoved. The Minister has been stony-faced and utterly unreceptive to the genuine and deeply felt concerns of millions of businesses and charity trustees across the country.
We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hope, about the Cyrenians, from my noble friend Lady Stedman- Scott about the sheer scale of the impact on charities, and from my noble friend Lady Fraser about the loss of jobs and skills and the difficulties of deciding what to do. These organisations and others are facing a financial cliff edge in April and that is thanks to the Government, who have chosen to put them in this position while at the same time choosing to give a £9.5 billion pay rise to their friends in the public sector, to pledge £8.3 billion to the amorphous GB Energy project and to increase day-to-day spending by £23 billion this year.
These were all choices, and it is hospices, charities, healthcare providers, early years settings and small businesses that will pay the price. That is what my noble friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham was saying: he felt that it was the wrong choice.
In November last year, the Nuffield Trust predicted that the Government’s jobs tax would cost the independent sector’s social care employers in the region of £940 million in 2025-26, and that is on top of around £1.85 billion more that they need to meet the new minimum wage rates from April. These are all relevant to this amendment.
I am particularly concerned about the hospice sector, and that is why I have tabled my own amendment with the support of my noble friends Lord Leigh of Hurley and Lord Howard of Lympne. Both my noble friends spoke with great eloquence, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, so I will not repeat any of that, but I will say that Hospice UK has confirmed to us that the sector is headed for a £60 million deficit this year. The Health Secretary announced £100 million to make sure we are protecting our hospices, but last week the Prime Minister was forced to admit that that is capital funding and will not have a direct impact on the day-to-day costs. Further to that, I understand from boring into the detail that the £26 million that the Minister mentioned in Committee on day 3 represents almost no new money at all; so, we have a big problem.
Finally, it was reported that the National Pharmacy Association has taken the unprecedented step of voting for collective action in protest at a £250 million hike in business costs that pharmacists face under the Government. If the Minister will not listen to the Official Opposition, perhaps he will listen to the experts, the GPs, the hospices and the charities, which are all telling us that the Government must think again. We agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker: the Government must act urgently to protect our health and care providers, our GPs and our hospices before it is too late. Should the noble Baroness choose to test the opinion of the House, we will be with her in the Lobby.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I will address the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Kramer, seeking to maintain the rates and thresholds at their current level for NHS commissioned services including GPs, dentists, social care providers and pharmacists. As noble Lords will know, as a result of the measures in this Bill and wider Budget measures, the NHS will receive an extra £22.6 billion over two years, helping to deliver an additional 40,000 elective appointments every week.
Primary care providers, general practice, dentistry, pharmacy and eyecare are important independent contractors who provide nearly £20 billion-worth of NHS services. Every year, the Government consult with these primary care sectors about what services they provide and what money they are entitled to in return under their contract; this continues to be the case this year.
The Government have announced an extra £899 million for general practice in 2025-26 and have set out the proposed areas of reform which will help to deliver on our manifesto commitments. This is the largest uplift in GP funding since the beginning of the five-year framework and reverses the recent declining trend in funding. As a result, a rising share of total NHS resources will now go to general practice. The Department of Health and Social Care is consulting with the General Practitioners Committee in England of the British Medical Association on the 2025-26 GP contract and will consider a range of proposed policy changes. These will be announced in the usual way following the close of the consultation later this year.
The Department of Health and Social Care has also entered into consultation with Community Pharmacy England regarding the 2024-25 and 2025-26 community pharmacy contractual framework, and the final funding settlement will be announced in the usual way following this consultation. The NHS in England invests around £3 billion in dentistry every year. NHS pharmaceutical, ophthalmic and dental allocations for integrated care systems 2025-26 were published alongside NHS planned guidance.
The noble Lords, Lord Howard and Lord Leigh, spoke about hospices. The Government recognise the vital role that hospices play in supporting people at the end of life and their families, and we recognise the range of cost pressures that the hospices sector has been facing over a number of years. As the noble Lords mentioned, we are supporting the hospice sector with a £100 million increase for adult and children’s hospices to ensure they have the best physical environment for care. We have also allocated an additional £26 million in revenue to support children and young people’s hospices. The £100 million investment will go towards helping hospices improve their buildings, equipment and accommodation, to ensure that patients continue to receive the best care possible.
Regarding social care, the Government have provided a real-terms increase in core local government spending power of 3.5% in 2025-26, including £880 million of new grant funding provided to social care. This funding can be used to address the range of pressures facing the adult social care sector.
To answer the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, all charities can benefit from the employment allowance. As a result of this Bill, from April 2025 the threshold of £100,000 or less will be removed.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, including the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell; I disagree with him, but he raised an important point. It is entirely wrong to characterise the amendments as “blunderbuss” and “scattergun”. We are dealing with a very crude fiscal measure that will impact all sorts of sectors in different ways. The amendments, on the contrary, are not; they are very targeted and precise, and they are different attempts to mitigate the overall problem.
My amendments are confined solely to health and social care. One of the issues I am driving at in them is that, for all the announcements of increases in funding, particularly those for the NHS that the Minister just laid out for us, the question of productivity and sustainability of public services is very important. A key aspect of this is driving down demand on the NHS. The work done by many of these organisations, if it is correctly funded and targeted, will lead in future to a lower demand for elective surgery in the NHS. We are not a “blunderbuss” at all; we are trying to be very precise about what we are doing.
Secondly, perhaps it is not particularly obvious but a number of noble Lords might understand this: thousands of people in this country continue to be able to work because their family members are looked after by these organisations. This is a question not just about the cost of public services; it is about the indirect costs to the economy of taking people out of other productive jobs in order to sustain their family members.
Finally, many of the services that I and other people are trying to maintain are comparatively inexpensive. A lot of them rely on volunteers, and they are much less expensive than acute public services. For all those reasons, this is important. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad: I do not think we have had an adequate impact assessment of the Bill. If we had, perhaps we would have been able to take on more of what the Minister was indicating. I think he does not get that these are not wrecking amendments. They are about trying to improve the nation’s health, well-being and finances as a whole. In view of all that, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Kramer
“(A1) The Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 is amended as follows.(A2) In section 9(1A) after paragraph (aa) insert— “(ab) if section 9AA applies to the earnings, the part-time worker secondary percentage;”.(A3) After section 9A insert—“9AA Part-time worker secondary percentage(1) Where a secondary Class 1 contribution is payable as mentioned in section 6(1)(b), this section applies to the earnings paid in the tax week, in respect of the employment in question, where the earner is a part-time worker.(2) For the purposes of section 9(1A)(ab), the part-time worker secondary percentage is 7.5%.(3) For the purposes of this section, a “part-time worker” has the meaning given in Regulation 2 of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000.”(A4) The Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 is amended as follows.(A5) In section 9(1A) after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) if section 9AA applies to the earnings, the part- time worker secondary percentage;”(A6) After section 9A insert—“9AA Part-time worker secondary percentage(1) Where a secondary Class 1 contribution is payable as mentioned in section 6(1)(b), this section applies to the earnings paid in the tax week, in respect of the employment in question, where the earner is a part-time worker.(2) For the purposes of section 9(1A)(ab) above, the part-time worker secondary percentage is 7.5%.(3) For the purposes of this section, a “part-time worker” has the meaning given in Regulation 2 of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2000.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment sets a new National Insurance Contributions rate for part-time workers.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I start by thanking everybody who voted for the previous amendment. Such a powerful message is engaged with that statement.
I am here to move Amendment 2, which is different in character from Amendment 1. The amendments in this group are primarily mine. There are a couple there from the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, which I also support and know that he will present very effectively. The amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Bruce of Bennachie, in essence, deal with part-time workers.
While looking at the impact of the changes to employer NICs, we became conscious of the changed position of part-time workers as members of our workforce. There are now more than 8.4 million people engaged in part-time work, who are exceptionally hard hit by the changes proposed by the Government in the NICs Bill. People who typically worked 14 hours a week incurred employer NICs in the past; that now drops to individuals who work typically only eight hours a week. Suddenly, there is a huge group of part-time workers who have become far less attractive to the employers that have provided their opportunities in the past.
The impact is especially great on the hospitality industry—an industry that we know is already on its knees. Some 37% of employees in hospitality are part time, and I think there is a view in the Treasury—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, expressed it unwittingly in Committee—that part-time work is a sort of rich person’s luxury; it is people working for pin money. That, frankly, is a completely outdated attitude.
Today, part time is concentrated in the lowest pay bands. It is an entry point to work for many people in disadvantaged communities or with difficult histories. It is an economic lifeline for carers who can work part time but not full time, for students, for many with disabilities and for those who are economically inactive. We have a Government who say they want to take 2 million people off benefits and get them into work: part-time work is the entry point and the obvious first step.
We also want employers to see part-time work as exceedingly attractive, so that they start to add additional support, such as training and career opportunity, to part-time work because of this far more fundamental role that it can play. Instead, we have seen with this Bill that many employers are now openly saying that they intend to outsource abroad rather than employ part-time workers or that they will require part-time workers to become self-employed, with all the complexities of IR35.
As we looked at our concerns for hospitality and the high streets—many in those sectors are the backbones of communities—and because we looked at the nature of the part-time workforce, we made the call to go further in this amendment than in our others and seek not just to exempt part-time workers from the increase in employers’ NICs but to reduce the rate of employers’ NICs to 7.5%. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said in the debate on the previous set of amendments, we had it in our manifesto and have since identified other tax opportunities that are available for fundraising. None of them is easy but, frankly, we would close loopholes in capital gains tax, we have talked about taxes on share buybacks and we would reinstate the surcharge on the major banks.
In the previous set of discussions we had a whole series of proposals from the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, who of all people is very aware of the range of possible choices. They may not be ideal, but they are certainly much better than the choice of employers’ NICs, with the impact that is happening. In this case we made that decision, and that is the characteristic of this amendment. The other amendments in the group in my name are all consequential. The noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, also has amendments in this group, and I am fully supportive of them. I beg to move.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my manuscript Amendment 15A and its consequential Amendments 17 and 24, both of which are supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe and Lady Kramer. I am very grateful for their support. I will also speak to consequential Amendments 30A, 31A and 32A in my name. For clarity’s sake, I will not be pressing Amendments 30, 31 or 32.
In short, these exemption amendments seek to protect all small businesses and organisations that employ fewer than 25 staff, including charities, from Clause 2’s steep and sudden drop in the NICs threshold from £9,100 to £5,000 per annum—or, on a monthly basis, from £758 to £417 and, for those who are paid weekly, from £175 to £96 per week. By maintaining these existing thresholds, these amendments would particularly protect part-time workers and smaller organisations including charities, hospitality and retail, which in some cases face increases in their NICs bill per employee as high as 50% to 70%. For this reason, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, with her Amendment 2.
I should quickly declare my interests as set out in the register, specifically as an adviser and investor to a range of small businesses in the UK, including a community-owned public house.
I will come on to the impact of these amendments shortly, particularly in relation to the challenging and interesting comments from the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. I certainly do not agree that my amendments are designed to reduce government revenue, and I will come on to that in a moment. Surely, this is our role. This is the most important economic policy that this Government have yet to produce. We are where we are, and surely we should be scrutinising, particularly if we feel that poor decisions or poor structuring of these national insurance increases are doing damage to the economy.
On that theme, I will quickly share this: the latest survey from the Federation of Small Businesses reported that the proportion of its members facing contraction in the last quarter, Q4, jumped to 24%, its highest-ever level outside the pandemic. That is up from 14% in Q3. The FSB has also reported that confidence among its membership has fallen to its lowest point in 10 years. Meanwhile, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has reported that over a third of the 2,000 firms that it interviewed plan to reduce their headcount in 2025 through redundancies or recruiting fewer workers. Rather than taking a sectoral approach, for which many others have spoken passionately already, my exemption amendment applies to all small businesses and organisations, including charities with fewer than 25 staff, which, as the Bill stands, face sudden and steep drops—in fact, 45% drops—in their per-employee threshold at which employers become liable to pay NICs.
Just to illustrate this, employee NICs on a salary of £30,000 are set to increase by 30%, from £2,884 to £3,750, for those employing more than three staff. For part-time workers earning, say, £15,000, the employer NICs can increase by more than 50% per job. These are not trivial increases. While I salute the Government for increasing the employment allowance in Clause 3, it is from £5,000 to £10,500, and this typically washes out increases only for micro-businesses, those employing fewer than three staff. All told, the larger the business in terms of employees and the higher the salaries paid, the lower the increase in percentage terms to its NICs.
Of course, I understand why the Government are raising tax revenues—I have no issue with that—but, by placing this burden so disproportionately on small employers, the Bill threatens to do significant damage to jobs, pay and economic growth. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this is already happening.
My amendments would help to protect the jobs of some 6 million workers employed by about 1 million businesses and organisations across the UK. Many of these are nascent companies that operate on low margins and are at critical stages of their development—yet they grow at the fastest rate, create jobs at the fastest rate and, through their size and agility, can be great innovators. They are a vital component of GDP and our growth, with annual turnover of some £900 billion. But this group also includes a huge swathe of family and local businesses spread across the country, struggling to keep their heads above water in what have been five very difficult trading years. A fall of just 2% to 3% in employment levels or hours worked in this small business sector could cost the Treasury more in lost tax revenues and increased benefit payments than it would gain from this measure.
Incentivising employment by restoring the NICs threshold would be accretive to GDP growth, the Government’s number one priority. It would help boost income tax revenues and employees’ NICs, and it would bolster VAT revenues and corporation tax. Above all, it would lift business sentiment and stimulate investment.
I listened with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, describing all these amendments as wrecking amendments. Because we do not have a proper detailed impact assessment, that is an unfair charge and I challenge it on behalf of these amendments. I look forward to hearing from the Minister but, with respect, I expect to press these amendments when the time comes.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 2 and 36, to which I have added my name. On Amendment 2, I do not need to add much to what has been said, other than that the disproportionate hit on part-time workers seems to me to be extraordinarily damaging. As has been said, very often these are incipient businesses that might grow to be full-time businesses. There are whole swathes of the economy, such as students, which nearly all of us have in our family, who depend on this kind of work to get them through their studies. So it is a significant impact, as has been said.
The hospitality industry has not just had five difficult years. I have personal knowledge of a number of hospitality businesses that did not survive Covid, and many that survived Covid but with a massive debt overhang that they are still trying to pay off. Add this particular measure on top of that and those that just managed to survive will now probably fail, and those that can hang in there will struggle to get themselves back into viability.
I have an amendment I shall speak to later about the impact of these taxes on the public sector in Scotland. In the private sector, there is a difference in hospitality business rates between Scotland and England. Although the way the business rates are determined is not exactly comparable, UKHospitality Scotland has done an analysis of businesses in Scotland in a comparable sector. It gives an example: a local pub, an average kind of pub, would pay £6,000 more in business rates, 66% more than an equivalent business in England. A town centre restaurant would pay almost £10,000 more, which is also 66% more, and a hotel would pay £26,000 more, which is 70% more than an equivalent business.
I am not here to apologise for or justify the measures of the Scottish Government, who obviously have not followed the UK Government in terms of business rate discounts—it would have been helpful if they had—but I challenge the Government to recognise that the combined activities of two Governments on businesses in Scotland is leaving many businesses in Scotland comparable to similar businesses all over the rest of the UK substantially disadvantaged compared with the rest. I do not believe the Government gave any consideration to that unintended consequence and they have not recognised that it means that the Scottish economy will be disproportionately hard hit by this.
I will throw one political grenade into the mix. It is fine to say that we have an SNP Government, but the majority of people in Scotland did not vote SNP and I think they are entitled to look to a UK Government to at least give some recognition that they are looking for an approach to their businesses that shows some appreciation and understanding that things are different north of the border. Just occasionally, it would be helpful if the UK Government acknowledged that.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I have not spoken on the Bill before but I add, very briefly, my support to the proposals from the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough. I have spent a lifetime in the city helping businesses grow—funding them, looking after them and developing them. They are vulnerable throughout, but they are particularly vulnerable in their early stages, which is the point of the noble Lord’s amendment.
With 25 people or fewer, it is easy to forget just how difficult it is, and how persistent an effort is needed, to get a business going, keep it going and to eventually grow it, hopefully, to a great size where it will employ people and increase the prosperity of the country. It is our feedstock—this is where I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who served with me on a City regulatory body many years ago—and if you cut down the trees in any one year, those trees will never reappear. We shall have a smaller number of growing companies from the years when this proposal has its impact.
It is also surprising, when I hear debates in your Lordships’ House, how many Members cannot conceive of circumstances when the pay cheque will not turn up at the end of the month. A lifetime in public service insures you against that. But, if you run a business, you have to think every day about will happen at the end of the month. Will there be a call from the bank manager saying, “I’m very sorry, I’m not going to be able to meet your payroll”? When you have responsibility for other people, that ghastly pressure is increased by the sorts of measures the Government propose to take here.
I say to the Minister, very gently, that the phrase is: revenue is vanity, profit is stability, but cash is reality. In this Bill the Government are proposing to undermine the reality of the cash that is desperately needed by the very smallest among our companies.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, are a classic example of how to distort a market. She wishes not only to exempt part-time employees from the measures in the Bill but to reduce the national insurance charge on part-time employees. She does not appear to have reflected on what would be the impact on full-time employees. How many full-time employees will, as a result of this measure, lose their jobs and be replaced by two or three part-time employees? How many companies will reach a cliff edge with respect to their employment policies that will ensure they develop only part-time employees, who often have fewer opportunities, and certainly fewer opportunities for promotion, than full-time employees? What has the noble Baroness got against full-time employment? We need an answer to that. Why is she so content to distort the labour market in this way?
With respect to the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, I have greater sympathy with what he says, but he too is creating a cliff edge. The cliff edge is at 25 employees and it will considerably distort the operations of the market at that stage. It will discourage companies from growing above 25 employees. It will encourage the break-up of structures, so that units employ only 25 employees.
Most interestingly, the noble Lord asked for an impact assessment of the overall impact on employment of the measures in the Bill. There have been at least three—one by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, another by the OBR and another by the Treasury. They all demonstrate that, taking the measures in the Budget as a whole, employment in the next year will increase, not diminish. The error which, I am afraid, the noble Lord made in his argument is that, yes indeed, because of higher employment costs, there may be a reduction in employment per unit output, but, because of the stimulation of aggregate demand in the Budget, there will be more units of output. So, not only will these measures encourage the growth of labour productivity by reducing the input of labour per unit output but the expenditure of these measures, through a technical device called a balanced budget multiplier, will increase the level of employment in the coming year. The impact assessment is there for all to see.
Lord Blackwell (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, is a distinguished economist and I defer to his expertise, but I have to challenge him on the assertion that the measures in this Bill which raise national insurance are job creating. The Budget as a whole does not spend only the money raised through this tax; it spends another £40 billion a year, I believe—a total of £70 billion extra over each year of the course of the Parliament. Now, you have to assume that any measure that increases public spending by £70 billion a year will increase employment. It would be a strange measure that increased public expenditure without increasing employment. The difficulty is that all that employment increase will be in the public sector. The fact that this Government have to understand is that you have to earn wealth before you spend it and that compressing the wealth-creating part of the economy in order to spend on the public sector leads to financial disaster in the long run. So I do think his argument on that point needs to be challenged.
Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, to protect small businesses with fewer than 25 employees from the increase in national insurance. Before I begin, I should declare my chairmanship of a small fintech company, as declared in the register.
I am particularly concerned about the impact of the national insurance rise on SMEs because they are the main vehicle for job creation. A 2022 report by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation looked at the United States and found that, in 2019, companies in their first year created, on average, five jobs each, while companies older than that created, on average, just one new job every two years. A similar pattern can be found in the UK. Analysis by Santander of ONS data in 2018 showed that employment growth in SMEs was three times faster than in larger businesses in percentage terms.
The Government’s ambition in their Get Britain Working White Paper to increase the employment rate to 80% is laudable, and I very much support this objective as the president of the Jobs Foundation, again as declared in the register, but achieving this objective requires moving 2 million people from welfare into work. There are currently around 800,000 job vacancies in the economy, according to the ONS, so we need to create an additional 1.2 million jobs to achieve this target, and that will be very difficult with the employer NI rises. SMEs employ 16.6 million people in the economy, and small businesses, those which have between zero and 49 employees, provide 13 million jobs in the economy.
We should seize the national mission to get the employment rate back to pre-Covid levels. This target cannot be achieved if SMEs are not thriving. Therefore, I very much support the amendments to exempt smaller businesses from the increase in NI to enable them to fulfil their role as the biggest engine of job creation and, even more importantly, the biggest mechanism for poverty alleviation here in the UK.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, this has been a good debate and I rise to speak briefly. I listened carefully to the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for Amendment 2, and I commend the noble Baroness for championing part-time workers, as she has done during the passage of this Bill, much as my noble friend Lord Altrincham has been championing youth employment, which is also so important. She is right to raise the impact that the policy will have on jobs. We know that part-time workers are likely to be more at risk of losing their jobs or missing out on future opportunities as a result of this Bill, particularly as a result of the drop in the threshold, which is one of the proposals.
I also support the noble Baroness’s call for more information on the Government’s assessment of the impact of the Bill. I have tabled a review clause, which is in a later group, that goes wider than Amendment 36 and seeks to correct the Government’s failure to produce a proper impact assessment.
I should add that I have tabled Amendment 34—it has been put into this group—to increase the employment allowance available to farmers. Our farmers are hurting. “Starmer Farmer Harmer” signs are now a common sight on the country lanes of England, although I doubt many Ministers have seen them, but we will not press that amendment to a Division. We tabled that amendment to call on the Government, once again, to support our farmers and reverse the family farm tax, which is undermining, unfortunately, the long-term viability of British farming.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I will address first the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, which seeks to set a reduced rate of employer national insurance for part-time workers at 7.5%. As I have said before, the difficult decisions contained in this Bill were necessary both to repair the public finances and rebuild our public services. This amendment would reduce the revenue raised from this Bill, and therefore would reduce the Government’s ability to achieve these objectives. Reducing the rate of employer national insurance for part-time workers only would also create additional complexity in the tax system and, as my noble friend Lord Eatwell said, create distortions in the labour market. The Government have taken action to support those on lower pay by increasing the national living wage. Employers will also continue to benefit from employer national insurance reliefs, including for hiring under-21s and under-25 apprentices, where eligible.
I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Neville-Rolfe, which together seek to maintain the current rates and thresholds for businesses employing fewer than 25 staff. These amendments would also have cost implications, again necessitating higher borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. I stress that the Government are taking action as part of this Bill to protect the smallest businesses by increasing the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500. This means that, next year, 865,000 employers will pay no national insurance. More than half of employers will see no change or will gain overall from this package, and employers will be able to employ up to four full-time workers on the national living wage and pay no employer national insurance.
The Government have also taken steps to strengthen small businesses’ ability to invest and grow. This includes freezing the small business multiplier, permanently reducing business tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026-27 and publishing the Corporate Tax Roadmap to provide stability and certainty within the tax system for businesses across the economy.
The new clause tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, would require the Government to produce an impact assessment on the effect of the Bill on SMEs, hospitality, tourism and seasonal workers. The Government of course consider the impacts of all policies, including the changes to employer national insurance. As we discussed at length in Committee, an assessment of the policy has already been published by HMRC in a tax information and impact note.
The OBR’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook also sets out the expected macroeconomic impact of the changes to employer national insurance contributions on employment growth and inflation. The Government and the OBR have therefore already set out the impacts of this policy change. The information provided is in line with the approach taken for other similar changes, and the Government do not intend to publish additional assessments.
Finally, I turn to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that seeks to increase the employment allowance for farms. This amendment would again reduce the revenue raised from the Bill, necessitating either higher borrowing, lower public spending or new revenue-raising measures. The Government of course recognise and greatly appreciate the vitally important role of the farming sector. Despite the Government’s challenging fiscal inheritance, the farming and countryside programme budget has been protected at £5 billion across the next two years. This includes the largest ever proportion of the budget directed at sustainable food production and nature recovery in our country’s history. This will accelerate the transition to a more resilient and sustainable farming sector, supporting investment in farm businesses and boosting Britain’s food security.
Ultimately, this Bill is necessary to fix the public finances and to fund the public services. Many of the amendments in this group would reduce the Government’s ability to do these things, so I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will be extremely quick. This has been a short but very useful debate. On the impact assessment, I think I acknowledged that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has tabled Amendment 38, which covers the scope more effectively than the amendment we have tabled. That is one which I hope we will have an opportunity to support later on today.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that there is already a cliff edge—the Minister has set it at three employees. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, moves this to a far more sensible 25 employees. That is a significant improvement that I hope the House will accept, and that we will certainly be supporting.
Returning to our Amendment 2 that deals with part-time workers, this is an issue which we are going to continue to pursue; we have begun to realise how significant the change is in the structure of the workforce. If the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, were to look at that, I think he would be very surprised and begin to think rather differently over the kind of measures we are looking at here. Providing this additional support for part-time work is very much pro-growth. It ought to appeal to the Prime Minister; he has positioned himself as the pub champion. Of all the sectors that need the support of part-time workers, and that are going to be impacted by the way this increase in employer’s NICs has been drafted, it is going to be the pubs sector—it is already seeing six pubs close per week. I hope we can look to the Prime Minister for a champion who can try and provide us with some support around this issue.
Because of the importance of the sectors and the changing nature of the workforce, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Sharkey
“(A1) In section 9(1A) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) if the employer is a specified employer under subsection (1B), the specified employer secondary percentage;”.(A2) After section 9(1A) of that Act insert—“(1B) A “specified employer” means—(a) a provider of education or childcare to children under five years of age—(i) registered in England in the early years register maintained by the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills,(ii) registered in Wales with Care Inspectorate Wales, or(iii) registered in Scotland with the Scottish Care Inspectorate;(b) a university;(c) a provider of further or higher education;(d) a registered charity;(e) a housing association;(f) a small or micro business, as defined by section 33 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015; (g) a town council;(h) a parish council;(i) a business in the hospitality sector.(1C) For the purposes of this Act, the specified employer secondary percentage is 13.8%.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment provides that certain specified employers would continue to pay contributions at the current rates. The specified employers include early years settings, universities, charities, and small businesses.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, this amendment, in the names of my noble friend Lady Kramer and myself, adds to the list of exemptions from the proposed increase in employer national insurance contributions. I thought I would make that clear at the outset, although I see that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, is temporarily not in his place.
The arguments in favour of the nine proposed exemptions in this amendment were discussed in some detail in Committee. What the nine exemptions have in common is that they protect services that are vital to community life and are likely to suffer grave damage if the higher employer NIC is introduced. These services include early years education, charities, housing associations and town and parish councils. Each of these organisations makes a vital contribution to our communal life, and they also have in common the fact that most have no—or no significant—money. The proposed ENIC increase will inevitably reduce the critical services they provide, in many cases to the most disadvantaged in our communities.
The list of exemptions in our amendment also includes further and higher education, and I declare an interest as a member of council at UCL. Both our FE and HE institutions are in grave financial difficulties. This has been true for many years for our somewhat neglected FE sector and is now also obviously true for our higher education sector. The country’s future prosperity and its prospects for growth depend very largely upon these sectors being properly and sustainably funded. If we want a skilled and upskilled workforce, then FE colleges have a vital and irreplaceable role to play, but to play that role they need adequate funding.
I did ask, in Committee, about the funding arrangements for the FE sector. The Minister replied last week. He noted, by way of preamble, that the Government would
“provide support for departments and other public sector employers for additional employer national insurance contributions”.
He does not say what “support” means. He does say that the Autumn Budget provided an additional £300 million in revenue for funding for FEs for the financial year 2025-26
“to ensure young people are developing the skills this country needs”.
He does not say to what extent this will mitigate the imposition of the higher employer national insurance contribution. Could I therefore ask him again to tell us, when he replies: what percentage of the increase in the employer national insurance contribution will be mitigated by the allocation of funds from this £300 million, both in the short term from April to July this year and in the academic year 2025-26?
The Minister’s reply to my Committee stage question also includes a mention of the rise of £285 per annum in student fees chargeable by HEIs from the academic year 2025-26. This will not be enough to sustain our higher education sector. As I mentioned in Committee, our universities are already showing signs of deep financial distress. I noted then that nearly three quarters of institutions are expected to run deficits in the next academic year, and 40% have less than a month’s liquidity. I also noted that three Russell group research-intensive universities—Cardiff, Durham and Newcastle—had joined the long list of universities cutting jobs and costs. Now, Edinburgh has joined them in also announcing cuts, and I hear that at least one eminent university is close to breaching its banking covenants, with all the usual consequences. It is no surprise that it is estimated that 10,000 jobs will go this year.
This is a genuine crisis and it is made worse by the proposed increase in employer national insurance contributions. This new ENIC levy completely wipes out and more any net increase arising from the increase in student fees. The UK has four of the world’s top 10 universities and 16 of the world’s top 100 universities. We absolutely need to have our universities prosper and to be sustainably funded if we are to continue to be a world-class centre for education and research and to contribute to the growth that we so obviously need. Our amendment would, at least, prevent the already perilous situation from getting worse while the Government devise a new and sustainable funding arrangement.
Our amendment also excludes any SMEs and the hospitality sector from the rise in ENICs. SMEs are the wellspring of our economy and of its future. Some 60% of all jobs are provided by SMEs and these companies, almost by definition, are those that will have most difficulty absorbing the proposed rise in the ENIC rates. Significant job losses are inevitable. This matters not only because any job lost is regrettable but because SMEs are the engines of growth, renewal and innovation in our economy, and they create the jobs. Large corporations may be easier for government and Whitehall to deal with, but they are, and have been for a long time, net destroyers of jobs.
Many of the jobs created by SMEs will, of course, be in the hospitality sector, which this amendment also excludes from the proposed rise in contributions. Many of those jobs in the hospitality sector—currently around 350,000—are held by people under 25. For many, this will be their first job and the first step on a career ladder. To keep all these young people in employment after the proposed ENIC rise would nearly double the employers’ costs from £82 million to £153 million. We should protect these young entry-level employees from job losses by exempting their employers from the proposed NIC rise. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 8 in my name and Amendment 41 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. This is the first time I have taken part on Report but I sat and listened carefully to the entire debate on the first group, which covered a lot of the issues that relate particularly to Amendment 8.
Amendment 8 has a very simple and clear purpose, even though the technicalities are quite technical. It aims to delay for one year the introduction of the raised level of national insurance for all registered charities. Other amendments in this group deal with smaller charities and others with groups of organisations, many of which may be charities, but this is an exemption for one year for all charities.
I want to take on a couple of points made by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. I am not quite sure which amendments he was counting in his 38, but I strongly assert that neither Amendment 8 nor Amendment 41 could in any way be described as a wrecking amendment, because they do not affect the Government’s long-term economic policy or plans. They mean that for one year the Government would not receive, in their own estimate, £1.4 billion.
I tabled the same amendment in Committee and did not get an answer from the Minister to my question; I would be interested to hear any response tonight. It was on a point raised in the first group of amendments. If charities go under or are forced to slash their services, how much are the Government going to have to fund through other means—through social care, government provision or whatever mechanisms? I do not have the capacity to put a figure on that, but it seems likely that there may not be very much difference between those two figures.
I tabled this in Committee because of the CEO of a fairly large charity with whom I happened to be having dinner. We were not having a deeply political, detailed discussion. She simply said to me, “If I just had one year to sort this out, I would have half a chance”. It is interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, who is not currently in his place, said in the debate on the first group that so many organisations— I think he was specifically referring to charities—were encountering this unexpected expense. It is the suddenness and the lack of a chance to think, “Can we shift some money into fundraising to increase the funding stream so that we can cope with this down the track?”. That is what this amendment seeks to do.
I find myself in quite an unusual position as a Green, saying that I have put forward this really moderate, reasonable amendment that is quite small in scale compared with some of the other things we are discussing here. But it is a really practical step to attempt to protect charities and all the essential services.
We heard so much passion from people who are directly involved in delivering these services from charities. I am not going to repeat that long list now, but I will just raise one point—I do not think it has been raised up to now—on the place of charity shops on our high streets. They are already struggling. We are already seeing significant closures of charity shops, faced with rising energy costs and—no one is complaining—rising staff costs due to the increase in the minimum wage. If we further hollow out our high streets by losing those charity shops, that too will have all sorts of costs that in one way or another the Government are going to have to pick up.
So that is Amendment 8. I gave notice that I was going to see how this evening went. I am currently feeling inclined to test the opinion of your Lordships’ House on it.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, I support Amendment 3, moved by my noble friend Lady Kramer and supported by my noble friend Lord Sharkey, and other amendments in this group, but I will not mention them so that we can speed through as quickly as possible and get to the vote. We discussed in some detail in Committee the plight of charities, with a view to moving an amendment of this nature at this point.
I have a plea around the simplification of the tax system. I think everyone would acknowledge that national insurance contributions will never be part of asking, “Would we start from here?”, and then simplifying the tax system. Perhaps there is culpability on these Benches: they were introduced by Lloyd George, but massively expanded by Clement Attlee, so I am looking at the Benches opposite to share a bit of the responsibility from some time ago.
Failure to retain charities at the current rate will cost the sector £1.4 billion in the next financial year according to the NCVO. This compounds levels of underfunding in the long term and threatens services for some of the most vulnerable in society. To take just one example, Homeless Link is a charity with 800 member organisations, all of which work on the front line of homelessness. It estimates that the national insurance changes alone could take between £50 million and £60 million out of the homelessness sector. That is peanuts when it comes to revenue raising but absolutely fundamental to services run by 800 different organisations.
Most charities do not function as profit-making businesses and cannot adapt to increased costs, as the private sector can, by putting up prices or recovering elsewhere. Instead, the increase in national insurance must be accounted for by cutting costs in staff, and therefore services to people in acute need, such as those who need a bed for the night. The Government’s very welcome objective to develop a cross-departmental homelessness strategy is undermined by this additional cost.
At Second Reading, the Minister defended the current UK tax regime for the charity sector, arguing that it is
“among the most generous of anywhere in the world”.—[Official Report, 6/1/25; col. 601.]
I ask the Minister to study with care the latest results of the Charities Aid Foundation’s World Giving Index, which has the UK now at number 22—its joint lowest position ever, having fallen out of the top 20 at the end of last year after a recent period of decline.
The charitable sector is a significant partner in many of this Government’s future plans. This change in national insurance directly harms charities and the people who they need to serve. We urge the Government to reconsider this additional financial burden.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I will briefly speak to Amendment 40, which is in my name. It asks for an impact assessment of this Bill on Scotland, because of the differences that have been identified.
The Government have said that they will compensate the public sector, but we are all waiting for the detail of how they will do it. A figure of £4.7 billion as the global sum has been mentioned, but not the detail. There is a concern that the structure of the public sector in Scotland is significantly different from that in England and that it may not be sufficient to sustain public services at even the current level in Scotland, where they ae struggling, as they are everywhere else. My own health board, Grampian, has had to absorb a £20 million charge just for this Bill, on top of a £75 million deficit that it is currently running. It is in a substantial crisis.
I have questions for the Minister. He will have seen the Fraser of Allander review of the impact; it may not be definitive but it is independent. It suggests that the impact is something around £550 million in Scotland. If one applied the normal rules of the Barnett formula, £4.7 billion would presumably give Scotland something between £400 million and £450 million. However, government officials in Scotland tell us that the Treasury has said the Barnett formula will transmit £300 million, or just over that. How can the Minister justify a £300 million transfer through the Barnett formula against a £4.7 billion overall budget for compensation?
More to the point, how will the Government establish the criteria for what level of compensation they will give to which kind of public bodies? If they do that, can they ensure that the same conditions that apply in England will follow through in Scotland, and that the money will go with them? All I am asking for is equality of treatment, not special treatment.
As I have said before, there is quite a lot wrong with what is going on in Scotland. The Scottish Government are not known for their efficiency in management; I am not trying to defend them and I do not think the UK Government should compensate them for their incompetence. However, I do not think that the public sector and the people of Scotland should suffer because of that, when an additional measure brought by the UK Government has added insult to injury or misery to misery.
Will the Minister acknowledge that, if he is talking about compensation of just over £300 million, that falls a long way short of the comparable impact, pound for pound, in Scotland compared with England? What are the criteria? Will they be applied fairly and consistently across the UK?
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 9, which is in my name. I suspect that it may have been subject to pre-emption, along with Amendment 8. If the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, is surprised, I am equally surprised that I think I agree with all of her remarks. That means that I would like to focus on Amendment 4, dealing with charity revenues of less than £1 million, which I believe is not subject to pre-emption.
According to the Charity Commission website, there are about 170,000 charities in the UK, with about £100 billion of income in aggregate and 1.3 million employees. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe wants us to concentrate on those charities with an annual revenue of below £1 million.
There is different terminology that can be used by the Charity Commission, because it talks about gross income. On average, charities’ donations and legacies are about one-third of their total income, as was the case with the Thames Hospice, which I described earlier. The rest of the income is grants, investments and so on. A charity with £1 million of revenue will probably raise only some £350,000 in donations. I calculate from the available information that the sums raised by charities with revenues of less than £1 million total some £12 billion, which is 12% of total charity income. But there are 162,000 charities with an income of under £1 million, which means that we are talking about 95% of all UK charities.
As for their spend on national insurance, it is hard to determine, because we do not know exactly how much they spend on employment. We do know how much they spend on total expenditure, which is some £12 billion. If we assume that 50% of that—it is a very generous assumption—is on employee costs, and if we assume a salary of around £25,000, because it is a low-paid sector, then my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe’s amendment would impact only 240,000 people.
To try to answer the criticisms from the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, I calculated that my noble friend’s amendment would cost the Government around £480 million—half a billion pounds. Is the Minister going to tell us that he is not prepared to protect 95% of charities for just £500 million? Does he recognise my figure? If not, what is the cost of the amendment? I invite him to join us in pausing the hike until we work out what it is, so that we can then have a meaningful discussion.
I remind the Minister that in a speech to the civil society summit last year, hosted by Pro Bono Economics, Sir Keir Starmer promised to reset the relationship between civil society and government. Is this what he meant? He said that
“for too long, your voice has been ignored”.
I have read the full speech, and he also said,
“we know it’s people on the ground, people with skin in the game, who understand the problems best and have the best answers”.
He continued in his speech to civil society leaders, which largely rubbished Tory policies, by saying,
“let’s be honest, for too long, your voice has been ignored between the shouts of the market and the state”.
Are the Prime Minister and his Ministers listening now? Those leaders are calling for this national insurance hike to be dropped.
Why would the Government want to penalise 162,000 charities, where our fellow citizens give so much of their time freely, and in many cases their cash, simply for the betterment of fellow citizens at home and abroad? It is a shameful imposition.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, on a point of clarification, I have received information that my Amendment 8 has not been pre-empted and still stands.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 9, to which I have added my name, and to Amendment 4. I declare my interest as set out in the register and as a trustee of the Dartington Hall Trust.
My contribution today will be short, as so much as already been said during the passage of the Bill. We have heard many passionate statements today. I have already spoken of my concern about the impact of the increases in national insurance contributions on the future of the charity sector and its ability to continue to deliver much-needed services and support. Along with many others, I believe that we have put forward compelling and passionate reasons why the charitable sector should not be subject to the Government’s national insurance contribution increases.
At both previous stages of the Bill, I have respectfully asked for the impact assessment of this tax on the sector. The Minister and his Government have not, to date, reconsidered their position or produced the impact assessment, which other noble Lords have again asked for today. It seems extraordinarily unfair that the Government indirectly exempt the public sector but decline to exempt or reimburse the charity sector. I cannot understand it.
At the risk of repetition, let me say that the National Council for Voluntary Organisations estimates that the increased cost of this tax to the sector is £1.4 billion. It has raised its concerns to the Treasury. Together with the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations and the Charity Finance Group, they perfectly summed up this situation when they wrote that
“the knock-on impact it will have on individuals, communities and local economies who rely on us will be devastating”.
Those are voices from the sector, who represent so many charities across the country.
I am sure that the Minister has heard many calls for help himself from across the charity sector. I hope that he recognises that this tax will have a long-lasting impact on the sector’s ability to deliver many of the vital services on which government and so many others rely. Let me put to your Lordships this: if a charity approached you for support for a good cause, I have little doubt that you would be generous to the extent that you could afford; if the same charity asked you for a donation not to do good works but so that it could pay the increased taxes to the Government, I suspect that you and I would not feel inclined to put our hand in our pockets. The charity sector should not be a cash cow for the Government.
Sadly, unless the Government reconsider this tax on our charities, they will greatly diminish, and the majority will need, at best, to shrink the number of people they employ and the services they provide. In the worst scenarios, charities will close. We have already heard from charities, including from my noble friend Lady Fraser, of staff reductions, redundancies and potential closures. Fundraising and costs management is difficult enough for charities; the future of the sector is looking very bleak. Many of them help the most vulnerable in society, do wonderful work across many other areas—I will not list them today—and are the backbone of our civil society. I hope that the Minister will reconsider his position and listen to what is said today.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I rise to thank my colleagues. As the chief executive of a charity, I know that the sector is watching and listening to what we are doing here and urging us on to do everything we can to mitigate this disastrous policy.
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, mentioned Scotland. In an earlier debate, it became apparent that the drafting of some of the amendments perhaps did not cover Scotland. Any charity in Scotland of any size has to be registered by the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator and I would want to be reassured that exemptions covered the entire sector. It amounts to 5% of Scotland’s workforce, and with an increasing number of redundancies and the struggle to recruit volunteers, the workforce is already under strain and potentially limited in its capacity to deliver services.
The Minister spoke earlier about the Government’s increased funding to various sectors, some of which are covered by the charity sector. However, he did not outline how that might help those not in receipt of public sector funding but who are delivering services which support public sector delivery.
Finally, as chief executive of Cerebral Palsy Scotland, SEND transport is an issue firmly in my bag. We already know that the SEND system is under immense strain. We already know of children who cannot go to the school it has been assessed they should attend because of transport issues. This is very complex: transport is provided mostly by private providers. There is already a limited choice of schools. Many children need specialist vehicles to get from A to B. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, many firms will be forced to hand back contracts.
I look forward with interest to the Minister’s response to these challenges.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, seeks to establish a relief for early years settings, universities, charities and small businesses. These are all important sectors; they will be hit hard by the Government’s jobs tax, so we agree with the sentiments that she expressed. However, we have concerns about the financial implication of relief for all these sectors in one amendment. We are instead promoting some modest and separate amendments, which I am afraid makes for a big group.
Amendments 4, 14, 21 and 28 in my name would exempt charities with an annual revenue of less than £1 million from the increase in employer national insurance contributions. My noble friend Lord Leigh spoke persuasively in favour of this proposal, following the pre-emption of his own amendments. My Amendment 35 proposes an increased level of employment allowance for charities.
Noble Lords across the House have been contacted by many charities which are facing tough financial decisions. We have had many worrying examples throughout the stages of this Bill. My noble friends Lady Sater and Lady Fraser made the case for action strongly. My latest example was L’Arche in the UK, which brings together people with and without learning disabilities in life-sharing communities. Again, they are facing hugely steep rises in employment costs. The most vulnerable people in our society will pay the price for Ministers’ misguided Budget decisions.
Amendment 5 seeks to protect children with special educational needs or disabilities. I know that the Licensed Private Hire Car Association SEND transport operators group has written to many noble Lords highlighting the issues that families who rely on these services are facing. It estimates that the associated local funding shortfall in the next tax year, 2025-26, in respect of the services it contracts out to private providers, will be £40 million. That is a relatively small number compared with the overall revenue expected from the jobs tax— £23 billion to £26 billion, depending on the year—but the impact on vulnerable children is wildly disproportionate to that revenue. Like my noble friend Lady Fraser, we feel very strongly that these vital services should be protected. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, we prefer our formulation on SEND.
Finally, my Amendment 33 addresses early years provision by seeking to increase the employment allowance for early years providers. In government, we took strong action to support the early years sector, while expanding the free childcare offer to all children under five in England last year. The Government are right to adopt our expansion plan in full. We are grateful for that. However, some providers are worried that they will not be able to access the employment allowance because of the public work they do. It would be good if the Minister could look at that again. We are seeing very big cost increases in early years provision, which is extremely worrying.
In conclusion, the Official Opposition feel that the Government must change their approach. We are not satisfied by the Minister’s responses so far and our current intention is to divide on Amendments 4, 5 and 33.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
I will first address the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, which seeks to increase the employment allowance for early years providers. The Government recognise that early years providers have a crucial role to play in driving economic growth and breaking down barriers to opportunity. We are committed to making childcare more affordable and accessible. That is why we committed in our manifesto to delivering the expansion of Government-funded childcare for working parents and to opening 3,000 new or expanded nurseries through upgrading space in primary schools to support the expansion of the sector. Despite the challenging fiscal circumstances the Government inherited, in the October Budget the Chancellor announced significant increases to the funding that early years providers are paid to deliver Government-funded childcare places. This means that total funding will rise to over £8 billion in 2025-26.
The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, would exempt providers of higher and further education from changes in the Bill. The Government of course recognise the great value of UK higher education in creating opportunity, as an engine for social mobility and growth in our economy and in supporting local communities. We will provide support for departments and other public sector employers for the additional employer national insurance contribution costs. This funding will be allocated to departments, with the Barnett formula applying in the usual way. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, it is for devolved Governments to make their own decisions on how that money is allocated.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, that all additional cost pressures will be considered as part of the spending review. The Autumn Budget provided an additional £300 million of revenue funding for further education for the financial year 2025-26, to ensure that young people develop the skills this country needs. This funding will be distributed specifically to support 16 to 19 student participation. Approximately £50 million of this funding will be made available to general further education colleges and sixth-form colleges for the period April to July 2025. This one-off grant will enable colleges to respond to current priorities and challenges, including workforce recruitment and retention. The remaining £250 million of funding will be made available in 16 to 19 funding rates in the academic year 2025-26, with the aim of ensuring that all 16 to 19 providers are funded on an equitable basis from 2025 to 2026. Furthermore, the Budget provided £6.1 billion of support for core research and confirmed the Government’s commitment to the lifelong learning entitlement, a major reform to student finance which will expand access to high-quality flexible education and training for adults throughout their working lives.
I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer, Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady Bennett and Lady Sater, and the noble Lords, Lord Sharkey and Lord Leigh of Hurley, which seek to exempt charities from the changes in this Bill and increase the employment allowance for them. The Government of course recognise the important role that charities play in our society and the need to protect the smallest businesses and charities. That is why we have more than doubled the employment allowance to £10,500. This means that more than half of businesses, including charities, with national insurance liabilities will either gain or see no change next year.
As I have noted previously, it is important to recognise that all charities can benefit from the employment allowance. The Government also provide wider support for charities via the tax regime, with tax released for charities and their donors worth just over £6 billion for the tax year to April 2024. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, again asked me to cost his amendment; as I said in Committee, it is not for the Government to cost amendments that do not reflect government policy.
I turn to the amendments and proposed new clause tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, exempting providers of transport for special educational needs children to and from their place of education from the changes in this Bill and requiring the Government to publish an impact assessment on this topic. In the Budget and the recent provisional local government finance settlement, the Government announced £2 billion of new grant funding for local government in 2025-26, which includes £515 million to support councils with the increase in employer national insurance contributions. This additional funding has been determined based on a national assessment of the costs for directly employed staff across the public sector. However, this funding is not ring-fenced and it is for local authorities to determine how to use it across relevant services and responsibilities.
Furthermore, the Government are providing a real-terms increase in core local government spending power of 3.5% in 2025-26. To support social care authorities to deliver these key services, we announced in the provisional local government finance settlement a further £200 million for adult and children’s social care. This will be allocated via the social care grant, bringing the total increase of this grant in 2025-26 to £880 million. This means that up to £3.7 billion of additional funding will be provided to social care authorities in 2025-26.
On the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, seeking to exclude town and parish councils from the employer national insurance rate change, the Government have no direct role in funding parish and town councils and are therefore not providing further support to them for the employer national insurance changes.
Finally, on the proposed new clause tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Bennachie, requiring the Government to publish an assessment of the impact of the Bill on the Scottish public sector, as I have set out previously, the Government have published an assessment of this policy in a tax information and impact note. This clearly sets out that around 250,000 employers will see their secondary class 1 national insurance liability decrease and around 940,000 will see it increase. Around 820,000 employers will see no change.
The OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook also sets out the expected macroeconomic impact of the changes to employer national insurance contributions on employment growth and inflation. The Government and the OBR have therefore already set out the impacts of this policy change. The information provided is in line with other, similar tax changes and the Government do not intend to publish additional assessments. We will of course continue to monitor the impact of these policies in the usual way.
In light of the points I have made, I respectfully ask noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I was particularly taken by Amendments 4 and 5 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and I am glad that she will divide the House. We will support her when she does. I was less taken by the Minister’s response, and still I note the lack of a definitive answer to my question on the percentage relief to FE funding.
Having listened to speeches from all parts of the House, rescuing vital and vulnerable sectors from the increase in employers’ national insurance contribution seems to me almost a duty. I would like to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 3.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(A1) In section 9(1A) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) if the employer is a specified employer under subsection (1B), the specified employer secondary percentage;”.(A2) After section 9(1A) of that Act insert—“(1B) A “specified employer” means a charity that has an annual revenue of less than £1 million.(1C) For the purposes of this Act, the specified employer secondary percentage is 13.8%.””Member's explanatory statement
Exemption for small charities: This amendment would exempt charities that have an annual revenue of less than £1 million from the Government’s planned increase in employer National Insurance contributions.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(A1) In section 9(1A) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) if the employer is a specified employer under subsection (1B), the specified employer secondary percentage;”.(A2) After section 9(1A) of that Act insert—“(1B) A “specified employer” means a person providing transport for children with special educational needs and disabilities. (1C) For the purposes of this Act, the specified employer secondary percentage is 13.8%.””Member's explanatory statement
Exemption for SEND transport: This amendment would exempt employers providing transport for children with special educational needs and disabilities from the Government’s planned increase in employer National Insurance contributions.
Baroness Barker
“(1A) The Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 is amended as follows.(1B) In section 9(1A) after paragraph (aa) insert—“(ab) if the employer is a specified employer under subsection (1B), the specified employer secondary percentage;”.(1C) After section 9(1A) insert—“(1B) A “specified employer” means—(a) a person providing a care home service or domiciliary support service regulated under the Health and Personal Social Services (Quality, Improvement and Regulation) (Northern Ireland) Order 2003,(b) a person providing primary medical services through contractual arrangements with a Health and Social Services Board,(c) a person providing general dental services under Part 2 of the General Dental Services (Northern Ireland) Regulations 1993,(d) a person providing pharmaceutical services under Part 2 of the Pharmaceutical Services Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1997,(e) a provider of health and care registered as a charity by the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland, or(f) a person providing hospice care whether in a hospice or elsewhere.(1C) For the purposes of this Act, the specified employer secondary percentage is 13.8%.””
Baroness Barker
(b) for a specified employer under section 9(1B) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, £175.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, together with Baroness Barker’s amendments to Clause 1, page 1, line 2, Clause 2, page 1, line 14, and Clause 2, page 1, line 15 exempts care providers, NHS GP practices, NHS commissioned dentists, NHS commissioned pharmacists, charitable providers of health and care, and those providing hospice care from the changes to the threshold.
Ukraine
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I start by expressing my full support for His Majesty’s Government and for the unequivocal stance that they have taken in standing with Ukraine against Russia’s brutal and illegal war. Three years ago, the world watched in horror as Vladimir Putin launched his full-scale invasion. It was an act of aggression, not just against Ukraine but against the very principles of sovereignty, democracy and the rule of law. Today, as we mark three years of heroic Ukrainian resistance, we must recommit ourselves to ensuring that Ukraine not only survives but prevails.
The Foreign Secretary was right to remind the other place of the long history of Russian imperialism and deception. The Kremlin has repeatedly violated international agreements, treating diplomacy as a means of delay rather than resolution, and we cannot allow history to repeat itself. Strength is the only language that Putin understands, and strength is what we must demonstrate.
I am proud that the UK has played a leading role in supporting Ukraine from the very beginning. Under the previous Conservative Government, we were the first European nation to provide lethal aid. We trained tens of thousands of Ukrainian troops, and we led the world in sanctioning Russian assets. That proud legacy of leadership continues under this Government, and I welcome the Prime Minister’s and the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to ensuring that the UK remains at the forefront of international support. We were the first mover on vital lethal aid, such as Challenger 2 battle tanks and Storm Shadow missiles, and we brought other countries along with us. We were also one of the very first to provide a cast-iron, multi-billion, multi-year funding pledge for military aid. All of that was the right thing to do, and we stand by it totally.
Let me be clear: there can be no retreat, no wavering and no false compromises. A just peace cannot be dictated by Moscow, nor can it be one that rewards aggression. Ukraine must be the arbiter of its own future. We must ensure that any settlement guarantees its sovereignty, secures its territorial integrity and provides iron-clad security against any future Russian aggression.
To achieve that, we must all accept that we must do more, however politically difficult that will be. The UK has already committed £3 billion annually in military aid for as long as it takes. That commitment is right and necessary and we commend the Government for it, but we must also work with our European allies to ensure that they are stepping up to the plate. Europe must take greater responsibility for its own security, and that includes increasing defence spending and accelerating the provision of military support. We welcome the Government’s announcement of that earlier today.
I wish the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary well on their forthcoming visit to Washington DC. Our transatlantic partnership is vital, and I hope that it will be able to continue. But, like many people, I was profoundly shocked by last night’s UN vote. I never thought I would see, in my lifetime, the United States voting with North Korea, Russia and Iran against its own NATO partners for the first time since 1945. It was profoundly disturbing for all of us who believe in the transatlantic relationship, and it should be a wake-up call for us all. We can only hope that the many sensible voices in the US and Congress can perhaps, at some stage, talk some sense into Trump.
Sanctions remain a crucial tool in this fight. The Government’s latest package, targeting over 100 entities including Russia’s shadow fleet of oil tankers, is a significant step, but I hope the Minister will accept that we can do a lot more. We are buying more Russian fertiliser than we used to buy before the war, and there are still Russian LNG tankers that are unsanctioned and still transporting gas to Europe and elsewhere. We must continue to tighten the economic vice on the Kremlin, ensuring that Putin’s war machine is starved of resources. The Government will have our full support if they choose to do that. Additionally, the UK’s willingness to contribute to Ukraine’s future security, including the potential deployment of British personnel, while a very serious step, sends a powerful message. It demonstrates our long-term commitment to Ukraine’s defence and to the stability of Europe.
At this profoundly disturbing time, the stakes could not be higher. If Putin is allowed to succeed in Ukraine, we all know that he will not stop there. Moldova, the Baltics and beyond will be all at risk, particularly with the current US Administration. Authoritarian regimes around the world are watching. They are calculating what they can get away with. We must make it clear that aggression does not pay, that democracy will not be cowed and that the free world stands united. I commend the Government for their steadfast leadership. This is a time for resolve and not for hesitation, for action and not just for rhetoric. The United Kingdom should never falter, and Ukraine should never stand alone.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches I am very happy to associate myself with the noble Lord’s comments with regards to supporting the Government, as we did with the former Government. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, who is in his place, will know that I supported the previous Administration’s approach.
The noble Lord closed by referring to the free world being united; it is no fault of any of our political parties that the free world is no longer united, given the Trump Administration. It is a time for us to consider very carefully how we, with our European and other allies around the world who believe in genuine democracy, will support democracy.
It is worth reminding ourselves that the Putin plan was activated in February 2022 with a timeframe of three days. It had been planned that President Zelensky was either to be detained or assassinated. The Verkhovna Rada, the Ukrainian Parliament, was to be attacked and then dissolved and the Ukrainian people to have a puppet regime imposed on them. That was meant to happen in three days. Three years later, the bravery and the fortitude of the Ukrainian people, led by inspiring leaders and enduring a further war winter in terrible physical and psychological danger and stress, should be an inspiration for us all.
The fact that, under unbearable conditions, Ukraine’s democratic and representative functions continue should also be an inspiration for any democracy, not the source of an attack by a leading democracy led by Trump and Musk. The Minister knows that I have supported, since the current Labour Government have been in place, the sanctions and measures that have been introduced, and we will continue to do so. I welcome the sanctions that were announced today, especially those that seek to reduce the dark fleet, as well as the Russian war economy. We have played our part in the cross-party consensus in approving these measures, but we have also sought, in a constructive manner, to ensure that the Russian war economy does not exploit loopholes or circumvent sanctions with trading partners.
We have been able to have unanimity but also frank exchanges in this Parliament, because that is what democratic Parliaments do. We have also sought to raise the need to do more with our trading partners, who have seen an opportunity to profit from the war without contributing to the peace, be it Dubai or Delhi, seeking more investment from the former without penalty for financing the Kremlin, or, in the latter case, seeking conditionality in trade deal talks that we are now opening up again with India, potentially offering market access and energy to those who are purchasing energy from the Kremlin. We have to be frank with our allies that we have standards in both our trade and our diplomacy, and therefore we want to see that reflected in our agreements with them.
It is also why we have sought to continue the pressure not just for utilising the resource from assets that have been frozen but to seize them. We have debated this in this Chamber before, and the Minister has heard my comments on it. What has happened now with the Trump Administration, and in the vote in the Security Council, and Trump seeking to blackmail Zelensky over mineral rights, is that, frankly, any Russian assets that are seized should now be immobilised against being used by the Putin regime as part of some form of reward for doing a deal which excludes the Ukrainian people. There should be no moveable assets to reward this. There should be no impunity for this aggression, and therefore we should be using the capital of the assets for the benefit of the Ukrainian people.
I agree that we must counter a foreign policy based on lies, as the Statement says. The worry, with the vote in the UN Security Council, is that, increasingly, it is hard to disaggregate the lies and falsehoods from our strongest ally, not necessarily just from our strategic adversary in the Kremlin. As the Polish Foreign Minister put it, the new world is one where we now are seeing the reputation not just of the Trump Administration being put in question, but America as a whole. Given that our relationship with America is so important to our national security and diplomacy, this has to be something of consideration.
Therefore, I close by making the point that the debate we held in this House under my noble friend Lady Northover about the need to protect the rules-based international order was prescient. This is now an urgent matter for the United Kingdom. When it comes to the decision of the Trump Administration to demolish USAID and destroy the reputation of America, the UK response should have been filling the gap, seeing a strategic opportunity for us to expand our soft power and have a debate which means that our national security is one where we keep our people safe but we build up coalitions around the world, we prevent conflict and we work to remove the incentives for conflict, which could be hunger and migration.
The response to what is happening in America is for us to expand our international development, not to cut it by a bigger margin than the previous Government. This is sending the worst signal at the worst time about where the United Kingdom stands. We all support the increase of our national security defence expenditure. It should not be funded on the backs of the most vulnerable in the world, when, ultimately, for our security at home we are seeking to have coalitions abroad. I hope the Government will reconsider.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Baroness Chapman of Darlington) (Lab)
My Lords, we have discussed Ukraine many times in this Chamber, and on every single occasion we have done so there has been close agreement between all parties. I particularly commend the words of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan; he put the case for the Opposition incredibly well and he is supporting this Government as we endeavoured to support his Government when they were in power. And this matters: it is incredibly important that, as a country, we stand together on this issue and I am very proud of the way that this Chamber and the other place have done that again this week.
A just peace means Ukraine at the centre of any resolution. We all agree on that; we have said that consistently and that has not changed. The noble Lord is right to highlight the importance of the transatlantic relationship. We are all aware of what happened last night, but the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will be going to Washington tomorrow and they will have the conversations that we would want them to have and that we would be proud to see them have on behalf of our country, making clear our position of support for Ukraine, which is in no way diminished.
On sanctions, we continued with a new raft of sanctions to mark the third anniversary. It is very important that we have the support expressed in terms by the Opposition and the Liberal Democrat Benches. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, is absolutely right to continue, as he has done from the very beginning, to look for where we need to go next and to push us and to keep saying, “Why not here? Why not do this? What about these other considerations you could make?” That is right and welcome. We thank him for it and we hope that he continues in that way.
We thank him for reminding us of the bravery of the people of Ukraine. It is worth repeating that this was anticipated to be a short invasion. Zelensky was meant to leave. The world today was meant to be very different from what we see. Thanks to the bravery of the people of Ukraine and the leadership of President Zelensky, we find that Russia is in a situation where it is having to go to North Korea in order to shore up its troops. That has not happened by accident; it has happened because of the resolution of the United Kingdom and its allies and the people of Ukraine.
On the decision to change our development spending to 0.3% to support our defence spending rising to 2.5%, of course this is controversial and not a decision that any Labour Government would wish to make. We created the Department for International Development and we are very proud of it. We are proud, too, of the impact that our aid spending has had across the world over many years. But the world has changed and we have to be able to invest in our armed forces and in new technology that will keep us safe.
I accept what the noble Lord says about the impact that this will have in some places around the world—of course I do. But I am convinced—and I disagree with him on what he said—that actually increasing our defence spending to 2.5% will keep people safe. That is not just people here. It will enable us to prevent conflict; it will enable us to secure Ukraine; and it will provide stability around the world. Sometimes, it is about the tough choices. There is no doubt that this was a tough choice, but I am glad that our Prime Minister was able to make it. He made it quickly and clearly and he will not be rethinking it. We have made our decision. We want to get back to spending more on international development when we can. That relies on growing the economy, which is a key focus of this Government. I hear what he says and I respect what he says, but I have to disagree on that point tonight.
Having said all that, there is no reason that anyone should feel that they cannot continue to press us on this. When it comes to Ukraine, what matters most is that we are united and we maintain our firm and clear position of support, and that any negotiation has the people of Ukraine and their leadership at its centre.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, I will focus on the issues of justice and accountability. It is good that both the Defence Minister and the Attorney-General are present on the Government Front Bench. Can I get the Minister’s reassurance that we will continue to focus on the missing children of Ukraine and on the support we have given for the prevention of sexual violence in conflict? Will the prosecutor general’s office continue to ensure that the perpetrators of crime can be held accountable for their heinous crimes?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I am very happy to provide that assurance to the noble Lord. I thank him for the work that he did while in government, of which he should be very proud. The situation with the children is one that I think wakes many of us at night. We must do whatever we can, and whatever is possible, to get those children home where they belong.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the foundations of what we have taken for granted in the West, possibly since the Second World War but certainly since the fall of the Berlin Wall, are being put in question by the actions of Mr Trump. It is good that we hear today a remarkable consensus from all sides of the House. I hope that that will be heard not just in Ukraine but in Europe, and even among our friends in the United States. I wonder what has happened to those voices in the US that were so vocal about the strength and importance of the transatlantic alliance.
Three years ago, on the very eve of the invasion—and it was an invasion, pace President Trump—I was at the NATO headquarters in Brussels receiving a briefing. I was told at that time that if the Russians were to invade, Kyiv would fall within three or four days. It did not fall. Why? Because of their bravery, yes, but because of the national morale of the people of Ukraine. There are lessons there for us as a country on the importance of morale at a time of warfare.
It is so important now to see the changes that have taken place and to send out the clear message that we must rally round our friends in Ukraine. There must also be a clear message, from all sides of the House, that in this new world we must put any anti-European ideology aside and be ready to join with our European partners, not just those within the European Union. We must look at ways of sharing our common response. We must get the message through that we stand together and have much to contribute, through our military and intelligence, to our friends in Europe. I am sure my noble friend will agree with my sentiments about bravery, the morale of the people of Ukraine, and the need now to work more closely with our European friends.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My noble friend speaks from a position of great knowledge and experience. I agree with him that it is vital that we work closely and co-ordinate with all our allies, and continue to make the case that it is for the people of Ukraine and their leadership to determine next steps. Obviously, we have to work harder at that now than perhaps we have done previously, but that is a task that I am proud that our Prime Minister is prepared for and is undertaking.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister says that unity in the House is important. That is a clear message that we need to send out tonight. My noble friend knows that the threat from Russia is obviously a military one, but it is also in the grey zone as well. The Intelligence and Security Committee, which I sit on, produced a report in 2020 that highlighted the effects of the Russian disinformation campaign in this country and the use of the City of London as a laundromat. I therefore welcome the sanctions that were announced yesterday. What more can be done, certainly with our overseas territories, to find out where money is being laundered and to stop the abuse that is continuing?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
This is an important point and, as my noble friend would expect, we work very closely with our overseas territories on this issue. He spoke about misinformation, and that is something we work hard on. We should commend our partners, such as the World Service, the British Council and our other soft power partners. The work that they do is sometimes overlooked and underappreciated, but they are very effective at countering this misinformation. That is something we need to spend more time considering, and we might want to invest in some of that as well.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has just made an excellent point that I suspect many around this Chamber would agree with: spending more money on the British Council and soft power would be extremely valuable.
The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, mentioned the UN vote, when the United States voted with North Korea and Russia. Slovakia also voted with them—Slovakia is one of the countries that is potentially in Putin’s sights. Beyond that, there are many countries in the Commonwealth that have either abstained or voted against us on the Ukrainian question over the last three years. Does the Minister agree that we should be talking more with our Commonwealth partners? Reducing development aid reduces an opportunity for us to export our influence and will simply pave the way for Russia and China to take a greater role globally.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We talk about Ukraine in every interaction that we have with all our partners, whether they are in the Commonwealth or not. To that extent, the noble Baroness is right. When we cut our official development assistance spend, there is clearly a trade-off, so the noble Baroness is right. What she says is not completely wrong. We have to make these difficult choices, but having a Ministry of Defence that is underpowered and underresourced would have not just a hard power but a soft power impact.
Lord Shinkwin (Con)
My Lords, the Minister commended the Ukrainian people on their heroic bravery, and I commend President Zelensky as well. Does the Minister agree with me that, ultimately, their front line is our front line?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is completely right, and I thank the noble Lord for reminding us of it. The idea that this conflict does not directly affect the people of the United Kingdom is wrong. It is important that we remind people in our country that the conflict in Ukraine and the invasion by Russia are a threat to our security here.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, the House has been united on Ukraine and I hope it will be united in wishing the Prime Minister well in his visit to Washington. The Statement we are discussing now should have been taken in conjunction with the Statement made by the Prime Minister in another place about defence spending. Does my noble friend agree that the world is changing before our eyes? The recent UN vote, to which reference has already been made, is the most dramatic example from the last 80 years of the fact that we may have to face a future in which the protection of America is not there, in the way that it has been all my life.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The world is changing. It changed when Russia invaded Ukraine, and we have tried to respond as best we can to support the people of Ukraine ever since. I am glad that we have a Prime Minister who is clear in what he thinks about this. He is very persuasive and he will take his message to Washington to discuss it respectfully with President Trump, as we would want. We agree with President Trump’s desire to see peace in Ukraine. Yes, there are things to talk about and there may be some differences. We should be very clear but relaxed about them, and make sure that our Prime Minister has our support when he goes to make that case. I fully expect a respectful dialogue in Washington, and I look forward to hearing the outcome of those conversations.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, we have heard about soft power but we should also hear about hybrid warfare. We are already under attack from hybrid warfare and, the further east you go, the more intense that warfare is. Can the Minister assure your Lordships’ House that the Government are taking this seriously and are working properly with our European partners to counter the softening-up process that goes before the next stage, which is happening in the countries that have already been mentioned?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
My noble friend made the point that this Statement might well have been taken in conjunction with the Statement that the Prime Minister made earlier today in the other place. The changes to defence spending will not be just more of the same; there will be a particular focus on the things that he discussed. The strategic defence review is about to complete as well. The noble Lord’s point is well made and is something that the Government are carefully considering.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I first raise the issue that was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad. In our discussions with our European allies, I hope that we press them to press the United States to make sure that the children who have been stolen by Russia, and remain behind Russian lines in this conflict, are part of any future agreement to bring the conflict to an end.
I was very proud of the Prime Minister and the UK last week, when he took a firm stand in support of Ukraine in the face of the global turmoil in politics, not just in diplomacy. I was proud again today when he announced an increase in defence spending, but I will not feel proud when I next meet somebody who lost their medicines or whose school closed because of the decisions that the Cabinet made this morning. I am particularly concerned that we did not first go after the Russian assets in London that could have helped finance some of that gap. What actions are the Government taking to go after Russian assets that we have already either seized or sanctioned? What specific action are we taking to release the money from the sale of Chelsea Football Club that could fund humanitarian programmes in Ukraine and beyond?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
We are working very hard on the Chelsea Football Club issue. It is quite difficult legally, but my noble friend is right to remind us about it and we are working on it at pace. I hear what he says about development spending and I would expect him to say nothing else. This is not a decision that anyone has taken lightly or glibly; it is a decision that had to be taken, because we needed to act quickly in this situation. We must go after Russian assets as well, but we needed to take this decision today to make sure that we have the investment in defence to provide the stability and security that we all need.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
May we hear from the Greens first?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I thank the noble Lord. First, I wish to add the Green Party voice to the widespread expressions of solidarity with Ukraine as a nation and the Ukrainian people. We are having this discussion in the shadow of the US lining up with Russia, Iran and North Korea. As the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said, it is a wake-up call for us all; I agree with him. Does the Minister agree with me that we need to work with a wide range of other states—European states, obviously, but states around the world that are constructive, co-operative and reliable—and that that demands diplomacy, official development assistance, other soft power arrangements and tackling human security issues such as the climate chaos, food insecurity and cyber issues? By taking money from the aid budget and putting it into defence, are the Government not simply robbing Peter to pay Paul? A more secure and more stable world is better for the Ukrainians and obviously better for us. We do, after all, have an integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy. Do we not have to look at the world that way?
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
The noble Baroness is not wrong. Obviously, it would be great to be able to do all the things that she describes everywhere that we would like to do them, but we have to be honest and realistic. At this moment, we had to make a decision to invest more in defence for the reasons that we all understand. It is a trade-off. This is not a decision with no consequence or that we are entirely pleased to be making, but one that I am proud that we have made. It is a clear choice. It will keep the world and our citizens safer. That is the right thing for this Government to have done.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, we will hear from the Conservative Benches next, after the Cross Benches.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, the sum of £3 billion per annum has been mentioned as our contribution to Ukraine, and that indeed is very commendable. I wonder whether it could be increased or whether it is limited in two ways: by the ability to produce new equipment and by the amount by which we have to withdraw from our own front line and munition stocks of our capability in order to support Ukraine.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Part of the defence review will examine exactly that question. What has become clear as this conflict has progressed is that part of the battle is about defence production and capability, so our decisions on spending today will enable us to support Ukraine more securely into the future.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us on these Benches are deeply appreciative of the action taken by the Prime Minister? He has had to make unbelievably difficult decisions, but the problem is that he will have to make even more difficult decisions in the future.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is undoubtedly true, but I believe that he is the right person to be in that particular role at this particular time, because making difficult decisions is his job and what he is good at. I think he made a good decision today, and I have every confidence that he will continue in that way.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My noble friend mentioned the strategic defence review. Clearly, that is important in this context, but it strikes me that we are in a totally new situation that I, for one, did not anticipate within the last year. If necessary, perhaps the review needs to be delayed to take account of this totally new situation and a new form of warfare that we are going to have to pursue.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
I hear what my noble friend is saying, and things are undoubtedly moving quickly, but I do not think that starting the defence review again would be the right way to move forward with this. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, will be very well aware of what has happened and the consequences, and I have every confidence that that will be reflected very well in his report when we get it.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, can I ask about expertise within the Government on Europe and the Russian sphere, so to speak? I well remember that there used to be a very good Soviet cadre, and an extremely good European cadre, within the Foreign Office. Both were run down under the past Government, but it is very clear that what we are now dealing with has implications not just for Ukraine but for Georgia, Moldova, Belarus and Kazakhstan. We need to know and speak to people in those countries about the implications of what we are doing for the broader region, and we clearly need to have a great deal more expertise and links with large and small European countries. I remember going to Slovakia some years ago and discovering that there were only two UK-based people in our Bratislava embassy. I suggest that one of the things we now need to look at is beefing up our contacts at all levels with that sort of Government.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
That is a very interesting point. Clearly, it is right that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office constantly reviews where it places resources to reflect changing circumstances. That work does take place. I will take back the noble Lord’s comments about expertise and where that needs to be more keenly focused. He makes a good point that the Foreign Secretary and the Permanent Secretary at the Foreign Office will want to consider.
National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill
Tuesday 25th February 2025
(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Lords ChamberNational Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill 2024-26 View all National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 56-R-I(Rev)(a) Manuscript amendments for Report - (25 Feb 2025)
20:35 - Division on Amendment 15A - Ayes: 199 / Noes: 149 - Amendment 15A agreed.
20:51 - Division on Amendment 33 - Ayes: 189 / Noes: 151 - Amendment 33 agreed.
21:22 - Division on Amendment 38 - Ayes: 182 / Noes: 144 - Amendment 38 agreed.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
(b) for a person providing transport for children with special educational needs or disabilities, £175.”Member’s explanatory statement
Exemption for SEND Transport: This amendment would exempt employers providing transport for children with special educational needs or disabilities from the Government’s planned changes to the weekly threshold.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
(b) for a charity that has an annual revenue of less than £1 million, £175.”Member’s explanatory statement
Exemption for small charities: This amendment would exempt charities that have an annual revenue of less than £1 million from the Government’s planned changes to the weekly threshold.
Lord Londesborough
(b) for businesses and organisations with fewer than 25 full-time employees, £175.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is linked to others in the name of Lord Londesborough. It seeks to maintain the secondary threshold at which employers become liable to pay national insurance contributions on employees’ earnings at £175 for businesses and organisations employing fewer than 25 staff.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
I will not make another speech, but I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful and supportive contributions when we debated this amendment. I welcomed the challenges, particularly from the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, who is not in his place, which I listened to with great respect. However, I disagree with his analysis. The cliff edge threshold is there in the Bill for all to see, and Clause 2 has moved it in the wrong direction, to the detriment of small businesses, economic growth and jobs.
I thank the Minister for his patient and construction interactions, but I wish to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker
“(i) for a specified employer under section 9(1B) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992, £758, and(ii) in all other cases,”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is linked to Baroness Barker’s amendments to Clause 1, page 1, line 2, Clause 2, page 1, line 12, and Clause 2, page 1, line 15.
Lord Londesborough
“(i) for businesses and organisations with fewer than 25 full-time employees, £758, and(ii) in all other cases,”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is linked to others in the name of Lord Londesborough. It seeks to maintain the monthly per-employee threshold at which employers become liable to pay national insurance contributions on employees’ earnings at £758 for businesses and organisations employing fewer than 25 staff.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(i) for a person providing transport for children with special educational needs or disabilities, £758, and(ii) in all other cases,”Member's explanatory statement
Exemption for SEND Transport: This amendment would exempt employers providing transport for children with special educational needs or disabilities from the Government’s planned changes to the monthly threshold.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(i) for a charity that has an annual revenue of less than £1 million, £758, and(ii) in all other cases,”Member's explanatory statement
Exemption for small charities: This amendment would exempt charities that have an annual revenue of less than £1 million from the Government’s planned changes to the monthly threshold.
Baroness Barker
“(i) for a specified employer under section 9(1B) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 or section 9(1B) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992, £9,100, and(ii) in all other cases,”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is linked to Baroness Barker’s amendments to Clause 1, page 1, line 2, Clause 2, page 1, line 12, and Clause 2, page 1, line 14.
Lord Londesborough
“(i) for businesses and organisations with fewer than 25 full-time employees, £9,100, and(ii) in all other cases,”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is linked to others in the name of Lord Londesborough. It seeks to maintain the annual per-employee threshold at which employers become liable to pay national insurance contributions on employees’ earnings at £9,100 for businesses and organisations employing fewer than 25 staff
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(i) for a person providing transport for children with special educational needs or disabilities, £9,100, and(ii) in all other cases,”Member's explanatory statement
Exemption for SEND Transport: This amendment would exempt employers providing transport for children with special educational needs or disabilities from the Government’s planned changes to the annual threshold.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(i) for a charity that has an annual revenue of less than £1 million, £9,100, and(ii) in all other cases,”Member's explanatory statement
Exemption for small charities: This amendment would exempt charities that have an annual revenue of less than £1 million from the Government’s planned changes to the annual threshold.
Lord Londesborough
“(c) in sub-paragraph (c), leave out “the figure in sub-paragraph (b)” and insert—“(i) for businesses or organisations with 25 or more full-time employees, £5,000, or(ii) for businesses or organisations with fewer than 25 full-time employees, £9,100,”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is linked to others in the name of Lord Londesborough. It seeks to maintain the existing £9,1000 annual per-employee threshold at which employers become liable to pay national insurance contributions on employees’ earnings for businesses and organisations employing fewer than 25 staff. This amendment applies to earnings periods which are multiples of a week.
Lord Londesborough
“(c) in sub-paragraph (d), leave out “the figure in sub-paragraph (b)” and insert—“(i) for businesses or organisations with 25 or more full-time employees, £5,000, or(ii) for businesses or organisations with fewer than 25 full-time employees, £9,100,”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is linked to others in the name of Lord Londesborough. It seeks to maintain the existing £9,1000 annual per-employee threshold at which employers become liable to pay national insurance contributions on employees’ earnings for businesses and organisations employing fewer than 25 staff. This amendment applies to earnings periods which are multiples of a month.
Lord Londesborough
“(c) in sub-paragraph (e), leave out “the figure in sub-paragraph (b)” and insert—“(i) for businesses or organisations with 25 or more full-time employees, £5,000, or(ii) for businesses or organisations with fewer than 25 full-time employees, £9,100,”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is linked to others in the name of Lord Londesborough. It seeks to maintain the existing £9,1000 annual per-employee threshold at which employers become liable to pay national insurance contributions on employees’ earnings for businesses and organisations employing fewer than 25 staff. This amendment applies to earnings periods which are multiples of a day.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(2A) At end of section 1(2)(b), insert “or,(c) for an employer in the early years sector, £20,000.””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and another in the name of Baroness Neville-Rolfe to this Clause, would increase the employment allowance for employers in the early years sector from £10,500 to £20,000.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“Review of effect on economic growthThe Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament a review of the impact of the measures contained in this Act on the rate of economic growth in the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require a review of the impact of the measures in this Act on economic growth within six months of the day on which it is passed.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to my amendments in this group and to Amendment 42 in the name of my noble friend Lady Lawlor.
One of the difficulties the House has faced in dealing with this Bill has been the Government’s refusal to provide official estimates of the effects they expect the proposals to have on the individual sectors of the economy where its effects are likely to be the most profound. When we discussed their assessment in Committee, the Minister referred us to the impact note published on 13 November 2024. But I am afraid it is a very limited document, with only five pages of substantive text and no detailed assessment of the impact of the national insurance charge on a number of very important areas. Given the harm this policy will have in the many sectors we have already discussed, it is vital that the Government assess this properly. So, as a second-best measure, we have suggested additions to the Bill requiring the Government to look at the various areas of concern and make an assessment of the effect of the NICs changes—including the employment allowance, which should of course limit the damage to the very smallest businesses.
My Amendment 38 would require a sector-by-sector analysis of the impacts of the Government’s jobs tax. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Noakes and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, for supporting the amendment. It includes key areas that are adversely affected but that we have barely discussed today, notably hospitality, the creative industries and retail, whose challenges were starkly set out in Committee by my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise, with his unique experience of the sector.
Amendment 37 seeks to establish the Government’s view on the effect of the jobs tax on economic growth. We know that economic growth is the Chancellor’s number one policy, so I hope the Minister will be able to give the House some clarity on the Government’s expectations in this area. I also support my noble friend Lady Lawlor’s Amendment 42 and look forward to hearing from her.
We are very concerned about the Government’s failure to publish a full sector-by-sector impact assessment for this policy. I therefore intend to test the opinion of the House on my Amendment 38.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to my noble friend’s amendment. We debated impact assessments several times in Committee and the Minister’s reply was always the same formula. It went along the lines of: “HMRC has published a tax information note”—which the rest of the Committee thought was wholly inadequate—“and the Government never do any more than this on tax legislation. The Government intend to do no more in respect of this Bill”. That was not a proper debate on impact assessments. The formula hardly changed over the four days we spent in Committee. The Minister eventually cited some precedents, but they were much smaller in scale and different in impact, and provided a precedent only really for the fact that the Treasury treats Parliament with contempt when it comes to providing full information on legislation. It is about time that Parliament stood up to the Treasury. I urge noble Lords to support my noble friend’s Amendment 38.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and will say a few words about my Amendment 42 on reviewing the impact of the Act one year on in respect of the different categories of employers in the business sector—small, medium and large.
This is needed given the worsening outlook for the UK economy and employment, which has been going from bad to worse month by month since, and in response to, the Budget. Unemployment figures are up. In the quarter ending December 2024, 1.56 million people of working age were unemployed and the UK unemployment rate was 4.4%. Unemployment levels have increased by 210,000 over the last year. Economic inactivity is also up. At the end of the last quarter of 2024, 9.29 million people aged 16 to 64 were economically inactive; the inactivity rate was 21.5%.
Jobs are being cut, as this month’s figures from S&P Global indicate. Data reveals that the decline in staffing numbers in February was the sharpest since November 2020. The chief business economist at S&P Global Market Intelligence explained that the data revealed that
“business activity remained largely stalled for a fourth successive month, with job losses mounting amid falling sales and rising costs … One in three companies reporting lower staffing levels directly linked the reduction to policies announced in last October’s Budget”.
The number of vacancies fell in the last quarter too, although they remain slightly above pandemic levels.
We want the Government to take responsibility for their actions and face up to the costs they have imposed on growth, productivity and employment and the impact on businesses, be they small, medium or large. I echo the comments of my noble friends throughout Committee that what we had on 14 November and the figures presented at the time of the Budget were inadequate in detailing the sort of impact this country is already facing. Employees’ lives and livelihoods are at stake.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 38, as written, is econometrically impossible. This cannot be done unless we have further specification of what is to be done. For example, are we to look at the effect of these changes assuming that the Budget had not changed or to look at their effect taking into account the consequential effects of the Budget which were also dependent on the national insurance changes?
Then, there were other tax changes that took place at the time which were also dependent on the national insurance changes. Are they to be taken into account or not? At the moment, the amendment does not tell us. Any serious economist faced with this would say, “Sorry, I can’t do this unless you tell me what I have to take as the underlying conditions”.
Amendment 38 is seriously defective and cannot really be taken seriously as it stands because it simply does not specify the underlying circumstances within which the particular consequences of the changes in this Bill are to be assessed. Without that framework, it is simply not possible to do in any way—or, if you like, anybody could produce any result they like by assuming different background circumstances. So, I am afraid that Amendment 38 is underspecified and, as a piece of serious econometrics, impossible, because the framework is not specified for the amount of information required to perform the studies.
On Amendment 42, I was very struck by the request of the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, that the Government face up to their responsibilities. It would be really helpful if the Conservative Party faced up to the damage it has done to the British economy over the past 14 years and to the disaster it has inflicted on the British people, which the Labour Party is now desperately trying to repair in very difficult circumstances indeed.
Once again, the issue of the impact of employment and productivity depends on a whole series of other factors. Are they to be taken into account or not? How is the particular effect of the national insurance change to be examined? If they were independent, then you could do that by saying that the national insurance change has no relationship to other changes taking place in the economy and therefore we can isolate it. But that is not true; the national insurance change has direct effects on the other components of the Budget and has effects which are interdependent. Without specifying the framework in which this amendment is to be considered, it is a false exercise. You could sit down, make any assumptions you like and get any result you like, to be frank.
Although it would be very interesting to perform this exercise, I am afraid that these amendments are so defective that they cannot actually give the guidance as to the exercise to be performed. Therefore, it is entirely inappropriate for amendments such as these to be in the Bill.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I have to confess a smidgen of support for the amendments in this group—but not nearly enough to make me vote for them. I am going to complain about a different lack of information that has been presented to this House in relation to the Bill.
The point is that it is a contribution Bill—a contribution to the National Insurance Fund. I pursue a somewhat quixotic and lonely quest to persuade people of the importance of the National Insurance Fund, the whole point of which is that it receives contributions, has reserves and pays benefits. Somewhat oddly, simultaneous to discussions of the money coming in, in the earlier stages of Report, there was a discussion in Grand Committee of the money going out. My complaint is that there has been no discussion of the state of the National Insurance Fund. I am very much in favour of such a discussion because it is a crucial element of our welfare state.
The problem is that the information is available. I have it in my hand: the Report by the Government Actuary on: The Draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2025; and The Draft Social Security (Contributions) (Rates, Limits and Thresholds Amendments, National Insurance Funds Payments and Extension of Veteran’s Relief) Regulations 2025. Noble Lords might ask, “What’s that got to do with the Bill?” It says on page 7:
“This report also includes the expected effect on the Fund of the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill”.
This is information germane to our current discussions, but at no stage—I am sorry to complain to my noble friend the Minister—has this been adequately, or in any sense, discussed as part of an overall consideration about the state of the National Insurance Fund. That is my complaint, and I have got it off my chest.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, the number of times that I have heard debates in this House calling for a greater degree of post-legislative scrutiny—seeing whether we got what we thought we were going to get—is legion. Any effort to try to make sure that our judgment of what the Government of the day were proposing is worth having because it starts to increase the sum of human knowledge.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, took such a dim view of it all, and I rather regret he sullied his comments with an attack on the previous Conservative Government’s economic policy, but so be it. I was not clear whether he was saying that it is a bad thing to do in principle or that the drafting is defective in practice. I am sure that if he felt that, in principle, it was a good idea to do it, our Front Bench would be happy to work with him to make sure that the drafting reached the economic standards that he felt would make it useful and worth while. However, it is a mistake just to discard, without further thought, an attempt to see what happens after the event.
Therefore, which of these amendments is the best? I am not sure, but “there’s gold in them thar hills”, and we should be mining it.
Lord Londesborough (CB)
My Lords, I will briefly speak in support of Amendment 38, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Neville-Rolfe, to which I have put my name.
Given the enormity of the Bill, with its intention to raise £25 billion in NICs, and given the current broad-brush, macro impact note that came with it, it is surely incumbent on the Government to carry out sector-by-sector reviews and within six months. In particular, the impact on employment levels and hours worked in each of these sectors needs to be looked at, and there will be huge variations—anecdotally, we are getting evidence that variations are already there.
These reviews would also help the Government in shaping their industrial and sector strategies. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, that these studies are, in his words, “econometrically impossible”; yes, they are challenging, but not impossible. With the right will, suitable frameworks can be established for each of these sectors, and it is vital that this analysis is carried out.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I will be brief. I have some sympathy for the Minister, because, in providing the impact note—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, said, had very thin content and was very high-level in general—he is merely following in Treasury tradition, which the previous Government, when in power, also pursued.
The time has come for us to make a stand and to say that we need detailed impact assessments of policy. As the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, said, in a Bill as complex as this, and which affects many sectors, the impact note has to be far more granular than the kinds of documents we have received in the past. This is also valuable to the Government themselves, because I greatly fear that, within the Treasury, there is very limited understanding of what the consequences are for a wide range of sectors. This is a start in the right direction, making sure that both Parliament and the relevant government departments are informed and can act properly. We will support this.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Livermore) (Lab)
My Lords, I will briefly address the new clauses proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Neville-Rolfe, Lady Noakes and Lady Lawlor, requiring the Government to conduct assessments on the economic and sectoral impacts of this Bill. As we discussed extensively in Committee, the Government have published an assessment of this policy in HMRC’s tax information and impact note. This sets out that around 250,000 employers will see their secondary class 1 NICs liability decrease and around 940,000 will see it increase; around 820,000 employers will see no change. The OBR’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook sets out the expected macroeconomic impact of the changes to employer national insurance contributions on employment, on growth and on inflation. The Government and the OBR have, therefore, already set out the impacts of this policy change. The information provided is in line with other similar tax changes, and the Government do not intend to publish further assessments. The Government will, of course, continue to monitor the impact of these policies in the usual way. As a result, I respectfully ask noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I thank the Minister for his reply, but I am sorry that he does not feel able to go further. I am particularly grateful to my noble friends Lady Noakes, Lady Lawlor and Lord Hodgson, and the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, for their support, and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that the time has come to take a stand. I do not share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. This is the sort of assessment that we do in the private sector, and in some other departments, and it is possible for the Government to add to the amendment in the other House if they feel they need to do so. We heard earlier from my noble friend Lord Ahmad that the Treasury had failed to consult individual sectors on the proposals under discussion. I know how averse the Treasury can be to that, having been a Minister in a similar position in the Treasury. I also share the fascination of the noble Lord, Lord Davies with the state of the National Insurance Fund, but I think that is for another day.
The Government’s impact assessment has been woefully inadequate for a change on such a huge scale. It is in the interests of the public that we understand fully the impact of the Government’s jobs tax on individual sectors—albeit retrospectively—and the overall figures that we have received from the Minister, which have been helpful in themselves, are just not enough. So I intend to test the opinion of the House on my Amendment 38, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 37.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“Review of effect on certain sectors(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of the day on which the Act is passed, lay before Parliament a review of the impact of the measures contained in this Act on the persons and sectors in subsection (2). (2) The review must consider the impact on—(a) charities;(b) creative industries;(c) dentists;(d) early years providers;(e) farms;(f) general practitioners;(g) hospices;(h) hospitality;(i) pharmacies;(j) retail;(k) small businesses;(l) social care;(m) universities.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require a review of the impact of the measures in this Act on certain sectors within six months of the day on which it is passed.
Baroness Noakes
“Exemptions(1) The Treasury may by regulations specify that specified categories of person shall be exempt from the changes to secondary Class 1 contributions made by this Act.(2) The categories of person exempted by regulations may be defined by the activities which they carry out, their size, their legal status or in any other way that the Treasury considers appropriate.”
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, we come to an exciting part of this Report stage, having had several debates on this Bill.
The Bill will have significant impacts on: some types of employers; some business sectors and sizes of business; some types of employees; and some types of the provision of public services by bodies which are not themselves in the public sector. More broadly, we have heard that businesses will face the double whammy of the minimum wage increases and the national insurance increases together in just a few weeks’ time, and they are likely to respond by taking actions to reduce their workforce and the hours that their workforce can work and reduce wages where they are not constrained by the national minimum wage. Prices are likely to go up, and profits are likely to go down. All this will have negative impacts on the economy. It is difficult to avoid opening a newspaper nowadays without seeing one or more campaign groups, industry representatives and charity representatives making their case for the harmful impacts of this Bill, but to date the Government have been completely deaf to all these entreaties. All this is bearing down on the economy, which is already flatlining.
I can understand why the Government do not want to make any changes to a centrepiece of their growth-destroying Budget last October. We know there is almost no room left in their fiscal rules for any changes. There are lots of downside risks to the economy, and there are precious few upsides. These are all the results of choices that the Government have made in the last seven months, so I understand why the Minister’s response to every issue presented to him in Committee, and indeed again today, was that the Government reject the cases being made.
My Amendment 39 provides for a very simple power for the Treasury to issue regulations that exempt categories of employer from the national insurance changes that this Bill introduces. There is not even a parliamentary process attached to the regulations. My amendment would therefore allow the Treasury to act quickly, once it faces up to the fact that it really has created some problems. There are no downsides to the Government accepting this amendment, as they need never use it, but it would be a useful backstop if things turn out as badly as many of us believe they will.
It is not often that the Opposition Benches offer an unrestricted power to a Government to do things, but I and others are so alarmed by the potential impacts of this Bill that I think it is the right thing for the Government to take this kind of power in the interests of the country.
We have passed some amendments today that have taken some of the roughest edges off this Bill, and I hope they will survive their passage through the Commons, but this has not made the Bill completely harm free. My sincere hope is that the Government will support this amendment, if not in its current form then in a reworded form to their own taste at Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 39 in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes. I thank all noble Lords for their courage and grace in staying all the way through to group 7.
Amendment 39 would give the Treasury the power to exempt sectors that would suffer significantly under the Government’s national insurance rise. The amendment introduces a degree of flexibility that Ministers can use to protect the most vulnerable of British businesses; by allowing the Treasury to introducing specific exemptions when required, we can exempt them from the additional financial burden of the national insurance increase.
I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing forward Amendment 39. It is clear that we share many of the same concerns. The amendment in her name is closely aligned with those in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe that seek to exempt specific sectors, such as the social care or charity sectors. So many sectors need exemption from this policy, and we hope the Government will give the arguments thoughtful consideration.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 39, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, seeks to include powers as part of this Bill to exempt certain groups in future. As I have already set out, the revenues raised from the measures in this Bill play a critical role in repairing the public finances and rebuilding our public services. Clearly, any future changes that exempt certain groups from paying national insurance would have cost implications, necessitating either higher borrowing, lower spending or alternative revenue-raising measures. I would therefore respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Noakes (Con)
My Lords, I cannot make the Government accept a power that I have generously offered to be made a part of this Bill. I hope the Government do not regret at a later stage turning down this opportunity to allow them to save face in a simple, pain-free way. As I say, I cannot force the Government to accept a perfectly sensible measure that would allow them to repair some of the damage that this Bill will inevitably do. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Fuller
“Impact of this Act on local authoritiesThe Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before Parliament an impact assessment of the cost of the provisions of this Act on local authorities.”Member's explanatory statement
This probing amendment seeks to respond to concerns about increased costs for local authorities.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to Amendment 43 standing in my name on the Marshalled List. I know that it is late, but my purpose here is to probe whether the Government really understand and appreciate the impact, damage and hurt that these national insurance proposals will visit upon councils, those who work with them to deliver essential services and the users of those services—in many cases, the most vulnerable in society.
Since the Great Reform Act 1832, local authorities have been an integral part of our nation. Joseph Chamberlain unleashed the powers of municipal entrepreneurialism in the 1800s to bring gas and clean water to the growing metropolis of Birmingham. Councils sweep the streets. They collect the bins and run parks. They issue planning permissions and curate the conditions to build the national economy one local economy at a time.
I am a councillor and, for the last 14 years, I have led local government finance for Conservative councillors at the Local Government Association. I have seen it all. My noble friend Lord Pickles once said that there are only two people who really understand local government finance. I am not saying that I am one of those experts, but I am one of the small number of people who does more than most to celebrate the 140 things that councils do to make a civil society for every family, every street, every neighbourhood and every day.
That is why I know that councils’ finances in England are under pressure like never before. Reductions in grant funding, increases in the scale and complexity of service demand, and the recent spike in inflation and wage costs have created the perfect storm for town halls. The fundamental challenge facing the sector is that cost and demand pressures are rising faster than funding. While inflation has fallen steadily since the peak, significant cost and demand pressures remain in the system. In essence, council revenues tend to grow linearly with the growth in the economy, but lately costs have grown geometrically. There comes a point where the lines of income and demand diverge so much that the gap becomes unbridgeable.
Some of the reasons for this geometric growth have been demographic: as society ages, demand increases disproportionately. Some of them have been countercyclical: as the economy stutters, demand in respect of homelessness, for example, increases. There have been some consequences of changes elsewhere in the state. Well-meaning changes by the DWP, for example, have driven up councils’ second order spend on home-to-school transport by 62.7% in the five years to 2024. Of course, the Covid hangover has made things worse. We have already reached the moment where the gap between income and expenditure has become unbridgeable, and that is before the impact of national insurance on councils and their tied contractors, which is the subject of my amendment.
This is not a case of a Tory crying wolf. Just last week, the MHCLG announced that in the financial year 2025-26—next year—the Government have agreed to provide 30 councils with support to manage financial pressures via the exceptional financial support process. For eight of those councils, this included agreement to support in prior years. These are just the canaries in the mine. In aggregate, three services are responsible for two-thirds of all the cost—adult social care, children’s social care and SEND—and these pressures have seen the greatest increases.
Let us get some numbers on the record. Increased costs and demand in adult social care have seen a rise of £3.7 billion, which is 18% since 2019-20. Spend on children’s social care increased by 25% in real terms in the five years from 2019 to this year, owing to the increasing complexity of need and rising placement costs. The Labour-run LGA tells me that, by 2026-27, these cumulative pressures will have added 12.5% to the cost of delivering services in the two years since last year, leaving councils facing an annual funding gap of £6.2 billion across the two years from 2025 to 2027, just to maintain services at 2024 levels.
These pressures come on top of councils having already absorbed a 22.2% real-terms reduction in core spending power from 2011. That is before Labour produced its reckless war on the countryside by cancelling the rural services grant. This cannot carry on. There is no more fat to trim, and I want to explain why this is so serious and consequential, because we get to the nub of the matter.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend and thank him for his brief-ish words on local taxpayers and his update on the Great Reform Bill as well. I thank him for his amendment to ensure that the Government initiate a review into the impact of this tax on local authority finances.
As countless noble Lords have remarked, both in Committee and during this debate, local authorities already find themselves in a perilous financial position. As my noble friend Lord Jamieson said in Grand Committee, local government currently spends more than 70% of its funding on adult and children’s social care. The Local Government Association has estimated that this measure will cost local authorities a total of £1.7 billion. Some £1.2 billion of that is indirect costs. While the Government may have offset the direct costs of local authorities, they have not done so for the indirect costs they will face. They will have either to cut public services or to put up council tax.
Given this, a review of the impact on local authorities is surely the minimum we can expect from the Government. I urge the Minister to accept this amendment.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 43 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, which would require the Government to publish an impact assessment of the Bill on local authorities within six months of its introduction. The noble Lord set out eloquently the damage the previous Government did over 14 years to public services and to the funding available to local government. He asked me the same questions as he did in Committee, and I give him the same answer as I did then: it is not for me to comment on the calculations made by other organisations.
On impact, as I have set out previously this evening and extensively in Committee, the Government have already published an assessment of this policy and a tax information and impact note. The OBR’s Economic and Fiscal Outlook also sets out the expected macroeconomic impact of the changes to employer national insurance contributions on employment, growth and inflation. The Government and the OBR have therefore already set out the impacts of this policy change. The information provided is in line with other tax changes, and the Government do not intend to publish further assessments.
The Government will of course continue to monitor the impact of these policies in the usual way. I therefore respectfully ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, I am conscious that it is late, and I do not sense any appetite to divide the House on this matter. I regret that the Government do not really appreciate the magnitude of what they are visiting on local authorities and, in particular, on those people, some of the most vulnerable in society, who rely on the council to fight for them and act in their corner. We are in a really sticky situation in local government, and I am not hearing any reassurance or even any acceptance that they are making a £6 billion hole over the next two years that is going to be visited on every town, street and community.
I am disappointed by the brevity and lack of detail in the Minister’s response. But I accept that it is late at night and am conscious of the time, so I will withdraw my amendment with regret and hope that at some stage the Government will at least take away the importance of this matter so that it is taken full account of in the comprehensive spending review. Councils cannot afford to carry this alone.